ABRIDGMENT 
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS, 
 
 FROM 1789 TO 1856. 
 
 FROM GALES AND SEATON'S ANNALS OF CONGRESS; FROM THEIR 
 
 REGISTER OF DEBATES ; AND FROM THE OFFICIAL 
 
 REPORTED DEBATES, BY JOHN C. RIVES. 
 
 BY 
 
 THE AUTHOR OF THE THIRTY YEARS' VIEW. 
 
 VOL. VI. 
 
 NEW YORK: 
 
 D. APPLETON & COMPANY, 346 & 348 BROADWAY. 
 
 COLUMBUS, 0.: 
 
 FOLLETT & FOSTER. 
 1858.
 
 ENTERED according to Act of Congress, in the year 1856, by 
 
 D. APPLETON AND COMPANY, 
 in the Clerk's Office of the District Court for the Southern District of New York.
 
 77 s" 
 
 v. 4 
 
 FIFTEENTH CONGRESS-FIRST SESSION. 
 
 BEGUN AT THE CITY OF WASHINGTON, DECEMBER 1, 1817. 
 
 PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, JAMES MONROE. 
 
 PROCEEDINGS IN THE SENATE.* 
 
 MONDAY, December 1, 1817. 
 The first session of the Fifteenth Congress, 
 conformably to the Constitution of the United 
 States, commenced this day at the city of Wash- 
 ington ; and the Senate assembled in their 
 Chamber. 
 
 DAVID L. MORRILL and CLEMENT STOBER, 
 from the State of New Hampshire. 
 
 JAMES BURRILL, jr., from Rhode Island and 
 Providence Plantations. 
 
 ISAAC TICUENOR and JAMES FISK, from Ver- 
 mont. 
 
 DAVID DAGGETT, from Connecticut. 
 
 RUFCS KING and NATHAN SANFORD, from 
 New York. 
 
 JAMES J. WILSON and MAHLON DIOKERSON, 
 from New Jersey. 
 
 ABNER LACOCK and JONATHAN ROBERTS, from 
 Pennsylvania. 
 
 JAMES BARBOTTE and JOHN W. EPPES, from 
 Virginia. 
 
 NATHANIEL MACON, from North Carolina. 
 
 JOHN GAILLARD and WILLIAM SMITH, from 
 South Carolina. 
 
 CHAKLES TAIT, from Georgia. 
 
 JOHN J. CRITTENDEN, from Kentucky. 
 
 JOHN WILLIAMS, from Tennessee. 
 
 BENJAMIN RUGGLES, from Ohio. 
 
 JAMES NOBLE and WALLER TAYLOR, from In- 
 diana. 
 
 * LIST OF MEMBERS OF THE SENATE. 
 
 New Hampshire. David L. Morrill, Clement Storer. 
 Mowachwette. Harrison G. Otis, Ell P. Ashman. 
 Rhode, Ixland. James Burrill, William Hunter. 
 Connecticut. David Daggett, Samuel W. Dana. 
 Vermont. Isaac Tichenor, James Fisk. 
 New York. Kufus Kin?, Nathan Sanford. 
 New Jersey. James J. Wilson, Mahlon Dickcrson. 
 Pennsylvania,. Abner Lacock, Jonathan Roberta. 
 Delaware. Outerbridge Horsey, Nicholas Vandyke. 
 
 JOHN GAILLARD, President pro tempore, re- 
 sumed the Chair. 
 
 CLEMENT STOKER, appointed a Senator by the 
 Legislature of the State of New Hampshire, to 
 supply the vacancy occasioned by the resigna- 
 tion of Jeremiah Mason ; JAMES FISK, appointed 
 a Senator by the Legislature of the State of 
 Vermont, to supply the vacancy occasioned by 
 the resignation of Dudley Chace; JOHN J. 
 CRITTENDEN, appointed a Senator by the Legis- 
 lature of the State of Kentucky, for the term 
 of six years, commencing on the fourth day of 
 March last ; JOHN WILLIAMS, appointed a Sen- 
 ator by the Legislature of the State of Tennes- 
 see, for the term of six years, commencing on 
 the fourth day of March last, respectively, pro- 
 duced their credentials, which were read ; and 
 the oath prescribed by law was administered to 
 them, and they took their seats in the Senate. 
 
 JOHN W. EPPES, appointed a Senator by the 
 Legislature of the State of Virginia, for the 
 term of six years, commencing on the fourth 
 day of March last, stated that he had received 
 his credentials, but had neglected bringing them 
 with him, expecting that the Executive of Vir- 
 ginia would forward a duplicate thereof to the 
 Senate, and which he still supposed would 
 speedily be done: whereupon, the oath pre- 
 scribed by law was administered to him, and 
 he took his seat in the Senate. 
 
 On motion by Mr. MACON, the Secretary was 
 ordered to acquaint the House of Representa- 
 
 Maryland. Robert H. Goldsborough, Robert Goodloe 
 Harper. 
 
 Virginia. James Barbour, John W. Eppes. 
 North Carolina. Nathaniel Macon, Montfort Stokes. 
 .South ( 'iirotina.-John Gaillard, William Smith. 
 Georgia. Charles Tait, George M. Tronp. 
 Kentucky. John J. Crittendeu, I.-luin Talbot. 
 Tennessee. John Williams, George W. Campbell. 
 Ohio. Benjamin Ruggles, Jeremiah Morrow. 
 Louisiana. Elegins Fromentln, Heury Johnson. 
 Indiana. -James Noble. Walter Taylor.
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 ; .' Prestjent's Annual Message. 
 
 [DECEMBER, 1817 
 
 tives that a quorurn of the Seriate is assembled, 
 and ready to ix>fccipd:t<>- business.; | /.' . .' 
 
 On motion by Mr. " B ARBOUR,' a committee 
 was appointed to inquire whether any, and if 
 any, what legislative measures may be neces- 
 sary, for admitting the State of Mississippi into 
 the Union; and Messrs. BARBOUR, KING, and 
 WILLIAMS, of Tennessee, were appointed the 
 committee. 
 
 A message from the House of Kepresentatives 
 informed the Senate that a quorum of the 
 House of Representatives is assembled, and 
 have elected HENRY CLAY, one of the Repre- 
 sentatives for the State of Kentucky, their 
 Speaker, and THOMAS DOUGHERTY their Clerk, 
 and are ready to proceed to business. 
 
 The Senate then adjourned. 
 
 TUESDAY, December 2. 
 
 HARRISON GRAY OTIS, from the State of Mas- 
 sachusetts, arrived on the 1st instant, and at- 
 tended this day. 
 
 Mr. TICHENOR reported, from the joint com- 
 mittee, that they had waited on the President 
 of the United States, and that the President 
 of the United States informed the committee 
 that he would make a communication to the 
 two Houses this day, at twelve o'clock. 
 
 President's Annual Message. 
 
 The following Message was then received 
 from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES : 
 Fellow-citizens of the Senate 
 
 and of the House of Representatives : 
 
 At no period of our political existence had we so 
 much cause to felicitate ourselves at the prosperous 
 and happy condition of our country. The abundant 
 fruits of the earth have filled it with plenty. An ex- 
 tensive and profitable commerce has greatly aug- 
 mented our revenue. The public credit has attained 
 an extraordinary elevation. Our preparations for 
 defence, in case of future wars, from which, by the 
 experience of all nations, we ought not to expect to 
 be exempted, are advancing, under a well-digested 
 system, with all the despatch which so important a 
 work will admit Our free Government, founded on 
 the interest and affections of the people, has gained, 
 and is daily gaining, strength. Local jealousies are 
 rapidly yielding to more generous, enlarged, and en- 
 lightened views of national policy. For advantages 
 so numerous and highly important, it is our duty to 
 unite in grateful acknowledgments to that Omnipo- 
 tent Being from whom they are derived, and in un- 
 ceasing prayer that He will endow us with virtue 
 and strength to maintain and hand them down, in 
 their utmost purity, to our latest posterity. 
 
 I have the satisfaction to inform you, that an ar- 
 rangement which had been commenced by my pre- 
 decessor, with the British Government, for the re- 
 duction of the naval force, by Great Britain and the 
 United States, on the Lakes, has been concluded ; by 
 which it is provided, that neither party shall keep in 
 service on Lake Champlain more than one vessel ; on 
 Lake Ontario, more than one ; and on Lake Erie and 
 the upper lakes, more than two ; to be armed, each, 
 with one cannon only ; und that all the other armed 
 
 vessels, of both parties, of which an exact list is in 
 terchanged, shall be dismantled. It is also agreed, 
 that the force retained shall be restricted in its duty 
 to the internal purposes of each party ; and that the 
 arrangement shall remain in force until six months 
 shall have expired, after notice given by one of the 
 parties to the other of its desire that it should ter- 
 minate. By this arrangement useless expense on 
 both sides, and what is of still greater importance, 
 the danger of collision between armed vessels in 
 those inland waters, which was great, is prevented. 
 I have the satisfaction also to state, that the Com- 
 missioners, under the fourth article of the Treaty of 
 Ghent, to whom it was referred to decide to which 
 party the several islands in the Bay of Passamaquod- 
 dy belonged, under the treaty of one thousand seven 
 hundred and eighty-three, have agreed in a report, 
 by which all the islands in the possession of each 
 party before the late war have been decreed to it 
 The Commissioners, acting under the other articles 
 of the Treaty of Ghent, for the settlement of bounda- 
 ries, have also been engaged in the discharge of 
 their respective duties, but have not yet completed 
 them. The difference which arose between the two 
 Governments under that treaty, respecting the right 
 of the United States to take and cure fish on the 
 coast of the British provinces, north of our limits, 
 which had been secured by the treaty of one thou- 
 sand seven hundred and eighty-three, is still in nego- 
 tiation. The proposition made by this Government 
 to extend to the colonies of Great Britain the princi- 
 ples of the convention of London, by which the com- 
 merce between the ports of the United States and 
 British ports in Europe had been placed on a footing 
 of equality, has been declined by the British Govern- 
 ment. This subject having been thus amicably dis- 
 cussed between the two Governments, and it appear- 
 ing that the British Government is unwilling to 
 depart from its present regulations, it remains for 
 Congress to decide whether they will make any other 
 regulations, in consequence thereof, for the protection 
 and improvement of our navigation. 
 
 The negotiation with Spain, for spoliations on our 
 commerce, and the settlement of boundaries, re- 
 mains, essentially, in the state it held, by the com- 
 munications that were made to Congress by my pre- 
 decessor. It has been evidently the policy of the 
 Spanish Government to keep the negotiation sus- 
 pended, and in this the United States have acqui- 
 esced, from an amicable disposition towards Spain, 
 and in the expectation that her Government would, 
 from a sense of justice, finally accede to such an ar- 
 rangement as would be equal between the parties. 
 A disposition has been lately shown by the Spanish 
 Government to move in the negotiation, which has 
 been met by this Government, and should the con- 
 ciliatory and friendly policy which has invariably 
 guided our councils be reciprocated, a just and satis- 
 factory arrangement may be expected. It is proper, 
 however, to remark, that no proposition has yet 
 been made from which such a result can be pre- 
 
 It was anticipated at an early stage, that the con- 
 test between Spain and the colonies would become 
 highly interesting to the United States. _ It was 
 natural that our citizens should sympathize in events 
 which affected their neighbors. It seemed probable, 
 also, that the prosecution of the conflict along our 
 coast, and in contiguous countries, would occasionally 
 interrupt our commerce, and otherwise affect the
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 5 
 
 DECEMBER, 1817.] 
 
 President's Annual Message. 
 
 [SENATE. 
 
 persons and property of our citizens. These antici- 
 pations have been realized. Such injuries have been 
 received from persons acting under the authority of 
 both the parties, and for which redress has, in most 
 instances, been withheld. Through every stage of 
 the conflict, the United States have maintained an 
 impartial neutrality, giving aid to neither of the par- 
 ties in men, money, ships, or munitions of war. 
 They have regarded the contest, not in the light of 
 an ordinary insurrection or rebellion, but as a civil 
 war between parties nearly equal, having, as to neu- 
 tral powers, equal rights. Our ports have been 
 open to both, and every article, the fruit of our soil, 
 or of the industry of our citizens, which either was 
 permitted to take, has been equally free to the 
 other. Should the colonies establish their independ- 
 ence, it is proper now to state, that this Govern- 
 ment neither seeks nor would accept from them any 
 advantage, in commerce or otherwise, which will not 
 be equally open to all other nations. The colonies 
 will, in that event, become independent States, free 
 from any obligation to or connection with us, which 
 it may not then be their interest to form on the ba- 
 sis of a fair reciprocity. 
 
 In the summer of the present year, an expedition 
 was set on foot against East Florida, by persons 
 claiming to act under the authority of some of the 
 colonies, who took possession of Amelia Island, at 
 the mouth of the St. Mary's River, near the boundary 
 of the State of Georgia. As this province lies east- 
 ward of the Mississippi, and is bounded by the United 
 States and the ocean on every side, and has been a 
 subject of negotiation with the Government of Spain, 
 as an indemnity for losses by spoliation, or in ex- 
 change for territory of equal value, westward of the 
 Mississippi, a fact well known to the world, it excited 
 surprise that any countenance should be given to this 
 measure by any of the colonies. As it would be 
 difficult to reconcile it with the friendly relations ex- 
 isting between the United States and the colonies, a 
 doubt was entertained whether it had been authorized 
 by them or any of them. This doubt has gained 
 strength by the circumstances which have unfolded 
 themselves in the prosecution of the enterprise, which 
 have marked it as a mere private, unauthorized ad- 
 venture. Projected and commenced with an incom T 
 petent force, reliance seems to have been placed on 
 what might be drawn, in defiance of our laws, from 
 within our limits ; and of late, as their resources 
 have failed, it has assumed a more marked character 
 of unfriendliness to us; the island being made a 
 channel for the illicit introduction of slaves from 
 Africa into the United States, an asylum for fugitive 
 slaves from the neighboring States, and a port for 
 smuggling of every kind. 
 
 A similar establishment was made, at an earlier 
 period, by persons of the same description, in the 
 Gulf of Mexico, at a place called Galveston, within 
 the limits of the United States, as we contend, under 
 the cession of Louisiana. The enterprise has been 
 marked, in a more signal manner, by all the objec- 
 tionable circumstances which characterized the 
 other, and more particularly by the equipment of 
 privateers which have annoyed our commerce, and 
 by smuggling. These establishments, if ever sanc- 
 tioned by any authority whatever, which is not be- 
 lieved, have abused their trust, and forfeited all 
 claim to consideration. A just regard for the rights 
 and interests of the United States required that thev 
 should be suppressed, and orders have been accord- 
 
 ingly issued to that effect The imperious considera- 
 tions which produced this measura will be explained 
 to the parties whom it may, in any degree, concern. 
 
 To obtain correct information on every subject in 
 which the United States are interested; to inspire 
 just sentiments in all persons in authority on either 
 side, of our friendly disposition, so far as it may com- 
 port with an impartial neutrality; and to secure 
 proper respect to our commerce hi every port, and 
 from every flag, it has been thought proper to send a 
 ship of war, with three distinguished citizens, along 
 the southern coast, with instructions to touch at such 
 ports as they may find most expedient for these pur- 
 poses. With the existing authorities, with those hi 
 the possession of, and exercising the sovereignty, 
 must the communication be held ; from them alone 
 can redress for past injuries, committed by persona 
 acting under them, be obtained ; by them alone can 
 the commission of the like, hi future, be prevented. 
 
 Our relations with the other powers of Europe 
 have experienced no essential change since the last 
 session. In our intercourse with each, due attention 
 continues to be paid to the protection of our com- 
 merce, and to every other object in which the United 
 States are interested. A strong hope is entertained, 
 that by adhering to the maxims of a just, a candid, 
 and friendly policy, we may long preserve amicable 
 relations with all the powers of Europe, on conditions 
 advantageous and honorable to our country. 
 
 With the Barbary States, and the Indian tribes, 
 our pacific relations have been preserved. 
 
 In calling your attention to the internal concerns 
 of our country, the view which they exhibit is pecu- 
 liarly gratifying. The payments which have been 
 made into the Treasury show the very productive 
 state of the public revenue. After satisfying the ap- 
 propriations made by law for the support of the Civil 
 Government, and of the Military and Naval Estab- 
 
 nd extinguishing 
 more than eighteen millions of the principal, within 
 the present year, it is estimated that a balance of 
 more than six millions of dollars will remain in the 
 Treasury on the first day of January, applicable to 
 the current service of the ensuing year. The pay- 
 ments into the Treasury during the year one thou- 
 sand eight hundred and eighteen, on account of im- 
 posts and tonnage, resulting principally from duties 
 which have accrued in the present year, may be 
 fairly estimated at twenty millions of dollars ; the in- 
 ternal revenues, at two millions five hundred thou- 
 sand ; the pubh'c lands, at one million five hundred 
 thousand ; bank dividends and incidental receipts, 
 at five hundred thousand; making in the whole 
 twenty-four millions five hundred thousand dollars. 
 
 The annual permanent expenditure for the support 
 of the Civil Government, and of the Army and Navy, 
 as now established by law, amounts to eleven mil- 
 lions eight hundred thousand dollars; and for the 
 Sinking Fund, to ten millions ; making in the whole 
 twenty-one millions eight hundred thousand dollars ; 
 leaving an annual excess of revenue beyond the ex- 
 pendjiture of two millions seven hundred thousand 
 dollars, exclusive of the balance estimated to be in 
 the Treasury on the first day of January, one thou- 
 sand eight hundred and eighteen. 
 
 In the present state of the Treasury, the whole of 
 the Louisiana debt may be redeemed in the year one 
 thousand eight hundred and nineteen ; after which,
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 President's Annual Message. 
 
 [DECEMBER, 1817. 
 
 if the public debt continues as it now is, above par, 
 there will be annually about five millions of the 
 Sinking Fund unexpended, until the year one thou- 
 sand eight hundred and twenty-five, when the loan 
 of one thousand eight hundred and twelve, and the 
 stock created by funding Treasury notes, will be 
 redeemable. 
 
 It is also estimated that the Mississippi stock will 
 be discharged during the year one thousand eight 
 hundred and nineteen, from the proceeds of the pub- 
 lic lands assigned to that object, after which the re- 
 ceipts from those lands will annually add to the pub- 
 lic revenue the sum of one million and a half, making 
 the permanent annual revenue amount to twenty- six 
 millions of dollars ; and leaving an annual excess of 
 revenue, after the year one thousand eight hundred 
 and nineteen, beyond the permanent authorized ex- 
 penditure, of more than four millions of dollars. 
 
 By the last returns to the Department of War, the 
 militia force of the several $tates may be estimated 
 at eight hundred thousand men, infantry, artillery, 
 and cavalry. Great part of this force is armed, and 
 measures are taken to arm the whole. An improve- 
 ment in the organization and discipline of the militia 
 is one of the great objects which claims the unremit- 
 ted attention of Congress. 
 
 The regular force amounts nearly to the number 
 required by law, and is stationed along the Atlantic 
 and inland frontiers. 
 
 Of the naval force it has heen necessary to main- 
 tain strong squadrons in the Mediterranean and in 
 the Gulf of Mexico. 
 
 When we consider the vast extent of territory 
 within the United States; the great amount and 
 value of its productions ; the connection of its parts, 
 and other circumstances, on which their prosperity 
 and happiness depend, we cannot fail to entertain a 
 high sense of the advantage to he derived from the 
 facility which may be afforded in the intercourse be- 
 tween them, hy means of good roads and canals. 
 Never did a country of such vast extent offer equal 
 inducements to improvements of this kind, nor ever 
 were consequences of such magnitude involved in 
 them. As this subject was acted on by Congress at 
 the last session, and there may be a disposition to 
 revive it at the present, I have brought it into view 
 for the purpose of communicating my sentiments on 
 a very important circumstance connected with it, 
 with that freedom and candor which a regard for the 
 public interest and a proper respect for Congress re- 
 quire. A difference of opinion has existed from the 
 first formation of our constitution to the present 
 time, among our most enlightened and virtuous citi- 
 zens, respecting the right of Congress to establish 
 such a system of improvement. Taking into view 
 the trust with which I am now honored, it would be 
 improper, after what has passed, that this discussion 
 should be revived, with an uncertainty of my opinion 
 respecting the right. Disregarding early impres- 
 sions, I have bestowed on the subject all the deliber- 
 ation which its great importance and a just sense of 
 my duty required, and the result is, a settled convic- 
 tion in my mind, that Congress do not possess the 
 right. It is not contained in any of the specified 
 powers granted to Congress; nor can I consider it 
 incidental to, or a necessary mean, viewed on the 
 most liberal scale, for carrying into effect any of the 
 powers which are specifically granted. In commu- 
 nicating this result, I cannot resist the obligation 
 which I feel, to suggest to Congress the propriety of 
 
 recommending to the States the adoption of an 
 amendment to the constitution, which shall give to 
 Congress the right in question. In cases of doubtful 
 construction, especially of such vital interest, it com- 
 ports with thn nature and origin of our institutions, 
 and will contribute much to preserve them, to apply 
 to our constituents for a specific grant of the power. 
 We may confidently rely, that if it appears to their 
 satisfaction that the power is necessary, it will 
 always be granted. In this case I am happy to ob- 
 serve that experience has afforded the most ample 
 proof of its utility, and that the benign spirit of con- 
 ciliation and harmony, which now manifests itself 
 throughout our^ Union, promises to such a recom- 
 mendation the most prompt and favorable result. I 
 think proper to suggest, also, in case this measure is 
 adopted, that it be recommended to the States to in- 
 clude, in the amendment sought, a right in Congress 
 to institute, likewise, seminaries of learning for the 
 all-important purpose of diffusing knowledge among 
 our fellow-citizens throughout the United States. 
 
 Our manufactories will require the continued at- 
 tention of Congress. The capital employed in them 
 is considerable, and the knowledge acquired in the 
 machinery and fabric of all the most useful manufac- 
 tures is of great value. Their preservation, which 
 depends on due encouragement, is connected with the 
 high interests of the nation. 
 
 Although the progress of the public buildings has 
 been as favorable as circumstances have permitted, 
 it is to be regretted that the Capitol is not yet in a 
 state to receive you. There is good cause to pre- 
 sume that the tvfro wings, the only parts as yet com- 
 menced, will be prepared for that purpose at the next 
 session. The time seems now to have arrived when 
 this subject may be deemed worthy the attention of 
 Congress, on a scale adequate to national purposes. 
 The completion of the middle building will be neces- 
 sary to the convenient accommodation of Congress, 
 of the committees, and various offices belonging to it. 
 It is evident that the other public buildings are alto- 
 gether insufficient for the accommodation of the sev- 
 eral Executive Departments, some of whom are much 
 crowded, and even subjected to the necessity of ob- 
 taining it in private buildings, at some distance from 
 the head of the department, and with inconvenience 
 to the management of the public business. Most 
 nations have taken an interest and a pride in the im- 
 provement and ornament of their Metropolis, and 
 none were more conspicuous in that respect than the 
 ancient Republics. The policy which dictated the 
 establishment of a permanent residence for the Na- 
 tional Government, and the spirit in which it was 
 commenced and has been prosecuted, show that such 
 improvement was thought worthy the attention of 
 this nation. Its central position, between the north- 
 ern and southern extremes of our Union, and its ap- 
 proach to the West, at the head of a great navigable 
 river, which interlocks with the Western waters, 
 proves the wisdom of the councils which established 
 it. Nothing appears to be more reasonable and 
 proper, than that convenient accommodation should 
 be provided, on a well- digested plan, for the heads of 
 the several departments, and of the Attorney-Gen- 
 eral ; and it is believed that the public ground in the 
 city applied to those objects will be found amply suf- 
 ficient I submit this subject to the consideration ot 
 Congress, that such further provision may be made 
 in it as to them may seem proper. 
 
 In contemplating the happy situation of the United
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 DECKMBEU, 1817.] 
 
 Specific and ad valorem Duties, 
 
 [SENATE. 
 
 States, our attention is drawn, with peculiar interest, 
 to the surviving officers and soldiers of our Revolu- 
 tionary Army, who so eminently contributed, by 
 their services, to lay its foundation. Most of those 
 very meritorious citizens have paid the debt of nature 
 and gone to repose. It is believed that among the 
 survivors there are some not provided for by existing 
 jaws, who are reduced to indigence, and even to real 
 distress. These men have a claim on the gratitude 
 of their country, and it will do honor to their country 
 to provide for them. The lapse of a few years more, 
 and the opportunity will be forever lost ; indeed, so 
 long already has been the interval, that the number 
 to be benefited by any provision which may be made 
 will not be great. 
 
 It appearing in a satisfactory manner that the 
 revenue arising from imposts and tonnage, and from 
 the sale of the public lands, will be fully adequate to 
 the support of the Civil Government, of the present 
 Military and Naval Establishment, including the an- 
 nual augmentation of the latter to the extent pro- 
 vided for, to the payment of the interest of the pub- 
 lic debt, and to the extinguishment of it at the times 
 authorized, without the aid of the internal taxes, I 
 consider it my duty to recommend to Congress their 
 repeal. To impose taxes, when the public exigen- 
 cies require them, is an obligation of the most sacred 
 character, especially with a free people. The faithful 
 fulfilment of it is among the highest proofs of their 
 virtue and capacity for self-government. To dis- 
 pense with taxes, when it may be done with perfect 
 safety, is equally the duty of their representatives. 
 In this instance we have the satisfaction to know 
 that they were imposed when the demand was impe- 
 rious, and have been sustained with exemplary fidel- 
 ity. I have to add, that, however gratifying it may 
 he to me, regarding the prosperous and happy condi- 
 tion of our country, to recommend the repeal of 
 these taxes at this time, I shall nevertheless be at- 
 tentive to events, and, should any future emergency 
 occur, he not less prompt to suggest such measures 
 and burdens as may then be requisite and proper. 
 JAMES MONROE. 
 
 The Message was read, and two thousand co- 
 pies thereof ordered to be printed for the use 
 of the Senate. 
 
 The Senate then adjourned. 
 
 WEDNESDAY, December 3. 
 ROBERT II. GOLDSBOROUGH, from the State of 
 Maryland, arrived on the 2d instant, and at- 
 tended this day. 
 
 THURSDAY, December 4. 
 GEORGE "W. CAMPBELL, from the State of 
 Tennessee, arrived the 3d, and attended this 
 day. 
 
 FRIDAY, December 5. 
 
 OUTERBRIDGE HORSEY, from the State of 
 Delaware; arrived the 4th, and attended this 
 day. 
 
 MONDAY, December 8. 
 MONTFOKT STOKES, from the State of North 
 Carolina, arrived on the 5th instant, and at- 
 tended this day. 
 
 The PRESIDENT communicated the credentials 
 of JOHN W. EPPES, appointed a Senator by the 
 Legislature of the State of Virginia, for the 
 term of six years, commencing on the 4th day 
 of March last ; which were read, and laid on 
 file. 
 
 TUESDAY, December 9. 
 The Senate proceeded to the appointment of 
 a Chaplain on their part, and on the ballots hav- 
 ing been counted, it appeared that the Rever- 
 end WILLIAM HAW LEY had a majority, and was 
 elected. 
 
 WEDNESDAY, December 10. 
 
 ELI P. ASHMUN, from the State of Massachu- 
 setts, and GEORGE M. TROUP, from the State of 
 Georgia, severally arrived on the 9th, and at- 
 tended this day. 
 
 A message from the House of Representatives 
 informed the Senate that they have appointed 
 the Reverend BURGESS ALLISON, Chaplain on 
 their part. 
 
 THURSDAY, December 11. 
 
 JEREMIAH MORROW, from the State of Ohio, 
 arrived on the 1 Oth instant, and attended this day. 
 
 WALTER LEAKE and THOMAS H. WILLIAMS, 
 respectively, appointed Senators by the Legis- 
 lature of the State of Mississippi, produced their 
 credentials, were qualified, and took their seats 
 in the Senate. 
 
 TUESDAY, December 16. 
 
 ISHAM TALBOT, from the State of Kentucky, 
 arrived on the 15th instant, and attended this 
 day. 
 
 Specific and ad valorem Duties Frauds in the 
 Valuation and Appraisement. 
 
 The Senate resumed the consideration of the 
 motion of Mr. SANFORD, of the 8th instant, di- 
 recting the Committee on Finance to make in- 
 quiry relative to the collection of ad valorem, 
 duties on importations. 
 
 Mr. SANFOBD rose and addressed the Chair 
 as follows : 
 
 Mr. President: According to the laws now 
 in force, the duties on merchandise imported 
 are of two classes : those which are usually de- 
 nominated specific ; and those which are im- 
 posed on the value. The specific duty is charg- 
 ed upon the article, according to some denomi- 
 nation, or quantity ; and is determined by the 
 number, weight, or measure of the article; as 
 cigars, by the thousand, teas and sugars, by the 
 pound ; wines and spirits, by the gallon, or salt, 
 by the bushel. The duty on the value is a cer- 
 tain proportion of the value ; as ten or twenty 
 per centum. The ad valorem duties are calcu- 
 lated, not upon any value which the merchan- 
 dise may bear, but upon its actual cost in the 
 foreign country from which it came, with an 
 addition of twenty per centum to the cost, if 
 I imported from places beyond the Cape of Good
 
 8 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 Specific and ad valorem Duties. 
 
 [DECEMBER, 1817. 
 
 Hope, and ten per centum if imported from any 
 other place. 
 
 The foreign cost of merchandise is, therefore, 
 the hasis of the ad valorem duties ; and that 
 cost must be ascertained, in order to ascertain 
 the duties. This principle having been adopted, 
 the provisions of the existing system for the 
 collection of these duties were devised, in order 
 to carry it into effect. 
 
 Where the duty is specific, the quantity of 
 goods is ascertained by a public officer, by act- 
 ual enumeration ; weighing, gauging, or meas- 
 uring, before the goods are delivered to the 
 owner or consignee. Where the duty is on the 
 value, the foreign cost is determined, for the 
 purpose of charging the duty upon it in ordi- 
 nary cases, by the owner of the goods, or by 
 his consignee, or agent representing him. This 
 is done by an entry of the goods at the custom- 
 house, by the owner, consignee, or agent, who 
 at the same time produces the invoice and bill 
 of lading attending the importation. The entry 
 and the invoice state the prices or cost of 
 the goods, and the person making the entry 
 swears that they are true. When this has been 
 done, the goods are, in ordinary cases, without 
 any farther investigation, concerning their value 
 or cost, delivered to the owner or his agent; 
 and the foreign cost, thus obtained, is the basis 
 upon which the duties are computed. 
 
 From the slightest view it is apparent that 
 this method of determining the cost of goods 
 subject to duty on the value, is exceedingly 
 liable to evasion, by untrue statements of the 
 foreign cost upon which the duty is charged. 
 The cost is determined, in most cases, merely 
 by the person who is to pay the duty. The 
 party required to pay the duty ; the party 
 whose profit or loss must always depend wholly, 
 or in part, upon the amount of duty charged and 
 paid on the goods ; the party interested to re- 
 duce the duty as much as possible, is allowed 
 to make his own statement of the cost : and 
 this cost, so stated, is, in most cases, the sum 
 upon which the duties are calculated and paid. 
 Of all temptations to undervalue merchandise, it 
 does not seem possible to. devise one more di- 
 rect and dangerous than to give to the party 
 who is to state the value all the benefit of an 
 undervaluation. 
 
 The provision that, when the collector shall 
 suspect that the merchandise is not invoiced at 
 the price usual at the place of exportation, he 
 may require an appraisement, would also seem 
 to promise a security against the fraud in ques- 
 tion. This provision, though useful in practice, 
 to some extent, is also believed to fall very far 
 short of an adequate remedy. It is sufficient to 
 prevent .or correct the fraud of false invoices 
 and entries, for many reasons. 
 
 Upon the whole of this part of the subject, it 
 is conceived, that the power of the collector to 
 require an appraisement, though it may operate, 
 in some degree, to prevent great and flagrant 
 undervaluations, is a very partial and ineffectual 
 restraint upon the smaller undervaluations of 
 
 five, ten, fifteen, twenty, twenty-five, thirty, 
 forty, and fifty per centum less than the just 
 value, or cost, of the goods. And there is no 
 doubt that the frauds of this kind, from which 
 the revenue suffers most, are false valuations 
 of the latter class ; in which the cost expressed 
 in the invoice is less than the real cost by ten, 
 fifteen, twenty, twenty-five, thirty, or forty per 
 centum. It is in these cases that an actual ap- 
 praisement seldom takes place. When, in these 
 cases, an appraisement does take place, little or 
 nothing is gained by it ; and sometimes the 
 value is reduced by the appraisement below 
 the cost stated in the invoice. 
 
 The general result of these facts and views is 
 as follows: 
 
 1. An invoice of the foreign cost is no secu- 
 rity to the revenue. 
 
 2. The foreign cost is determined by the oath 
 of the person who makes the entry, in all cases, 
 excepting those in which there is an appraisement. 
 
 ). Where there is an appraisement, that pro- 
 ceeding is subject to abuses, greatly injurious to 
 the revenue ; which have been stated. 
 
 A very great part, perhaps about one-half, of 
 all the articles subjected to duty on the value, 
 which we import, are manufactures of wool 
 and cotton. In these articles, in which the 
 efforts of art and industry make great and very 
 various additions to the value of the raw mate- 
 rial, the fraud of false statements of the for- 
 eign cost is facilitated by the difference of 
 fabrics and the variety of values. This fraud is 
 accordingly practised in these articles to a great 
 extent. 
 
 It is more particularly since the termination 
 of the late war with Great Britain, that the 
 practice of sending goods to the United States 
 to be sold here, on account of the foreign owner, 
 bas been carried to a very great extent. The 
 consignment is made to a person here, who, by 
 whatever name he may be called, is, in truth 
 and effect, a mere agent of the owner of the 
 goods. A suitable person for this agency is 
 sent or selected, Avho makes the entry, pays the 
 duties, and disposes of the goods for the benefit 
 of his principal. This is the history of many 
 ^reat importations which have been made with- 
 in the last three years, and which have indeed 
 paid duties to the Treasury, but have paid much 
 less than they should have done. Immense 
 quantities of goods, subject to ad valorem duties, 
 are sent to this country by foreigners, to be 
 entered at the custom-house and pay duties, for 
 account of foreigners, and finally to be sold 
 tiere, in the first instance, on account of for- 
 eigners. The course of proceeding is well un- 
 derstood. The consignee or agent is not sup- 
 posed to commit his conscience or his char- 
 icter in producing the invoice and making the 
 entry. The principal has only to take care not 
 to grasp too much. If he will content himself 
 with any deduction from the true value of 
 the goods which is not palpably excessive, his 
 invoice, in all probability, passes without ob- 
 iection. If an appraisement is required, the
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 DECEMBER, 1817.] 
 
 Specific and ad valorem Duties. 
 
 [SENA! 
 
 value stated in the invoice is little, or not at all, 
 increased. In either case the foreign owner, 
 who is beyond the reach of our laws, and who 
 has no other object but obtain the most money 
 for his goods, attains his object, and makes a 
 very important saving in the duties. "Where 
 the" ad valorem duties are considerable, as ours 
 now are, varying from seven and a half to 
 thirty per centum upon the foreign cost ; where, 
 upon the greatest part of the articles, the duties 
 are twenty and twenty-five per centum ; and 
 where a considerable part of these duties may 
 be saved by a course of proceeding well under- 
 stood, and free from legal perils ; a course of 
 proceeding which is not only practised, but, 
 under the present system, is easily practicable, 
 it is not wonderful that the course should be 
 pursued which will secure the advantage. 
 
 It is impossible to ascertain with exactness 
 the extent to which the revenue suffers by false 
 invoices and appraisements of goods subject to 
 ad valorem duties. The records of the Treasury 
 and of the custom-houses would show the dif- 
 ference between the invoices and the appraise- 
 ments required by the collectors, where there 
 are invoices, and appraisements have been re- 
 fluired; but they would show nothing more, 
 this difference would indicate a very incon- 
 siferable part of the loss of the revenue. The 
 difference between the real value or b&nafide 
 foreign cost, and the sum upon which the 
 duties, are actually charged and received, is the 
 great and important difference from which the 
 loss to f ,he revenue results. Of this difference 
 nothing appears at the Treasury or at the cus- 
 tom-houses. If it extended to the subduction 
 of one-hatf, or any other proportion of the ad 
 valorem duties, still every thing would be fair 
 upon paper. The records of the Treasury would 
 show the entries and appraisements upon which 
 the duties had been paid ; but they would show 
 nothing else to establish the real and lonafide 
 value or cost upon which the duties should have 
 been paid. 
 
 But, without including any part of that por- 
 tion of the ad valorem duties which is lost by 
 frauds, it may justly be assumed, that the net 
 amount of ad valorem duties is now higher, in 
 proportion to the net amount of specific duties, 
 than the gross amount of ad valorem duties is 
 to the gross amount of specific duties, accord- 
 ing to former experience, in this respect. 
 Making some little allowance, on this account, 
 in favor of the net ad valorem duties, and pro- 
 ceeding upon the facts and principles already 
 stated, we are led to the conclusion that, of the 
 total net revenue now received from merchan- 
 dise, about two-thirds arise from the ad. valorem 
 duties, and about one-third arises from the 
 specific duties. 
 
 Though it is not possible to ascertain, with 
 exactness, the extent of the loss to the revenue 
 in the ad valorem duties, arising from appraise- 
 ments and false invoices, yet some probable es- 
 timate of the amount may be made. I have 
 endeavored to form such an, estimate. The 
 
 amount of the loss I have heard estimated by 
 very intelligent men, at one-sixth, and at one- 
 fifteenth part of the total amount of ad valorem 
 duties which should have been received ; and 
 at all rates, between a sixth and a fifteenth part. 
 Taking all the information which I have been 
 able to obtain, and the estimates and opinions 
 of well-informed men, in whose knowledge and 
 judgment I have great confidence, as the basis 
 of my own opinion, I cannot estimate the loss 
 to the revenue, arising from these causes, at 
 less than ten per centum. By this I mean that, 
 taking all the valuations upon which all the ad 
 valorem duties are computed, as well those 
 which are fair and just, as those which are 
 fraudulent, and below the true value in vari- 
 ous degrees, including also all the appraise- 
 ments, and speaking of the years 1815, 1816, 
 and 1817, the aggregate amount of ah 1 the 
 entries and appraisements, has been less than it 
 should have been, by at least a tenth part of 
 the true cost or value. Thus, if the total 
 amount of merchandise subject to ad valorem 
 duties imported in a given period, is of the true 
 value or cost of ten millions, the numerous 
 undervaluations which take place in particular 
 instances, reduce the total amount of the whole 
 to nine millions ; and thus a tenth part of the 
 duties which should be paid is lost. I cer- 
 tainly do not profess to be accurate in a case 
 where accuracy is unattainable. I can only 
 say, that I have sought information from every 
 source accessible to me ; I have stated the facts 
 as they appear to be from all the information 
 which I have been able to collect : and I am 
 obliged to conclude, that at least a tenth part 
 of the ad valorem duties is lost by these frauds. 
 
 Estimating, then, that the loss in the ad valo- 
 rem duties, arising from false statements of the 
 foreign cost and appraisement, amounts to ten 
 per centum, and taking the ad valorem duties 
 for the years 1815, 1816, and 1817, at fifty-two 
 millions, it follows that the loss to the revenue 
 from these causes, during these three years, has 
 exceeded five millions of dollars. The result 
 will of course vary, according to the principles 
 assumed. 
 
 It is true that the present mode of determin- 
 ing the value of goods subject to duty ad valo- 
 rem, has prevailed from the commencement of 
 the present Government to this time. When 
 the present system of collection was first estab- 
 lished, the ad valorem duties were low, and the 
 temptation to fraud was comparatively small. 
 Many successive alterations were made in the 
 rates of duty, by which, in most cases, the du- 
 ties were advanced ; but still, our duties, before 
 the late war with Great Britain, were moderate, 
 compared either with those which have since 
 been imposed, or with the duties of other coun- 
 tries. It is probable, that for many years after 
 the commencement of the duties and the system 
 of collection, in 1789, the fraud of false invoices 
 was not often practised ; but it is believed that 
 this species of fraud had, before the late war, 
 gradually gained much ground, as the duties
 
 10 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 Specific and ad valorem Duties. 
 
 [DECEMBER, 1817. 
 
 were gradually increased, and the methods of 
 accomplishing the object, with impunity, be- 
 came better understood. 
 
 By the act of the first of July, 1812, the du- 
 ties then existing were doubled, and double 
 duties were to continue for one year after the 
 termination of the war. These duties were 
 continued by a subsequent act, until the 30th 
 of June, 1816, when they ceased, and the pres- 
 ent duties took their place. 
 
 During all these periods, and notwithstand- 
 ing the augmentations in the rates, the system 
 for the collection of the duties has remained, 
 in substance, the same. 
 
 Consulting experience, the sure test of the 
 past, and the safe monitor for the future, we 
 learn, that, in proportion as the duties are in- 
 creased, the collection is endangered; and in 
 proportion as the duties are increased the Gov- 
 ernment must diminish its reliance upon the 
 oaths of parties interested, as securities against 
 fraud. It is therefore, perhaps, not surprising, 
 that the present system should have been found 
 tolerably successful, in the collection of the low 
 and earlier rates of duty ; and that the same sys- 
 tem should now be, in some respects, no longer 
 adequate to the collection of duties so consider- 
 able as those which now are, and for some time 
 have been, in force. 
 
 But without attempting to discuss, or even to 
 state, the various projects of reformation, which 
 might be suggested, I shall briefly submit a few 
 ideas upon this subject. 
 
 If the evasions and abuses which now occur 
 result, as is believed, from the present system of 
 collection, the remedy must be found in some 
 alteration of the system itself. 
 
 A considerable part, perhaps one-fourth or one- 
 fifth in amount of the articles now imported, and 
 now subject to ad valorem duties, may, with 
 entire convenience, be subjected to specific du- 
 ties, [Mr. SANFORD here went into a statement 
 of the articles to which he alluded, specifying 
 those which he conceived might be very con- 
 veniently charged with a duty upon the number, 
 weight, or measure, instead of the value] 
 
 The advantages of specific duties over those 
 imposed on the value, in point of security to the 
 revenue, and in their fair and equal operation, 
 are well known. The plan of specific duties is 
 free from those inequalities and uncertainties 
 which must always, in some degree, attend 
 valuations. Such is the excellence of this mode 
 of charging duties, that though our present 
 specific duties, like those ad valorem, are high, 
 compared with the earlier rates, and though the 
 specific duties are in general much higher than 
 those ad valorem in reference to the intrinsic 
 values of the different subjects on which they 
 are respectively imposed, yet it is believed that 
 the specific duties are collected with greater 
 punctuality and certainty, and without any con- 
 siderable loss to the revenue. This fact like- 
 wise shows that the present system of collecting 
 the specific duties is excellent, since it is found 
 to be so by experience ; and it also affords a 
 
 very satisfactory proof that the losses now sus- 
 tained by the revenue in the ad valorem duties, 
 do not result from any want of vigilance or 
 fidelity on the part of the officers of the customs 
 who collect both the ad valorem and the specific 
 duties. 
 
 I am aware that the bulk and weight of many 
 of the articles subject to specific duty afford a 
 very important security to the revenue. But i:' 
 these articles were subject to ad valorem instead 
 of specific rates, it cannot be doubted, that the 
 same evasions and frauds would take place in 
 respe'ct to them which now occur in all the 
 articles now placed in an ad valorem class. 
 
 Still the articles, which will probably remain 
 charged with duty on the value, will be very nu- 
 merous, and of great amount in the aggregate of 
 our imports : and a proper system for the col- 
 lection of duties imposed on the value will al- 
 ways be necessary. 
 
 The provisions of forfeiture and appraisement, 
 when applied to the real value of the goods, 
 after they reach our own shores, would probably 
 operate with an efficacy which is scarcely felt, 
 when the question in controversy is the foreign 
 cost of the goods. 
 
 Or, instead of the provisions of forfeiture an! 
 appraisement, the British system may be adopt- . 
 ed. According to that system, the importer 
 enters his goods at any value which he chooses 
 to affix to them. If the officers of the customs 
 think, upon examination, that the goods rre un- 
 dervalued by the importer, they take thi goods 
 on account of the Government, and forthwith 
 pay to the importer, from the money in their 
 hands arising from the customs, tte sum at 
 which he has valued them, with an addition of 
 ten per centum to his valuation, and the duties 
 paid on the importation. The goods are then 
 publicly sold on account of the Government. If 
 the goods produce more than the sum paid to 
 the importer by the officers of the customs, a 
 moiety of the excess is given to those officers as 
 a reward for their vigilance and fidelity. Thus, 
 the interest of the importer, and the interest of 
 the officers of the customs, are constantly array- 
 ed against each other. It is the interest of the 
 importer to enter his merchandise at a just 
 value ; for he is constantly exposed to the haz- 
 ard of receiving for it no more than the amount 
 of his own valuation, with the specified addi- 
 tions. Thus, the steady and active principle of 
 personal interest, is constantly in exercise on 
 both sides, and is at once the inducement to the 
 importer to enter his merchandise at its fair 
 value, and the inducement to the public officers 
 to wrest it from the importer when it is under- 
 valued by him. Perhaps no scheme of human 
 policy has yet been devised for the purpose of 
 securing fair valuations as the basis of duties, 
 which tends so necessarily to that object in 
 practice, as this plan which is now established 
 and pursued in Great Britain. This system is 
 found in the statutes of the 27 George III., 
 chapter 13, section 17 ; and the 54 George III., 
 chapter 121, section 1. It may also be seen in
 
 DEBATES OP CONGKESS. 
 
 11 
 
 JANUARY, 1818.] 
 
 African Slave Trade. 
 
 [SENATE. 
 
 Pope's custom and excise laws, pages 223, 224, 
 and 225. 
 
 When Mr. SANFORD concluded, the resolution 
 was agreed to. 
 
 FRIDAY, December 19. 
 NICHOLAS VANDYKE, from the State of Dela- 
 ware, arrived the 18th instant, and attended this 
 
 MONDAY, December 22. 
 Mr. MORROW, from the Committee on Public 
 Lands, to whom the subject was referred, re- 
 ported a bill to extend the time for locating Vir- 
 ginia military land warrants, and returning sur- 
 veys thereon to the General Land Office, and for 
 designing the western boundary line of the Vir- 
 ginia military tract ; and the bill was read, and 
 passed to the second reading. 
 
 TUESDAY, December 23. 
 Salt Duty and Fishing Bounties and Allowances. 
 
 Mr. SMITH submitted the following motion for 
 consideration : 
 
 Resolved, That the Secretary of the Treasury be di- 
 rected to lay before the Senate a statement of the 
 amount of duties on imported salt, during the years 
 1815, 1816, and 1817, as far as the returns to the 
 Treasury will permit. Also, a statement, for the same 
 years, of the amount of the allowances and drawbacks 
 paid to vessels employed in the fisheries, and on pick- 
 led fish exported. 
 
 MONDAY, December 29. 
 Ghent Treaty Restoration of Deported Slaves. 
 
 The following Message was received from the 
 PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: 
 To the Senate of the United States : 
 
 In compliance with a resolution of the Senate of the 
 16th of this month, requesting information touching 
 the execution of so much of the first article of the 
 Treaty of Ghent, as relates to the restitution of slaves, 
 which has not heretofore been communicated, I now 
 transmit a report of the Secretary of State on that 
 subject. JAMES MONROE. 
 
 DEPARTMENT OF STATE, 
 
 December 24, 1817. 
 
 The Secretary of State, to whom has been referred 
 the resolution of the Senate of the 16th instant, re- 
 questing information touching the execution of so 
 much of the first article of the Treaty of Ghent as re- 
 lates to the restitution of slaves, which has not here- 
 tofore been communicated, has the honor to report to 
 the President, that no answer has been received from 
 the British Government to the proposal made by order 
 of the late President, on the 17th of September, 1816, 
 that the question upon the different construction 
 given by the respective Governments to that article, 
 should be referred to the decision of some friendly 
 sovereign ; that the late Minister of the United States 
 in England, before his departure from London, renewed 
 the request for an answer, and that the present Min- 
 ister at the same Court has been instructed to invite 
 again the attention of the British Government to the 
 subject. All which is respectfully submitted. 
 
 JO UN Q. ADAMS. 
 
 TUESDAY December 30. 
 
 The PRESIDENT communicated a report of the 
 Secretary of the Treasury, showing the amount 
 of duty which accrued on salt imported during 
 the years 1815 and 1816, and from the 1st Janu- 
 ary to the 30th June, 1817, together with the 
 amount paid for bounty on pickled fish exported, 
 and for allowance to vessels employed in the 
 fisheries during the same period, made in obe- 
 dience to a resolution of the Senate of the 24th 
 instant ; and the report was read. Whereupon, 
 Mr. SMITH submitted the following motion for 
 consideration : 
 
 Resolved, That " a statement from the Treasury 
 Department, showing the amount of duty which ac- 
 crued on salt imported during the years 1815 and 
 1816, and from the 1st of January to the 30th of 
 June, 1817, together with the amount paid for bounty 
 on pickled fish exported, and for allowances to vessels 
 employed in the fisheries during the same period," be 
 referred to the Committee on Finance, with instruc- 
 tions to inquire into the expediency of repealing the 
 law laying that duty. 
 
 FRIDAY, January 2, 1818. 
 African Slave Trade. 
 
 The Senate resumed the consideration of the 
 motion of the 31st ultimo, for instructing the 
 committee to whom was referred the petition of 
 the committee of the yearly meeting of the Soci- 
 ety of Friends, at Baltimore, on the subject of 
 the African slave trade ; and the resolution be- 
 ing read 
 
 Mr. TROUP rose to object to the last clause of 
 the resolution, which contemplated a concert 
 with foreign nations. He thought this a most 
 extraordinary proposition, and asserted that, ac- 
 cording to his apprehension, no measure could 
 be adopted more replete with danger to the 
 welfare, to the very existence of this country, 
 than a formal coalition, for any purposes, with 
 any foreign nation whatever. It was a policy, 
 a resort to which ought always to be resisted, 
 and he hoped would be resisted with a firmness 
 not to be overcome. The object of the first part 
 of the proposition, for making our laws against 
 the slave trade more perfect and more effectual, 
 Mr. T. approved, and was willing to co-operate 
 in it. He was ready to go as far as any one, in 
 enforcing, within our own jurisdiction, the aboli- 
 tion of the African slave trade. Within our 
 land line, or water line, even on the high seas, 
 ho was willing to enforce our own laws on the 
 subject ; but to direct the President to enter into 
 any compactor concert for this subject with any 
 foreign nation or individuals, was a step he 
 would never consent to. lie could not separate 
 from foreign alliances the idea of foreign politics 
 and foreign wars ; and the proposed measure he 
 should view as the commencement of a system of 
 foreign connections tending to foreign alliances, 
 to which Mr. T. expressed great repugnance. 
 Unless, therefore, the propositions embraced by 
 the resolution were separated, he should be ob- 
 liged to vote against it.
 
 12 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 African Slave Trade. 
 
 [JANUARY, 1818. 
 
 Mr. BUREILL was pleased, he said, to find that 
 Mr. TROUP had no objection to the main object 
 the resolution had in view, of putting an entire 
 stop to the African slave trade on this point, 
 he believed, there was no diversity of opinion 
 throughout the country. Mr. B. regretted, how- 
 ever, that such a view had been taken qf the 
 concert with other nations proposed to effect the 
 object ; because it was only by such concert and 
 co-operation that the slave trade could be abol- 
 ished. Mr. B. entirely agreed to the impolicy 
 of foreign alliances ; and if the general objection 
 to them applied to the proposition he had sub- 
 mitted, he admitted it would be a sound and 
 substantial one ; but he could not view the pro- 
 posed concert in this light, nor could he con- 
 ceive that any such disastrous consequences 
 would follow it as had been anticipated by the 
 gentleman from Georgia ; that apprehension, he 
 thought, was altogether groundless. Nor was 
 the principle of the proposed concert, Mr. B. 
 said, a novelty in this country. By referring to 
 the Treaty of Ghent, it would be found that our 
 Ministers had either made or received overtures 
 on this very subject, and a provision was in con- 
 sequence inserted in the Treaty. The concert 
 had been considered as indispensable to bring 
 about the entire abolition of the slave trade ; 
 and, Mr. B. said, it had been found impossible 
 to put an entire stop to it without a co-opera- 
 tion among the nations prohibiting it ; for, no 
 matter how many nations prohibit the trade, if 
 one or two are allowed to carry it on, the evil 
 will still exist. 
 
 Mr. KING, in the outset of his remarks, ad- 
 verted to the delicacy of this question; and 
 said that if, in approaching it, he could discover 
 any danger of the present proposition's leading 
 to that kind of connection which was appre- 
 hended by Mr. TROUP, no one would more 
 earnestly deprecate it than himself. But, he 
 said, it was the boast of this nation that it had 
 the reputation of having been the first to begin 
 the abolition of the African slave trade; the 
 constitutional provision having reference to this 
 subject, certainly looked forward to a time 
 when this country would be ready to use its 
 best endeavors to put down this iniquitous 
 traffic ; and, he might add, there was no pro- 
 vision in the constitution which had been look- 
 ed to with more general approbation than that 
 one. The example of this country had excited 
 the emulation of other nations, and all of them 
 having any connection with this trade, except 
 two, had come into the measures for its aboli- 
 tion. Those two had taken time for further 
 consideration, and so long as their decision was 
 suspended, the regulations of other nations 
 would be inefficient ; an entire abolition of the 
 traffic in slaves would never be effected until all 
 united to suppress it. It seems to me, said Mr. 
 K., that we are bound by our own principles, 
 and the promise we have held out, to go a little 
 further if we can, to give effect to what we have 
 undertaken. It was not important, he thought, 
 in doing so, whether the necessary measures 
 
 commenced with us, or were entered into at the 
 invitation of others. So long, however, he said, 
 as Spain or Portugal permitted this trade, and 
 so long as any of our own people, to their dis- 
 grace, continue to pursue it under those flags, 
 it was necessary to the honor and the interest 
 of this country to concur in any proper meas- 
 ures for its suppression. He could not perceive, 
 he said, how such a measure as this motion look- 
 ed to, could lead to any such entangling con- 
 nection as had been apprehended. What was 
 proposed was an honest and moral concert to 
 put an end to a traffic which is an abomination 
 on the earth. He had no idea of its authorizing 
 the slightest interference with the internal 
 affairs of other nations, or of allowing them to 
 interfere in ours ; it could, in his opinion, only 
 redound still more to the honor of our country. 
 An arrangement of the nature suggested, he 
 thought, might be entered into without any 
 great inconvenience, and without any encour- 
 agement to that kind of connection of interests 
 which had been very justly deprecated ; and it 
 was, he said, if practicable, a measure which 
 was demanded by a regard for the morals of the 
 country, which our religion itself called for. 
 Nor did he think, Mr. K. said, that it was a 
 sound objection, though there was some forco 
 in it, that the proposition originated in this 
 branch of the Government, and not with the 
 Executive. Any branch of the Government, he 
 thought, might express an opinion on any na- 
 tional question ; the construction of legislative 
 powers was not so strict as to forbid it ; in proof 
 of which, he adverted to the practice in Eng- 
 land, whence, Mr. K. said, we took many of our 
 political ideas, where the Parliament often ex- 
 pressed its opinion on subjects of public in- 
 terest. 
 
 Mr. CAMPBELL, without being prepared for a 
 discussion of the subject, said he could not at 
 present see the propriety of adopting a resolu- 
 tion from which no good could result ; for we, 
 as legislators, said he, cannot enter into any con- 
 tract with foreign nations. The Executive 
 only, he said, was the proper branch of the Gov- 
 ernment to form such an arrangement, and if it 
 had been necessary, he presumed the Executive 
 would have done so ; but it would be useless, 
 and therefore improper, for the Senate to act 
 on this subject, because they could not act with 
 effect. It had been remarked, however, that 
 the expression of an opinion by the Senate, 
 might be useful, and that this course was a com- 
 mon practice with the British Parliament. It 
 was common, he knew, for Parliament to ad- 
 dress humble petitions to the King that he 
 would cause certain measures to be executed ; 
 but between that practice and ours there was 
 no analogy. Wheu this Congress acted, Mr. C. 
 said, they acted effectually, and did not and 
 ought not ever to undertake what they have 
 not power to carry into effect. There was, 
 perhaps, but a single instance of a departure 
 from this practice in the Senate, when, on one 
 occasion, they recommended to the Executive
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 13 
 
 JANUARY, 1818.] 
 
 African Slave Trade. 
 
 [SENATE. 
 
 to send a Minister to a foreign Government. 
 The measure he always disapproved, and he 
 was, on principle, averse to originating any prop- 
 osition in the Senate, which their constitutional 
 powers did not enable them to consummate. 
 Besides this, Mr. C. declared his unwillingness 
 to enter into any compact whatever with any 
 foreign power to regulate our own conduct, or 
 to carry our laws into effect. Two nations had 
 thought proper still to permit the trade alluded 
 to. What compact, said Mr. 0., are we to form 
 with others, to induce these nations to forbid it ? 
 Are we to require Spain and Portugal to give 
 up this trade? Are we to unite with France 
 and England to urge them to give if up ? And, j 
 should they yet refuse, are we to attempt to j 
 force them by arms to do so? Are we, he I 
 asked, prepared to risk a war for this object ? 
 He confessed he could not see to what other re- 
 sult the proposition tended. 
 
 Mr. KING rose to enter his dissent to the con- 
 struction given by Mr. TROUP, to the article 
 of the Treaty of Ghent which had been quoted. 
 Surely, he said, it would be much more offensive 
 to admit that we would enter into a stipulation 
 with a foreign Government to carry our own 
 statutes into execution within our own territory, 
 where our power is complete, than that we 
 should engage in a concert to suppress a par- 
 ticular trade on the high seas. He would enter 
 into no such stipulation with any power on 
 earth, even if it had been deemed necessary ; 
 but in this case it was not. He thought the 
 true intention of the article was, that the par- 
 ties would use their joint endeavors to put an 
 end to the traffic. [Mr. K. then proceeded to 
 remark on the circumstances of the case, which 
 he presumed Mr. CAMPBELL had referred to, to 
 which the Senate had volunteered its opinion 
 on a certain subject to the Executive ; but it 
 afterwards appeared, on explanation, that Mr. 
 K. and Mr. C. had not referred to the same case. 
 Lest, however, injustice should be done to Mr. 
 K.'s views of that subject, they are omitted.] 
 
 Mr. CAMPBELL, in conclusion, observed, re- 
 specting the stipulation of the Treaty of Ghent, 
 that he did not think the provision was intended 
 to oblige either party to carry its own statutes 
 into execution. He presumed it was introduced 
 merely because the subject was at that time 
 fresh in Great Britain, and that country felt 
 anxious to have it introduced into the treaty, 
 to give to that instrument some popularity. 
 There was nothing additional to be done in pur- 
 suance of the provision, and he viewed it simply 
 as an expression of the pre-existing disposition 
 of the parties to put down the trade entirely. 
 
 A motion having been made by Mr. CAMPBELL 
 to postpone the resolution for further considera- 
 tion, it was postponed to Monday without ob- 
 jection. 
 
 The Senate adjourned to Monday morning. 
 
 MONDAY, January 5. 
 WILLIAM HUNTER, from the State of Rhode 
 
 Island and Providence Plantations, arrived the 
 2d instant, and attended this day. 
 
 WEDNESDAY, January 7. 
 ROBERT H. GOLDSBOROUGH, from the State of 
 Maryland, arrived the 6th instant, and resumed 
 his seat in the Senate this day. 
 
 Increase of the Navy. 
 
 Mr. TAIT submitted the following motion for 
 consideration : 
 
 Resolved, That the President of the United States 
 be requested to cause to be laid before the Senate the 
 proceedings which may have been had under the act, 
 entitled " An act for the gradual increase of the Navy 
 of the United States ;" specifying the number of ships 
 put on the stocks, and of what class, and the quan- 
 tity and kind of materials procured for ship-building. 
 And also, the sums of money which may have been 
 paid out of the fund created by said act, and for what 
 objects ; and likewise the contracts which may have 
 been entered into, in execution of the act aforesaid, 
 on which moneys may not yet have been advanced. 
 
 FBIDAY, January 9. 
 
 ELEGIES FROMENTIN, from the State of Louis- 
 iania, arrived the 8th instant, and attended this 
 day. 
 
 MONDAY, January 12. 
 The African Slave Trade. 
 
 The following resolution, offered some days 
 ago by Mr. BURRILL, was taken up : 
 
 " Resolved, That the committee, to whom was re- 
 ferred the petition of the committee of the yearly 
 meeting of the Society of Friends at Baltimore, be 
 instructed to inquire into the expediency of so amend- 
 ing the laws of the United States on the subject of 
 the African slave trade, as more effectually to prevent 
 said trade from being carried on by citizens of the 
 United States, under foreign flags ; and also into the 
 expediency of the United States taking measures, in 
 concert with other nations, for the entire abolition of 
 said trade." 
 
 Mr. BURRILL said, that, at the time he had 
 the honor of moving the resolution, he had not 
 anticipated any objection to it ; but, from the 
 debate on the subject on a former day, it ap- 
 peared that some honorable gentlemen thought 
 it unnecessary to make the inquiry at all, and 
 that any concert with foreign nations, to attain 
 the end proposed, was highly improper and 
 dangerous. The question before the Senate was 
 not upon the adoption of any specified or pre- 
 scribed line of conduct, for the purpose of put- 
 ting the finishing hand to the great work of the 
 abolition of the slave trade; it was merely 
 whether it should be referred to a committee 
 to inquire into the expediency of taking meas- 
 ures, in concert with other nations, for this 
 great and benevolent purpose. The committee 
 may inquire, and be of opinion that it is inex- 
 pedient to adopt any measures whatever, or 
 at loast that it is not proper to take measures 
 in concert with other Governments. If the
 
 14 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 African Slave Trade. 
 
 [JANUARY, 1818. 
 
 Senate should refuse an inquiry into the pro- 
 priety of this course, they might be subjected 
 to the imputation of disregarding the implied 
 obligations of the Treaty of Ghent, by the tenth 
 article of which it is recited, that both the par- 
 ties are desirous of continuing their efforts to 
 promote the entire abolition of the slave trade, 
 and agree that both shall use their best endeav- 
 ors to accomplish so desirable an object. If 
 the Senate should refuse the inquiry, it might 
 give rise to unjust surmises and suspicions as to 
 the sincerity of the Government in passing laws 
 for this purpose, and in entering into the stipu- 
 lations of the Treaty of Ghent. The United 
 States cannot justly be charged with having 
 acted in bad faith, either in making or perform- 
 ing treaties; and, as the United States have 
 the honor of having led the way in the glorious 
 cause of abolishing the slave trade, there can be 
 no doubt that, in making this stipulation at 
 Ghent, our Envoys acted with sincerity, and 
 he hoped were entitled to the merit of having 
 proposed the article. This article, as well as 
 the rest of that treaty, met universal approba- 
 tion. Ought we, then, to refuse to refer it to a 
 committee, to inquire whether further measures 
 are not necessary, or at least expedient? If 
 any honorable gentleman had moved to go into 
 a Committee of the "Whole on this question, 
 would it have been refused ? What danger or 
 inconvenience, then, could arise from referring 
 the subject for investigation ? This committee, 
 if convinced that further measures are neces- 
 sary, would report those measures to the House ; 
 and, should they recommend a concert with 
 foreign nations for this purpose, the subject then, 
 having some length and breadth, and dimen- 
 sions, could be examined and considered. But 
 this could not so well be done now, because 
 there was no specific proposition before the 
 House. There was no such danger to be ap- 
 prehended as some 1 gentlemen imagined, from 
 the generality of the terms of the proposition 
 now under debate. This is the common and 
 ordinary course in commencing the considera- 
 tion of any subject in the Senate, and the Senate 
 should be cautious not to give ground for the 
 disgraceful suspicion that they are not sincere 
 and hearty in this cause of suffering humanity. 
 Every gentleman in this House wishes for the 
 entire abolition of this abominable traffic, and 
 this is the general voice of the country. The 
 gentlemen here representing the slaveholding 
 States, are as decided as any others on this 
 point, and one of those States (Virginia) was 
 entitled, he believed, to the honor of having 
 been the first State to prohibit it. It was bet- 
 ter, as the subject had some connection with 
 others which were of a peculiarly delicate na- 
 ture, to refer it to a deliberate inquiry in a small 
 committee, than to make it a topic of debate 
 under some general proposition, in which way 
 considerations which did not fairly belong to 
 the subject would insensibly mingle with it. 
 
 Mr. BARBOUR said, that, while he was decid- 
 edly in favor of the main object of the resolu- 
 
 tion, that of revising the laws, and remedying 
 every defect for the prevention of the wicked 
 trade in question, there was a part of the reso- 
 lution of which he did not approve, and, if re- 
 tained, he should vote against it. And hence, 
 lest his views might be misunderstood, he felt 
 himself compelled to intrude on the attention 
 of the Senate, while he briefly disclosed his 
 reasons. Before he did this, however, he would 
 make a few general remarks. He felt himself 
 obliged to the gentleman from Rhode Island, 
 for doing justice to Virginia, in admitting she 
 had been the first to protest against this trade. 
 But it was no more than an act of justice ; for 
 such certainly was the fact. Her zeal in this 
 good cause has undergone no diminution. The 
 United States followed her example; America 
 stands in the relation to the rest of the world, 
 that Virginia does to America. She took the 
 lead in the humane effort to exterminate this 
 horrible traffic. He rejoiced to see that the 
 great nations of Europe had adopted her pre- 
 cepts, and were imitating her enlightened and 
 philanthropic example. Spain and Portugal 
 constitute the only exception ; the former, it is 
 said, with what truth he knew not, has received 
 a pecuniary compensation to abandon the traf- 
 fic. Should this be true, as he cordially hoped 
 it might be, Portugal will then stand alone. 
 It is reasonably to be anticipated, that she will 
 not be able to resist the incumbent load of the 
 civilized world ; when their remonstrances are 
 enforced by the united influence of justice, hu- 
 manity, and philanthropy. Africa, then freed 
 frorn those disastrous effects which this trade 
 has produced, may, under the benign influence 
 of peace, reason, and religion, indulge a hope, 
 that in the fulness of time she may participate 
 in the blessings of civilization, with all its be- 
 neficent effects. Nor was he averse to adopting 
 measures in concert with any nation, which he 
 believed would be calculated to hasten the de- 
 struction of this trade. For his part, he feared 
 nothing from an alliance with any nation, whose 
 only object was humanity. No man could more 
 highly appreciate, than he did, the soundness of 
 the political maxim, inculcated by the Father of 
 his Country, in his legacy to the American 
 people that of avoiding entangling alliances 
 with other nations ; yet, with all his reverence 
 for this wise precept and his determination to 
 pursue its suggestions, he felt no apprehension 
 from the concert proposed. A concert like the 
 one proposed is in its character novel ; its ob- 
 ject is humanity ; while alliances denounced by 
 the above wise maxim, have for their object 
 dominion and power, to be acquired by the 
 misery of mankind ; to extricate a nation from 
 which, is not unfrequently attended with a vio- 
 lation of honor ; or, if executed, it is frequently 
 with the sacrifice of peace, and sometimes with 
 ruin. But what can we fear ? Before any such 
 concert can be taken, the terms on which we 
 unite must receive our sanction ; a guarantee 
 sufficient to quiet the apprehensions of the most 
 cautious. In so far, then, as the principal pro-
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 15 
 
 JANCAKT, 1818.] 
 
 African Slave Trade. 
 
 [SKXATE. 
 
 ject of the resolution is concerned, or 
 means of effecting it, he would go with the 
 mover ; but the part to which he objected, was 
 that proposing that Congress should unite with 
 other nations to produce the object ; this he 
 considered to be improper. Congress can act 
 only in its legislative capacity ; and, by conse- 
 quence, can enter into no concert with other 
 nations. That has been assigned to another 
 branch of the Government. It is through the 
 Executive alone that intercourse and arrange- 
 ments with other nations can be effected. Leave 
 it therefore where the constitution has placed 
 it, without discussing the question how far this 
 body has a right to advise, in its Executive 
 character, the Chief Magistrate upon the pro- 
 priety of entering into new arrangements with 
 foreign nations ; a question on which there is a 
 difference of opinion. He would content him- 
 self by remarking, that he believed such an 
 authority had never yet been exercised ; but, 
 be the power as it may, it will be readily con- 
 ceded that this is not one of the cases which 
 would justify it ; or, if it were, this is neither 
 the time nor the manner in which it should be 
 performed. It has been urged, indeed, that, by 
 the Treaty of Ghent, America and Britain, 
 having agreed to use their best endeavors to put 
 an end to this traffic, that this course, as now 
 recommended, may find a shelter from criticism 
 in that article ; as it is merely in fulfilment of 
 the obligation thereby contracted. Mr. B. con- 
 ceived that the article in question had no other 
 object, than to furnish to the civilized world an 
 unequivocal testimonial of the sentiments of the 
 contracting powers in regard to this trade. 
 Both nations having, therefore, made use of 
 what they esteemed the best method to sup- 
 press it, and entertaining, reciprocally, the most 
 entire confidence that they were sincere in their 
 wishes to effect it, either would repel with scorn 
 an insinuation that an article of this kind was 
 necessary to secure, in future, their zealous per- 
 severance in a course which had been previously 
 adopted, of their own mere will, and which 
 rested upon a much surer foundation than com- 
 pact, namely, upon their sense of its justice, 
 humanity, and propriety. 
 
 Mr. TKOUP said he had no intention, when he 
 objected the other day to a part of the resolu- 
 tion, to involve the Senate in a debate upon it ; 
 and he very plainly perceived that, at this stage 
 of it, it would be considered premature to dis- 
 cuss at large the merits of the question. But 
 he would submit to the Senate if it were com- 
 petent to them, in union with the President, to 
 pledge the arras and resources of the country, 
 in a concert with foreign powers, for any object 
 whatsoever. He denied that it could be done 
 in the spirit of the constitution. It would be 
 a pledge of that which we had not. The arms 
 and resources of the country were confided 
 elsewhere ; they were deposited, not with the 
 two, but the three branches of the Legislature ; 
 and, in fact, were not even to be found there. 
 The people were essentially the depository of 
 
 Yet 
 
 it was proposed to pledge, by an act of the Ex- 
 ecutive power only, the arms and resources of 
 a nation in concert with foreign powers, for the 
 abolition of the slave trade. Gentlemen seemed 
 to entertain very different significations of the 
 term concert ; for his part, Mr. T. said, he knew 
 of but one signification, which, in its application 
 to the present subject, could legitimately attach 
 to it ; a signification sustained equally by the 
 law of nations, the law of diplomacy, as far as 
 he knew such a law, and the universally re- 
 ceived acceptation of the term concert with 
 foreign nations Sir, what is it but a term foi 
 common councils and common efforts? The 
 gentlemen propose to themselves a great object 
 no less than the universal abolition of the 
 slave trade ; other nations, they acknowledge, 
 hold out against them. Will they be content, 
 then, with a concert of common councils ? As- 
 suredly they will not. Between nations com- 
 mon councils mean nothing, unless sustained by 
 common efforts ; and common efforts between 
 nations mean nothing less than war, if war be 
 necessary for the object. "War must be neces- 
 sary, so long as other nations assert the right 
 and hold to the practice of the slave trade. It 
 is true that you may begin with negotiation, 
 but it is certain that, if negotiation fail, you 
 must resort to war. What would avail a treaty 
 stipulation which would pledge the United 
 States to exert, in concert with Great Britain, 
 their advice and persuasion to induce Spain and 
 Portugal to abolish the slave trade ? Spain and 
 Portugal would care nothing about your advice 
 and persuasion, especially when you told them 
 that you intended nothing more. Rhetoric and 
 eloquence are not the instruments of nations for 
 the execution of grand projects. He was well 
 persuaded that the gentleman from Rhode Island 
 meant to deal in something more substantial ; 
 idle and insignificant verbiage could not suit his 
 purpose, for, if it did, he already found it in a 
 treaty. This word concert, therefore, Mr. Pres- 
 ident, means something it means connection, 
 combination, alliance, for a given object; it 
 means entangling alliance. You are admonished 
 against entangling alliances ; for what reason ? 
 Because our Government is one of its own kind, 
 insulated, the only Republic in the world, be- 
 tween which and other Governments there is no 
 common principle, no common feeling, no com- 
 mon sympathy ; they may combine for their 
 own interests ; they may enter into concert for 
 your destruction ; they will not be so ready to 
 combine with you either to promote your in- 
 terests, or interests common to you and them. 
 You propose a concert with crowned heads I 
 They never concert with themselves, but broils, 
 and quarrels, and wars, follow in the train. 
 History is full of them ; and, if entangling con- 
 nections, sir, between monarchs, who wield the 
 sword and the purse, who make peace and war 
 at their will, be fruitful of these mischiefs, wha* 
 may we not expect when you enter the lists with 
 out the means of doing what you engage to do f
 
 16 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 African Slave Trade. 
 
 [JANUARY, 1818. 
 
 Mr. MOKRILL said, that with peculiar emo- 
 tious, he asked the attention of the Senate to a 
 few remarks on this subject. It was with ex- 
 treme diffidence he rose to address the Senate 
 on this occasion. I am not insensible, said he, of 
 the extent of the field on which I enter, nor of 
 my inability to explore it. A subject, sir, co- 
 extensive with the world, in which this exten- 
 sive Republic have an interest, and on which, 
 by their delegated Representatives, they may 
 express an opinion whether they will "use 
 their best endeavors " to effect a complete abo- 
 lition of the slave trade. Sir, upon this it 
 seems there can be but one opinion. 
 
 Coming from New England, where slavery is 
 unknown, my prejudices may be strong, my 
 views enthusiastic ; but, sir, allow me to be 
 honest, believe me sincere, permit me to be 
 plain. In New England we believe " all men 
 are born equally free and independent" thus 
 commences our "Bill of Rights." Whatever 
 their color, powers of mind, property, or rank 
 in society, they are freemen citizens, not 
 slaves. They have a claim to that freedom in 
 this asylum of liberty. These sentiments, sir, 
 commenced with my existence ; advanced with 
 my youth ; were strengthened with my man- 
 hood ; and are confirmed with my age. They 
 are not only mine, but universally the senti- 
 ments of those whose confidence and affection 
 have exalted me to this honorable station. 
 Shall I not speak their sentiments on this occa- 
 sion ? Shall I not desire the termination of sla- 
 very ? It is a duty, sir, I owe to myself, my 
 country, and my God. That respectable section 
 of the nation which I have the honor to repre- 
 sent, has a right to demand it at my hand. 
 
 When I examine this resolution, sir, I am un- 
 able to discover why any objection should be 
 made. In passing it, we do not say we believe 
 it is expedient to amend " the laws of the Unit- 
 ed States on the subject of the African slave 
 trade;" nor that we will enter into any "con- 
 cert with other nations for its entire abolition." 
 But, sir, we say, we are willing to instruct a 
 respectable committee to examine those objects, 
 in all their parts and bearings, as to the expe- 
 diency of the objects suggested, and report to 
 the Senate, which report will then be under the 
 perfect control of this body. The Senate may 
 then approve or disapprove, as its wisdom may 
 dictate. Where then is the difficulty? For 
 myself, sir, I am in favor of the resolution. 
 Permit me to assign a few reasons. It is found- 
 ed, in part, on an article of the Treaty of Ghent. 
 The words are as follows : " Whereas, the traf- 
 fic in slaves is inconsistent with the principles 
 of humanity and justice ; and whereas, both 
 His Majesty and the United States are desirous 
 of continuing their efforts to promote its entire 
 abolition, it is hereby agreed, that both the con- 
 tracting parties shall use their best endeavors 
 to accomplish so desirable an object." In this, 
 sir, there is nothing very specific, as to the 
 manner in which their desires shall be mani- 
 fested. But the contracting parties view " the 
 
 traffic in slaves inconsistent with the principles 
 of humanity and justice," and, therefore, agree 
 to use "their best endeavors," to effect its abo- 
 lition. How this is to be accomplished, is an- 
 other point. They may have different views, 
 and, consequently, each may pursue a different 
 course. Therefore, sir, I am perfectly willing 
 to submit the subject to the investigation of the 
 committee, that they may report thereon. 
 
 The abolition of slavery was contemplated by 
 the framers of our constitution. Sec. 9 " The 
 migration or importation of such persons as any 
 of the States now existing shall think proper to 
 admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress 
 prior to the year 1808." Here, sir, we see 
 those venerable sages prospectively viewed the 
 period in which we live, when Congress should 
 manifest a disposition to abolish the slave trade. 
 Wise provision ! a duty negatively expressed. 
 A provision, sir, which has given rise to a dis- 
 position that pervades the United States, to 
 pursue and accomplish the benevolent object. 
 Nay, sir, it is not confined to the United States ; 
 it extends to almost every civilized nation on 
 the globe. A spirit of philanthropy glows in. 
 the human breast. Spain and Portugal are the 
 only nations now averse to the object. The 
 views of Spain, in all probability, will soon ac- 
 cord with those of other nations. Then Portu- 
 gal will be the solitary kingdom whose voice 
 and arm are not raised against this inhuman 
 traffic. Let us proclaim, sir, that these sable 
 mortals have a claim upon our philanthropy and 
 our benevolence. 
 
 I am in favor of the resolution, sir, because 
 its object comports with the dictates of reason 
 and humanity. Though black, they are human 
 beings, in human shape. That is not their 
 crime, but their misfortune. We then ought to 
 commiserate, not enslave them. Let exertions 
 be made to raise them from their present state 
 of degradation ; assist in the mighty work. 
 Every human affection recoils at their bondage. 
 May every benevolent heart beat high for their 
 freedom, and every human arm be extended for 
 their emancipation. It is a cause, sir, in which 
 the world is engaged. As it was commenced 
 by the United States, let them continue their 
 efforts ; let Congress say, with all civilized na- 
 tions, they will joyfully bear a part to accom- 
 plish an object so desirable, so humane. 
 
 But, sir, I am in favor of the resolution in a 
 political point of view. Carry the great design 
 into effect, and you place those forlorn objects 
 within the reach of political and moral instruc- 
 tion. The basis on which every good Govern- 
 ment most firmly stands, is knowledge and vir- 
 tue. Diffuse and extend these sacred principles, 
 and you enlarge the basis on which your Gov- 
 ernment is built ; and, in the same proportion, 
 you carry the principles of liberty and the rights 
 of man to those who grope in darkness, and aid 
 in the emancipation of those who are bound in 
 the chains of despotism. Virtue and knowledge, 
 sir, are the firm foundation on which this 
 mighty Republic is erected ; on which it rises.
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 17 
 
 JANUARY, 1818.] 
 
 African Slave Trade. 
 
 [SENATE. 
 
 and on which it will continue to rise, so long as 
 those divine principles are nourished, univer 
 sally diffused, and practised. This is what as- 
 tonishes foreigners when they tread American 
 ground. All classes of society can read and 
 write, can name and give the characters of our 
 rulers, the principles of our constitution, the 
 genius of our Government, and the nature of 
 our laws. This was the reason, sir, France 
 could not maintain a Republican Government. 
 Knowledge and Virtue were not sufficiently 
 diffused through the nation. It was not on ac- 
 count of the extent of her territory, nor the 
 number of her citizens. Monarchy and general 
 ignorance go hand in hand. Despotism and 
 slavery are always companions. This, sir, ac- 
 counts for the protracted struggle in South 
 America. They have physical strength and 
 the means, but not knowledge and skill, to con- 
 centrate their exertions to the best advantage. 
 Did they possess the general information en- 
 joyed in the United States, their independence 
 would be as certain as the rising snn. 
 
 Mr. President, I am in favor of the resolu- 
 tion in a moral point of view. We, sir, are a 
 Christian nation. The Bible is our moral guide. 
 Are not its principles sacred, its precepts salu- 
 tary, and its commands obligatory ? Have not 
 the frowns of indignant Heaven, and the 
 threatenings of Jehovah, rested on nations and 
 cities for their ingratitude to their fellow mor- 
 tals ? Babylon Babylon the great has fallen ! 
 What has brought her down? The scene is 
 viewed in prospect. " The merchants of the 
 earth shall weep and mourn over her." In 
 what did her commerce consist ? " In gold, and 
 silver, and precious stones, and pearls, and cha- 
 riots, and slaves, and the souls of men. 1 " Ah, 
 Mr. President, this was the climax of their 
 abominations! They had a traffic in slaves 
 and the souls of men. This brought down the 
 judgments of Heaven. That they may be 
 averted from the world, let the inhuman traffic 
 be abolished to the end of the earth. 
 
 Mr. KING observed that the motion was to in- 
 struct a committee to inquire whether further 
 measures can be devised, in concert with other 
 powers, to put an end to the traffic in slaves on 
 the coast of Africa. The debate, said Mr. K, 
 has taken a wider range than from the definite 
 object of the motion could have been anticipat- 
 ed. The advantages or disadvantages of alli- 
 ances offensive and defensive, and the policy or 
 impolicy of such treaties, as, with the view of ac- 
 quiring some complicated though important po- 
 litical advantage, pledge the wealth and strength 
 of the United States, are questions of most 
 weighty importance ; the discussion of which, 
 however, is not requisite in debating the motion 
 before the Senate. The concert which is allud- 
 ed to in the motion, is not the union of arms, 
 but of opinion, of example, and of influence, for 
 the purpose of prevailing on Spain and Portu- 
 gal to accede to the compact already formed 
 among the nations, to put an end to the African 
 slave trade. Equally uncalled for on this occa- 
 VOL. VL 2 
 
 sion, and more to be regretted, is a discussion 
 of the justice and policy of permitting the exist- 
 ence of slavery. This topic is one, said Mr. K, 
 that, from obvious considerations, has at all 
 tunes been alluded to, even in the Senate, with 
 great reserve ; and, at this time, is without ap- 
 plication to the motion under consideration, 
 since not only no Senator approves of the traf- 
 fic, the abolition of which is desired, but the 
 whole Senate condemn it, and the United States 
 were the first among the nations who restrained 
 their people from engaging in it 
 
 By the Treaty of Ghent, the United States 
 stipulated with Great Britain to use their best 
 endeavors to effect the complete abolition of 
 the traffic in slaves on the coast of Africa. If 
 a committee be appointed, they will inquire 
 what has been done in pursuance of this engage- 
 ment ; they will moreover consider what re- 
 mains to be done, and whether any measures of 
 concert with other powers, or otherwise, may 
 be calculated to promote the laudable object of 
 this stipulation. The United States have Min- 
 isters not only in England, Spain, and the Bra- 
 zils, but likewise in Russia, France, the Nether- 
 lands, and Sweden. These Ministers may be 
 reminded of the very great interest which the 
 United States take in the universal abolition of 
 the African slave trade ; they may be instructed, 
 if they are not so already, to avail themselves, 
 on every occasion, to promote this object ; and 
 the concurring representations and influence of 
 many may accomplish what their separate en- 
 deavors have hitherto failed to effect. A long 
 depending negotiation with Spam still exists. 
 If we could prevail on Spain to add to the trea- 
 ty settling our just claims, an article whereby 
 she should engage herself to abolish the African 
 slave trade, and to co-operate with us in en- 
 deavoring to prevail on Portugal also to abolish 
 the same, such an article would enhance the 
 
 alue of the treaty in the opinion of the Amer- 
 ican people, and would not fail to obtain the 
 applause of foreign nations. The object of the 
 motion being of such great importance, the Sen- 
 ate should neglect no opportunity of manifesting 
 their solicitude for its accomplishment; and the 
 inquiry which is proposed may fortunately dis- 
 cover that there are means still in our power, 
 which have not yet been employed in this mer- 
 itorious service. 
 
 But it is objected, that this business belongs 
 exclusively to the President ; and, admitting its 
 importance, and the expediency of further exer- 
 tions, that the Senate have nothing to do or say 
 respecting the same. This objection appears to 
 be of most serious import, as it goes to restrain 
 and limit what is deemed to be the constitution- 
 al power of the Senate. There is some embar- 
 rassment in the examination of this objection, 
 and it cannot be fully and satisfactorily done, 
 without adverting to the proceedings of the Sen- 
 ate, in its executive capacity ; proceedings which 
 take place with closed doors, and the journal 
 whereof is not published. The observations on 
 this head will, therefore, be of a general nature,
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 African Slave Trade. 
 
 [JANUARY, 1818. 
 
 Without adverting to the several branches of 
 the executive power, for the purpose of distin- 
 guishing the cases in which it is exclusively 
 vested in the President, from those in which it 
 is vested in him jointly with the Senate, it will 
 suffice on this occasion to observe that, in re- 
 
 clusive binding power, except that of receiving 
 the Ambassadors and other foreign Ministers, 
 which, as it involves the decision of the compe- 
 tence of the power which sends them, may be 
 an act of this character; to the validity of all 
 other definitive proceedings in the management 
 of the foreign affairs, the constitutional advice 
 and consent of the Senate are indispensable. 
 
 In these concerns the Senate are the constitu- 
 tional and the only responsible counsellors of 
 the President. And in this capacity the Senate 
 may, and ought to, look into and watch over 
 every branch of the foreign affairs of the nation ; 
 they may, therefore, at any time call for full and 
 exact information respecting the foreign affairs, 
 and express their opinion and advice to the 
 President respecting the same, when, and under 
 whatever other circumstances, they may think 
 such advice expedient. 
 
 There is a peculiar jealousy manifested in the 
 constitution concerning the power which shall 
 manage the foreign affairs, and make treaties 
 with foreign nations. Hence the provision 
 which requires the consent of two-thirds of the 
 Senators to confirm any compact with a foreign 
 nation that shall bind the United States ; thus 
 putting it in the power of a minority of the Sen- 
 ators, or States, to control the President and a 
 majority of the Senate : a check on the Execu- 
 tive power to be found in no other case. 
 
 To make a treaty includes all the proceedings 
 by which it is made ; and the advice and con- 
 sent of the Senate being necessary in the making 
 of treaties, must necessarily be so, touching the 
 measures employed in making the same. The 
 constitution does not say that treaties shall be 
 concluded, but that they shall be made, by and 
 with the advice and consent of the Senate : none 
 therefore can be made without, such advice and 
 consent ; and the objections against the agency 
 of the Senate in making treaties, or in advising 
 the President to make the same, cannot be sus- 
 tained but by giving to the constitution an in- 
 terpretation different from its obvious and most 
 salutary meaning. 
 
 To support the objection, this gloss must be 
 given to the constitution, "that the President 
 shall make treaties, and by and with the advice 
 and consent of the Senate ratify the same." 
 That this is, or could have been intended to be 
 the interpretation of the constitution, one ob- 
 servation will disprove. If the President alone 
 has power to make a treaty, and the same be 
 made pursuant to the powers and instructions 
 given to his Minister, its ratification follows as a 
 matter of course, and to refuse the same would 
 be a violation of good faith ; to call in the Sen- 
 ate to deliberate, to advise, and to consent to an 
 act which it would be binding on them to ap- 
 
 prove and ratify, will, it is presumed, be deem- 
 ed too trivial to satisfy the extraordinary pro- 
 vision of the constitution that has been cited. 
 On the whole, there appearing to be no suffi- 
 cient impediment in the way of the proposed 
 inquiry, either as respects its expediency or the 
 authority of the Senate to institute the same, I 
 am in hopes that the motion to refer the subject 
 to a committee will prevail. 
 
 Mr. LACOOK said the resolution before the Sen- 
 ate contained two separate and distinct proposi- 
 tions ; the first was the amendment of the laws 
 that prohibited the introduction of slaves into the 
 United States : on this subject there existed no 
 difference of opinion all agreed an end should 
 be put to this abominable traffic. If the present 
 statutory provisions were not so formed as to ef- 
 fect this object, they certainly required amend- 
 ment ; and no objection could be made to the in- 
 Siiry, as this was a legitimate object of legislation, 
 ut, said Mr. L., the other branch of the inquiry 
 is of a very different character; it proposes to 
 inquire into the best manner of executing an ar- 
 ticle of the treaty of Ghent. The stipulations 
 of this article are, that the contracting parties, 
 the United States and Great Britain, should use 
 their endeavors to put an end to the slave trade. 
 But could this agreement be carried into effect 
 by law ? Did it furnish a subject of legislation ? 
 Laws were made to operate on the people of 
 the United States, and within their jurisdiction, 
 not to effect an arrangement with foreign Gov- 
 ernments. This could only be done by treaty ; 
 and surely, said Mr. L., the initiatory steps in 
 making treaties should be left with the Execu- 
 tive. But it has been urged by gentlemen in fa- 
 vor of this proposition, that the Senate can act on 
 this subject by virtue of the constitutional power 
 of this body to interpose their advice and consent 
 in making treaties. This argument cannot avail 
 them ; for, if we claim the power, and exercise 
 it, as a part of our executive duties, why is this 
 discussion, on the subject of a treaty, had with 
 open doors ? Has this ever been the practice of 
 the Government ? The Ministers of those Gov- 
 ernments who admit and carry on the slave 
 trade, are accredited by our Government are 
 on the spot, for aught I know, in the lobby or 
 gallery, while we are discussing the propriety 
 of putting a stop to their traffic in slaves. That 
 this branch of the subject is improper for pub- 
 lic discussion, is admitted by the gentleman 
 from New York, (Mr. KING,) who has told you 
 he felt embarrassed by this public discussion ; 
 that he is restrained by his situation from mak- 
 ing observations that he otherwise would feel 
 authorized to make. This concession on his 
 part should convince every one that the pro- 
 ceedings are irregular. While we are thus 
 openly debating the subject, for aught we know, 
 the President is negotiating with other powers 
 to effectuate the object we have in view. He 
 is bound, by the constitution, to see the laws 
 faithfully executed. The Treaty of Ghent ^ has 
 become the supreme law of the land, and it is 
 unfair to presume that the President has neg.
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 19 
 
 JAXCABY, 1818.] 
 
 Amelia Island. 
 
 lected his duty. In short, said Mr. L., if we 
 are anxious to have this subject pressed on the 
 Executive, let us close our doors, as in other 
 cases, and make a call on him for information ; 
 we shall then he put in possession of the facts 
 officially ; we shall know what steps, if any, 
 have been taken, in concert with Great Brit- 
 ain, to put an end to the traffic we all abhor. 
 
 The question was then taken on the motion 
 to strike out the latter clause of the resolution, 
 and decided, yeas 16, nays 17, as follows: 
 
 YEAS. Messrs. Barbonr, Campbell, Eppes ,Fro- 
 mentin, Gaillard, Lacock, Macon, Sanford, Smith, 
 Stokes, Storer, Tait, Talbot, Taylor, Troup, and Wil- 
 son. 
 
 NATS. Messrs. Ashmtm, Burrill, Crittenden, Dag- 
 gett, Dickerson, Fisk, Goldsborougti, Horsey, Hunter, 
 King, Leake, Merrill, Morrow, Noble, Ruggles, Tich- 
 enor, and Van Dyke. 
 
 And on the question to agree to the motion 
 as originally submitted, it was determined in the 
 affirmative. 
 
 So it was Resolved, That the committee to 
 whom was referred the petition of the commit- 
 tee of the yearly meeting of the Society of 
 Friends at Baltimore, be instructed to inquire 
 into the expediency of so amending the laws of 
 the United States on the subject of the African 
 slave trade, as more effectually to prevent said 
 trade from being carried on by citizens of the 
 United States under foreign flags, and also into 
 the expediency of the United States taking 
 measures, in concert with other nations, for the 
 entire abolition of said trade. 
 
 WEDNESDAY, January 4. 
 Amelia Island. 
 
 The following Message was received yester- 
 day, from the PBESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
 STATES : 
 To the Senate and House of 
 
 Representatives of the United States : 
 
 I have tbe satisfaction to inform Congress, that the 
 establishment at Amelia Island has been suppressed, 
 and without the effusion of blood. The papers which 
 explain this transaction, I now lay before Congress. 
 
 By the suppression of this establishment and of 
 that at Galveztown, which will soon follow, if it has 
 not already ceased to exist, there is good cause to be- 
 lieve that the consummation of a project fraught with 
 much injury to the United States has been prevented. 
 When we consider the persons engaged in it, being 
 adventurers from different countries, with very few, 
 if any, of the native inhabitants of the Spanish colo- 
 nies, the territory on which the establishments were 
 made ; one on a portion of that claimed by the Unit- 
 ed States, westward of the Mississippi, the other on a 
 part of East Florida, a province in negotiation between 
 I the United States and Spain the claim of their lead- 
 er as announced by his proclamation on taking pos- 
 session of Amelia Island ; comprising the whole of 
 both the Floridas, without excepting that part of 
 West Florida which is incorporated into the State of 
 Louisiana their conduct while in the possession of 
 the island, making it instrumental to every species of 
 contraband, and in regard to slaves of the most odious 
 
 and dangerous character, it may fairly be concluded, 
 that if the enterprise had succeeded on the scale on 
 which it was formed, much annoyance and injury 
 would have resulted from it to the United States. 
 
 Other circumstances were thought to be no less 
 deserving of attention. The institution of a Govern- 
 ment by foreign adventurers in the island, distinct 
 from the colonial government of Buenos Ayres, Vene- 
 zuela, or Mexico, pretending to sovereignty, and ex- 
 ercising its highest offices, particularly in granting 
 commissions to privateers, were acts which could not 
 fail to draw after them the most serious consequences. 
 It was the duty of the Executive either to extend to 
 this establishment all the advantages of that neutrali- 
 ty which the United States had proclaimed, and have 
 observed in favor of the colonies of Spain, who by 
 the strength of their own population and resources, 
 had declared their independence, and were affording 
 strong proof of their ability to maintain it, or of mak- 
 ing the discrimination which circumstances required. 
 Had the first course been pursued, we should not only 
 have sanctioned all the unlawful claims and practices 
 of this pretended government in regard to the United 
 States, but have countenanced a system of privateer- 
 ing in the Gulf of Mexico, and elsewhere, the iH 
 effects of which might, and probably would have been 
 deeply and very extensively felt. The path of duty 
 was plain from the commencement, but it was pain- 
 ful to enter upon it while the obligation could be 
 resisted. The law of 1811, lately published, and 
 which it is therefore proper now to mention, was 
 considered applicable to the case, from the moment 
 that the proclamation of the chief of the enterprise 
 was seen, and its obligation was daily increased by 
 other considerations of high importance already men- 
 tioned, which were deemed sufficiently strong in 
 themselves to dictate the course which has been pur- 
 sued. 
 
 Early intimation having been received of the dan- 
 gerous purposes of these adventurers, timely precau- 
 tions were taken by the establishment of a force near 
 the St. Mary's to prevent their effect, or it ia proba- 
 ble that it would have been more sensibly felt 
 
 To such establishments, made so near to our set- 
 tlements, in the expectation of deriving aid from 
 them, it is particularly gratifying to find that very 
 little encouragement was given. 
 
 The example so conspicuously displayed by our 
 fellow-citizens, that their sympathies cannot be per- 
 verted to improper purposes, but that a love of conn- 
 try, the influence of moral principles, and a respect 
 for the laws, are predominant with them, is a sure 
 pledge, that all the very flattering anticipations which 
 have been formed of the success of our institutions 
 will be realized This example has proved, that if 
 our relations with foreign powers are to be changed, 
 it must be done by the constituted authorities, who, 
 alone, acting on a high responsibility, are competent 
 to the purpose ; and until such change is thus made, 
 that our fellow-citizens will respect the existing rela- 
 tions by a faithful adherence to the laws which se- 
 cure them. 
 
 Believing that this enterprise, though undertaken 
 by persons, some of whom may have held commis- 
 sions from some of the colonies, was unauthorized by, 
 and unknown to, the colonial governments, full confi- 
 dence is entertained, that it will be disclaimed by 
 them, and that effectual measures will be taken to 
 prevent the abuse of their authority in all cases to 
 the injury of the United States. 
 
 For these injuries, especially those proceeding from
 
 20 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SEMATE.J 
 
 Surviving Officers of the Revolution. 
 
 [JANUAEY, 1818 
 
 Amelia Island, Spain would be responsible, if it was 
 not manifest that, though committed in the latter in- 
 stance through her territory, she was utterly unable 
 to prevent them. Her territory, however, ought not 
 to be made instrumental, through her inability to 
 defend it, to purposes so injurious to the United 
 States. To a country over which she fails to main- 
 tain her authority, and which she permits to be con- 
 verted to the annoyance of her neighbors, her juris- 
 diction for the time necessarily ceases to exist. The 
 territory of Spain will nevertheless be respected, so 
 far as it may be done consistently with the essential 
 interests and safety of the United States. In expel- 
 ling these adventurers from these posts, it was not 
 intended to make any conquest from Spam, or to in- 
 jure in any degree the cause of the colonies. Care 
 will be taken that no part of the territory contem- 
 plated by the law of 1811 shall be occupied by a 
 foreign government of any kind, or that injuries of 
 the nature of those complained of, shall be repeated, 
 but this, it is expected, will be provided for, with 
 every other interest, in a spirit of amity, in the ne- 
 gotiation now depending with the Government of 
 Spain JAMES MONROE. 
 
 The Message and accompanying documents 
 were read. 
 
 THURSDAY, January 29. 
 Surviving Officers of the Revolution. 
 
 The Senate resumed, as in Committee of the 
 Whole, the consideration of the bill, entitled 
 " An act to provide for certain officers and sol- 
 diers of the Revolutionary army," together with 
 the amendments reported thereto by the Com- 
 mittee on Military Affairs. 
 
 Mr. KING took a comprehensive view of the 
 principal features of the bill, stated his objec- 
 tions to the provision it proposed for seamen, 
 militia, &c., and concluded by moving that the 
 bill be recommitted, and the committee instruct- 
 ed to amend the same, so as to confine its pro- 
 visions to a grant of half pay for life to the sur- 
 viving officers of the Revolutionary army on 
 the continental establishment, who served for 
 three years, or until the end of the war, includ- 
 ing those who were entitled, under any resolve 
 of Congress, to half pay for life ; the half pay so 
 to be granted, to be ascertained by the rank 
 according to which the accounts of the respec- 
 tive officers were finally settled. 
 
 Mr. BAEBOUE followed, and, after arguing at 
 some length to show the impossibility of provid- 
 ing for all included in the bill, and the imprac- 
 ticability of discriminating bet ween the different 
 classes provided for, moved an indefinite post- 
 ponement of the bill. 
 
 Mr. SMITH said, that, during the discussion of 
 this question, the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. 
 BABBOTJB,) and the gentleman from Massachu- 
 setts, (Mr. OTIS,) had contended for the first 
 honors of the Kevolution, in the acts of the rival 
 compatriots, Mr. Henry and Mr. Adams. Mr. 
 S. said, if South Carolina could not boast of 
 having been first in the Revolution, he could 
 confidently say she was not the least, nor yet 
 the last. She had performed her ample share. 
 
 But, if he was to decide to whom the first 
 honor was due, he would say to that band of 
 patriots, who, regardless of the consequences, 
 entered the British ships in Boston harbor and 
 threw the tea overboard. This was the first 
 efficient operation, and posterity would look 
 back upon it with grateful recollection. 
 
 Mr. S. said he was well aware of the disad- 
 vantages under which he should address the Sen- 
 ate, on the merits of the bill, and the amend- 
 ment offered by the gentleman from New York, 
 (Mr. KING ;) as what he should urge, he plainly 
 perceived, would be in direct opposition to the 
 general sentiment that prevailed in the House, 
 as he was decidedly opposed to the general 
 principles of the bill, as well as to the amend- 
 ment. If either ought to prevail, he would 
 prefer the bill. The amendment, he thought, 
 was entirely inadmissible. It had for its object 
 a special provision for the officers of the Revo- 
 lutionary army, in the continental line, to the 
 utter exclusion, not only of the soldiers of the 
 army, but of the militia of every description ; 
 many of whom bore a distinguished part in the 
 contest for the independence of this nation. 
 The bill, as it came from the House of Repre- 
 sentatives, was more liberal ; it makes provision 
 for the soldiers as well as officers ; although it 
 makes no provision for the militia, the bulwark 
 of the nation. It also provides for the distressed 
 seamen and marines of the Revolution. But, 
 says the gentleman who offers this amendment, 
 the seamen and marines, as well as their officers, 
 were well provided for ; they were entitled to 
 the prize money. The naval force of the Unit- 
 ed States, at that tune, was very inconsiderable. 
 It consisted of two or three frigates, a few 
 sloops, and a few privateers, which had to con- 
 tend with one of the greatest maritime powers 
 in the world. The consequence of which was, 
 instead of enriching themselves, most of them 
 fell into the hands of the enemy, who threw 
 them into prison-ships and dungeons, where 
 many of them lingered out a miserable life, and 
 perished. And such as did survive, with a few 
 accidental exceptions, were left poor. 
 
 We are told we cannot provide for all, as the 
 state of the Treasury will not admit of it ; and 
 the officers are to be selected as the only ob- 
 jects of the public bounty. And we are told as 
 a reason for this preference, that something is 
 due to the rank they hold in society, and that 
 some distinction must be made between men. 
 This is a language not known to our constitu- 
 tion. It may do in private life, if a man is dis- 
 posed to select his society ; but, when we are 
 called upon to legislate on the subject, we ought 
 to know of -no distinction. It is repugnant to 
 the principles of our Government, and at war 
 with good sense and public justice. 
 
 What is the object of this provision ? Why, 
 it is said, to relieve the indigent and necessitous ; 
 and our benevolence, our sympathies, and our 
 gratitude, are called upon to prompt us to this 
 duty. This is a strange sort of reasoning. Be- 
 nevolence, sympathy, and gratitude, can draw
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 21 
 
 JANUARY, 1818.] 
 
 Surviving Officers of the Revolution. 
 
 [Sou 
 
 no line between the officer and the soldier, when 
 both have served their country, and both are 
 indigent. The tide of pity swells as high for 
 the sufferings of the indigent and necessitous 
 soldier, as it can do for the indigent and neces- 
 sitous officer, if we are really governed by pity. 
 The morsel you intend to bestow will be as 
 sweet to the one as it is to the other. Several 
 gentlemen have told us we must wait, and feel 
 our way ; and if, in future, we should find we 
 are able, then the soldiers might be provided 
 for. If the principle is correct, and the claim 
 is a just one, why not provide for both at the 
 same time ? This procrastinating, timid policy, 
 which so lately brought this country to the 
 brink of ruin, and from which you were roused 
 by the people, is not so well suited to their ge- 
 nius. They are more magnanimous; and if 
 there exists a debt of justice, or even a debt of 
 gratitude, which their country is bound to dis- 
 charge, they will submit to be taxed to enable 
 the Government to pay it. The Government 
 is now one hundred millions in debt, and be- 
 cause there is a little money in the Treasury 
 not immediately wanted, we are endeavoring to 
 establish a pension system to get rid of it, and 
 pave the way, when our debts become due, for 
 laying another tax in the place of the one you 
 have just repealed. Mr. S. was in favor of re- 
 pealing the internal taxes. It was right to do 
 so. But can we believe the public mind is pre- 
 pared to pay a tax to maintain a pension sys- 
 tem, because it is said that those officers cannot 
 submit to any industrious pursuits for a living? 
 There are thousands of poor who are unable to 
 work, that demand your attention in an equal 
 degree. And are you prepared to put all your 
 poor on the pension list ? 
 
 It is said this is a just debt ; that, under the 
 confederated Government, Congress had en- 
 gaged to make these officers half-pay for life ; 
 which they were induced to commute for five 
 years' full pay ; and that this five years' full pay 
 was discharged in certificates, which fell a prey 
 to speculation ; and the Government ought to 
 pay them over again. As respects those Revo- 
 lutionary officers, the Government has acted 
 with perfect good faith. It performed with 
 fidelity all its engagements, as far as it had ever 
 promised, or as far as any hope or expectation 
 had been raised or excited, and that at the ear- 
 liest possible period within its power, after the 
 conclusion of peace. It is well known that the 
 United States had not the means of paying its 
 army immediately at the close of a seven years' 
 war, in gold or silver. But it is as well known 
 that they did not pay that army in depreciated 
 Continental money. That had gone to oblivion 
 in the hands of those who had given support to 
 the army. Their full pay for real service per- 
 formed, as well as for five years' full pay after 
 their service terminated, was liquidated and 
 settled at the specie standard ; and Government 
 certificates given, which bore interest from the 
 date ; and the faith of the nation was most sol- 
 emnly pledged to redeem them. 
 
 With this view the Government, among its 
 earliest acts after the adoption of the Federal 
 Constitution, established the funding system; 
 and these very certificates were worth twenty- 
 six shillings in the pound, and at that price this 
 nation redeemed them. If there was a specula- 
 tion, the Government had no hand in it. On 
 the contrary, whilst it suffered every other spe- 
 cies of public security to perish in the hands of 
 the meritorious holder, it gave a distinguished 
 sanction to these claims, and paid them with 
 scrupulous punctuality. No speculations took 
 place as regarded these certificates until after 
 the funding system was established. These 
 officers were then apprised of their rights, and 
 if they did not think fit to protect them, the 
 Government could not be blamed. Specula- 
 tions did run high at that time, but the officers 
 were not the victims of it ; the soldiers were 
 the persons who fell a sacrifice to its ravages. 
 Many of these officers are honorable men, and 
 stand superior to any such charge ; yet it is a 
 fact not to be denied, that many of them en- 
 riched themselves by speculating, in their turn, 
 on the poor soldiers, in buying then- certificates 
 and land warrants at very reduced prices. It 
 was not in the power of the Government, nor 
 was it the duty of Government, to guard against 
 the speculations that succeeded. It is a mon- 
 ster that pervades every quarter, and almost 
 every department, and if it was the duty of 
 Government to repair its ravages, the treasures 
 of Peru would not be adequate to the de- 
 mand. 
 
 But, Mr. S. said, upon the most mature con- 
 sideration, he was opposed to both the bill and 
 amendment in any form in which they could 
 be presented. Because he believed no particu- 
 lar merit could be ascribed to any particular 
 portion of the people of the United States, for 
 services rendered during the Revolutionary 
 war, in exclusion of any other portion who 
 espoused that cause. It was as essential, and 
 as indispensable, to the support and mainte- 
 nance of that war, that many of your citizens 
 should have been engaged in other spheres, and 
 employed in other occupations, as it was that 
 you should have had an army to fight your bat- 
 tles. And one could have been as well dis- 
 pensed with as the other. This was not a war 
 carried on in yoor enemy's country, nor were 
 those officers and soldiers sent from home into 
 a foreign country, where they alone were forced 
 to fight your battles, and undergo the toils of 
 war, without any regard. But this was a war 
 
 of a very different character. This was a war 
 brought by the enemy into your own country ; 
 a war brought to every man's door, and in 
 which every man was obliged to take an active 
 part in some shape or other. Yet every man 
 could not be in the army. This was a war of 
 a different character from all other wars. It 
 was a war for liberty and independence, in 
 which every soul was engaged, and in which 
 every one contributed, by every means in his 
 power, or your independence would have failed,
 
 22 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 Surviving Officers of the Revolution. 
 
 [JANUABY, 1818. 
 
 even if your army had been five times as strong 
 as it was. 
 
 This was not a mercenary army ; not one offi- 
 cer was there for the sake of money ; but to do 
 his duty. And it is to be recollected, on this 
 occasion, as in the late war, there was a great 
 solicitude for commissions. It was not only the 
 post of honor, but often a place of safety. Other 
 portions of your citizens were active in the pub- 
 lic councils, without whose bold and high-toned 
 measures, taken at the hazard of their lives and 
 fortunes, your army would have sunk into in- 
 significance. Whilst others, from a pure love 
 for their country, fed and clothed your armies, 
 supplied them with wagons and horses, and 
 every thing else which they could furnish for 
 its use, without any compensation. By their 
 means, and by their means alone, you were en- 
 abled to carry on a seven years' war, without 
 money or credit; a thing unparalleled in the 
 history of any other nation upon earth. They 
 had the ostentatious show of being paid for it 
 in Continental money ; which feh 1 dead in their 
 hands, without a single effort on the part of the 
 Government to redeem it. By your Continen- 
 tal money, thousands of the most devoted friends 
 of the Kevolution, who lived in affluence and 
 comfort, sunk their whole fortunes in its cause, 
 and are now living in penury and want, with 
 no other consolation than that of dying poor in 
 the cause of their country. They yielded to 
 their misfortunes without a murmur, believing 
 that all were bound to give their aid, and satis- 
 fied they had given their full portion. And, 
 because they were not in the Continental army, 
 they have no credit for all those sacrifices. Of 
 what use could an army have been, if this aid 
 had not been afforded, and in this particular 
 way ? for you had no other possible means of 
 subsisting it. This was the very life and soul 
 of the army, and the very life and soul of the 
 cause in which they were employed. Without 
 it your army could have done nothing, and you 
 would yet have been under the British Govern- 
 ment. It is a maxim brought from another 
 science, which applies as well to governments 
 as to individuals, that you ought to be just be- 
 fore you are liberal. Before you speak of lib- 
 erality to the Continental officers, redeem your 
 Continental money, and relieve that numerous 
 class of men, widows, and orphans, on whom it 
 has entailed so much misery and poverty. They 
 have a strong claim upon your liberality, your 
 gratitude, and your justice, although they do 
 not assemble around you, in this Hall, as Belisa- 
 rius, who is presented in your lobby, leaning on 
 his staff, at the moment this subject is called 
 up, as if your cool and impartial judgment stood 
 in need of this artificial aid. 
 
 Several gentlemen have, with much confi- 
 dence, asserted that we are exclusively indebted 
 to the Continental army ; that the civil and re- 
 ligious liberty we so pre-eminently enjoy, are 
 the fruits of their toils. Mr. S. said he was 
 sensible of the great merit of that army, and 
 believed they had done a great deal in the 
 
 cause of liberty ; yet, he had no hesitation in 
 declaring, that they had not done more than 
 they ought to have done ; nor had they done 
 more than fell to the lot of every American de- 
 voted to his country. That army did not meet 
 the common foe, and repel him from your bor- 
 ders with its single arm, and leave all the rest 
 of the community at ease and security under its 
 protecting banners. Gentlemen who believe so, 
 if there are any such, know but little of the char- 
 acter of the Eevolutionary war, or the manner 
 in which it was carried on, in the three Southern 
 States of North and South Carolina, and Georgia. 
 They are perfect strangers to the sufferings and 
 privations, as well as the exertions and patriotism 
 of the people of those States ; not of such as be- 
 longed to the Continental army during their 
 worst times there was no such army there 
 but of the volunteers and patriots, who, inspired 
 with an invincible love of liberty, were deter- 
 mined not to yield. All the Continental army 
 was in the Northern States, even to the troops 
 which had been raised in the Southern States, 
 except a few who were occasionally sent, and 
 who were defeated as soon as they came, and 
 which gave no sort of security to the property, 
 the persons, or the lives of the inhabitants. 
 
 Mr. S. said it was impossible for gentlemen 
 to know the character of that war in the South, 
 unless they had been there to witness it, and he 
 saw but one gentleman in the Senate (Mr. MA- 
 CON of North Carolina) besides himself, who 
 had. All the rest were remote from the scene 
 of action, or had since grown up. So it was in 
 the House of Representatives, where this bill 
 originated. Though much distinguished for their 
 talents and worth, yet most of them also were 
 remote, or have been born since that war com- 
 menced. Its true character can never be learned 
 from history. The historian never has, nor 
 never will, record many of the most striking 
 events, which so much distinguish it from all 
 other wars, and which so distinguished it as 
 carried on in that section. The historian ac- 
 quires his knowledge from sources, in most 
 cases, as uninformed as himself, and often be- 
 stows the laurels on heroes who never fought 
 the battles. He was not himself far enough ad- 
 vanced in life to bear an active part in the 
 operations of the war, but was old enough to 
 observe all the passing events, and had a per- 
 fect recollection of them. 
 
 All the Continental troops sent to the south- 
 ward, previous to 1781, were totally defeated. 
 General Lincoln lost several successive battles, 
 and never gained one, and was, with his whole 
 force, finally taken prisoner. General Gates, 
 who succeeded him, shamefully fled at the fire 
 of the first gun, and left the citizens to the 
 mercy of the enemy. These successive defeats 
 left the country entirely exposed. The British 
 not only supported their whole army for two 
 years, by plundering indiscriminately from all 
 who refused to take protection, their cattle, 
 their hogs, their sheep, their corn, rice, and 
 forage of every kind, but they turned loose the
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 JANUARY, 1818.] 
 
 Surviving Officers of the Revolution. 
 
 [SEXATE. 
 
 savage Indians upon the defenceless frontiers, 
 who butchered them without regard to age or 
 sex. By these disasters, the Tory parties, that 
 everywhere infested the country, became in- 
 creased, and, with a fury more unrelenting, and 
 no less savage than the Indians, plundered, 
 burned, and murdered wherever they went; 
 and the whole country became a perfect scene 
 of internal warfare. They not only stole and 
 
 infantry, under Colonel Tarleton, at the Cow- 
 pens ; and this officer never had been defeated 
 before. 
 
 Can it be said these men owe their inde- 
 pendence to the Continental army, for whom 
 you are now about to provide ? Whether you 
 consider them as patriots, or soldiers, or as 
 sufferers, or conquerors, they are entitled to as 
 distinguished a rank as any portion of the Con- 
 
 plundered to supply the enemy, but wantonly tinental army during the Revolution. "When 
 
 burned and destroyed to distress the country ; 
 they waylaid and murdered the Whigs wherever 
 they found them ; sometimes murdered them 
 amidst their families, with their wives and chil- 
 dren around them, begging in vain for mercy. 
 They burned up their houses and plantations, 
 and with them every thing that could give com- 
 fort or support to the distressed women and 
 children, who were reduced to a morsel of 
 bread, and very often could not get that. The 
 British army pervaded the whole country, and, 
 wherever they went, left destruction in their 
 train. That whole country was a wide waste ; 
 nothing presented itself but ruins, poverty, and 
 distress. The cultivation of the fields, in many 
 places, was left entirely to the women and 
 children. Plundered of every hog, horse, cow, 
 and every thing else for then- support, many 
 mothers and daughters, who had seen better 
 tunes, were obliged to lay down their domestic 
 employments, and go to the fields and work 
 like slaves, without the aid of a horse to plough, 
 to raise a little corn to subsist themselves and 
 their little children ; and very often even this 
 hard-earned morsel was plundered from them, 
 or destroyed by the enemy. This picture may 
 appear to be exaggerated, but there are many 
 who know it to be correct, and who remember 
 it with bitter regret. 
 
 Whilst their women and children were left 
 in this forlorn situation, the men sought their 
 safety by imbodying in such parties as circum- 
 stances would allow. If they could not collect 
 a hundred, they could collect fifty ; if not fifty, 
 twenty, or ten, or five. Armed with their rules, 
 with more than veteran bravery, they hung 
 upon the borders of the British army wherever 
 they went; sometimes firing upon the whole 
 army, or cutting off their foraging parties, and 
 circumscribing their ravages, to their great an- 
 noyance ; and they became the scourge of the 
 Tories in all quarters. This was the foundation 
 of that military force which proved so formida- 
 ble to the British arms, and gave them the first 
 check in the Southern States. After losing all 
 hopes of any relief from the Continental army, 
 they threw themselves under Campbell, Cleve- 
 land, Shelby, Hill, and others, without one 
 Continental officer or soldier among them, and 
 totally defeated Colonel Ferguson, the best par- 
 tisan officer in the British army, at the battle 
 of King's Mountain. It was this character of 
 men, who, under Colonel Pickens, as their 
 commander, composed two-thirds of that infe- 
 rior force, General Morgan's detachment, which 
 completely defeated tie British legions and 
 
 these transactions were fresh, and their impor- 
 tance and worth well understood, there was a 
 public opinion, competent to decide, that did 
 them justice. But, when thirty-six years have 
 elapsed, like every thing else, not performed by 
 great men, they are forgotten. 
 
 Gentlemen have spoken of the militia service 
 as of very little importance during the war; 
 and seem to exclude entirely from any merit 
 all but the Continental army and its officers ; 
 and one gentleman has intimated they could 
 not be trusted as regards their veracity and 
 honor. Who fought your battles, sir, before 
 you had a Continental army? Who fought 
 
 Sjur battles at Lexington, at Concord, and at 
 unker's Hill, at the first dawn of the Revolu- 
 tion, that, like the electric spark, pervaded 
 every rank, and gave a tone to the war that 
 only ended with it? These warriors were your 
 militia, collected upon the spur of the occasion, 
 from their shops, and their domestic and rural 
 pursuits ; and, roused by the eloquent and im- 
 mortal Warren, and his compatriots, they dis- 
 played an intrepidity not surpassed by your 
 Continental army. Who fought and dispersed 
 that numerous and formidable body of Tories, 
 on Cape Fear, in North Carolina, who were 
 corrupting the minds of all around them ? It 
 was the militia, collected upon a single day's 
 notice, who, with their provisions and their 
 blankets on their backs, marched to the scene of 
 action, under General Caswell, with a prompt- 
 ness unknown in any but freemen, and defeated 
 their enemy without the loss of a man, or with- 
 out costing the Government a single farthing, 
 and restored peace and order to that country 
 for a long time after. 
 
 Who defended Charleston on the memorable 
 28th of June, 1775, before you had any Con- 
 tinental army there ? Where the whole British 
 fleet, consisting of two fifty-gun ships, several 
 frigates, and a number of smaller armed vessels, 
 were repelled, and some of them burned. The 
 enemy, after a battle of ten hours, were obliged 
 to retire with great loss on their part, and very 
 little on the part of the Americans. The in- 
 habitants of that city contributed much to' this 
 defence, and, but for General Moultrie, the 
 whole garrison would have been surrendered 
 by General Lee, who was the superior officer, 
 and who, it is to be recollected, was a Con- 
 tinental officer. Who composed the active 
 corps under Sumter, Hampton, and Middleton. 
 Those gallant men were inferior to none, and 
 did more good than all the Continental soldiers 
 you ever had there. Yet there was not a Con-
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 Surviving Officers of the Revolution. 
 
 [JANUART, 1818. 
 
 tinental soldier among them ; nor does one of 
 them come within the provisions of this bill. 
 Marion raised his men within the British lines ; 
 their food was what they could catch, the 
 earth was their bed, and the heavens their 
 covering, and the swamps and marshes were 
 their stronghold. These men were in this 
 service for more than a year; they fought more 
 battles, gained more victories, killed more Brit- 
 ish and Tories, in proportion to their own num- 
 ber, than any other class of men npon the con- 
 tinent ; and gave more relief to the Americans, 
 and more annoyance to the enemy. These 
 brave fellows never cost their country so much 
 as a single charge of powder ; they furnished 
 even their own arms, and they used them like 
 heroes. "These were times that tried men's 
 souls." The Government gave them no pay, 
 and they are excluded from its bounty by the 
 bill before you. These men are not indebted 
 to the Continental army for their independ- 
 ence. 
 
 In the two celebrated battles of Guilford and 
 Eutaw Springs, under General Greene, a con- 
 siderable part of his men were militia. Although 
 there were Continental troops among them that 
 distinguished themselves with great bravery, 
 yet the number was very small ; and the mili- 
 tia, and especially at Eutaw Springs, were not 
 inferior to the Continental troops, and did more 
 service. These were said to be the best fought 
 battles during the war. While these scenes 
 were going on in the Carolinas, Georgia, under 
 Clarke, Williamson, and others, was a perfect 
 scene of bloodshed. Notwithstanding all this, 
 they are called ephemeral, and we are told the 
 militia cannot be relied on either as respects 
 their bravery or their honor. Sir, among these 
 militia, there were men as honorable as ever 
 breathed, and as brave as ever drew a sword. 
 And the Government is as much indebted to 
 them for their bravery, perseverance, and 
 sufferings, and owes them as much protection 
 and support, as any portion of the Continental 
 army. 
 
 The principle of gratitude has been strongly 
 pressed. It is said we are reproached with in- 
 gratitude by the European nations. And what 
 is it they have not said to reproach us ? They 
 have said we are barbarous, savage, and igno- 
 rant; incapable of governing ourselves; that 
 all Republican Governments have fallen ; and 
 that we have been ungrateful to our armies. 
 And it was only since the late war, the com- 
 mon people of Europe knew we were white 
 men. But, they have at last found out that we 
 are not only white, but that our Government 
 has some energy. And if they will compare 
 what we have done for our army, with the 
 condition of their own, they will find also that 
 we are grateful. The Kings and Princes of 
 Europe sometimes sell their armies to one 
 another to fight their battles abroad or they 
 hire them for a job ; and all that are not re- 
 turned, are paid for at a stipulated price. The 
 Hessian troops, attached to the British army 
 
 during our Revolutionary war, were hired on 
 these terms. However, if any are returned, 
 that are worn out in service, they are stowed 
 into a hospital for the remainder of their days, 
 but they get nothing else. If there is a favorite 
 oflBcer, he is converted into a lord, and a large 
 pension is settled upon him, and his heirs ; and 
 the people are taxed to support them. It is the 
 pensioner who complains of our ingratitude, 
 and not the farmer and mechanic who pay the 
 tax. 
 
 This Government gave to each Continental 
 soldier, at the close of the war, his pay for ser- 
 vices, and a valuable tract of land, which was 
 giving him the best means in the world to ena- 
 ble him to live happy. It paid the Continental 
 officers for all their services rendered, and five 
 years' full pay after the war had ended ; and 
 gave each a large tract of land, which has been 
 a fortune to all who took care of it, and their 
 children after them. In addition to this, there 
 has not been an office of honor or profit in the 
 gift of the United States, or any individual 
 State, which has not been filled by a Continental 
 officer, if he asked for it. And the Govern- 
 ment has given to every officer and soldier who 
 has applied, a pension for life, if he had been 
 wounded or disabled in the public service. Let 
 the two be compared, and see on which side 
 the gratitude preponderates, and then let us be 
 told what the despots of Europe say. 
 
 All the despotisms of Europe have had their 
 foundations in a claim to military merit. All 
 their pensions and places originated in it. All 
 the orders of knighthood and other distinctions 
 now so oppressive ; the feudal system, which 
 so completely prostrated the civil liberty of all 
 Europe, against which the wisdom of ages has 
 not been able to prevail, originated in it. All 
 their usurpations, and all their changes of em- 
 pire, were commenced and supported by it. It 
 was military fame that enabled Cromwell to 
 turn out of doors a British Parliament, and as- 
 sume the reins of Government. It was military 
 distinction that prompted Bonaparte, at the 
 head of his army, to supersede the French 
 Convention, and put himself upon the imperial 
 throne, and devastate almost the whole of Eu- 
 rope. Your own Revolutionary officers, for 
 some of whom you are now providing, at the 
 close of the war associated themselves into a 
 military order, and called it the Cincinnati So- 
 ciety, after the celebrated Roman General, Cin- 
 cinnatus, who left his plough with regret, when 
 called by his country to the head of the army ; 
 and after he conquered the enemy and returned 
 in triumph, he laid down his office, and retired 
 back to plough his fields at the age of eighty 
 years. This society, too, made an early effort 
 to perpetuate itself, and ordained that the son 
 should succeed to the military honors of his 
 father. However, it was frowned upon; and 
 they soon found it too much of an exotic to 
 flourish upon this soil, and the hereditary clause 
 was abolished. This hereditary quality was 
 not in conformity to their great prototype,
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 25 
 
 JAUUAHT, 1818.] 
 
 Surviving Officers of the Revolution. 
 
 "Washington. He, with true Roman virtue, re- 
 turned to perform the duties of a citizen, and 
 maintained himself by the sweat of his brow, 
 after lie laid down the pursuits of a soldier. It 
 is difficult to imagine why our American officers 
 and soldiers did not do so too. Many of them 
 did, and are rich from their own industry. No 
 country upon the globe ever presented more 
 facilities than this. But the Roman virtue has 
 lost its charms, and we are imitating nations 
 nearer our own times. It is not the amount 
 which this measure will cost the nation that is 
 the most objectionable, but the abominable per- 
 petual pension system that is to grow out of it. 
 It may not be immediate; it is to come on 
 gradually, as all other systems of oppression 
 have done. And when we are gone to rest 
 posterity will writhe beneath the yoke, borne 
 down by hearth money, excises, and taxes, to 
 support pensions and places the curse of a na- 
 tion. 
 
 Mr. MOB RILL said he should not, at this late 
 hour, and advanced period of the debate at 
 which he rose, detain the Senate with many re- 
 marks on the subject now under discussion. 
 
 The object suggested in the President's Mes- 
 sage, said he, and that which is also contem- 
 plated in the bill from the House, is to afford 
 relief, by pecuniary assistance, to surviving offi- 
 cers and soldiers of the Revolution, who are 
 now in indigent circumstances. It is intimated 
 that it is impossible to frame a bill which shall 
 equitably meet the wants, relieve the necessities, 
 and satisfy the expectations of this meritorious 
 class of our fellow-citizens. I do believe, Mr. 
 President, that the wisdom of Congress is com- 
 petent to form a bill, the details of which shall 
 meet all reasonable expectations on this sub- 
 ject. But as the merits of the bill are not im- 
 mediately under discussion, I pass them to the 
 motion which is directly before the Senate, that 
 the further consideration of this subject be in- 
 definitely postponed. To this motion, sir, I am 
 opposed, and shall assign some reasons. To 
 pass this resolution, would be, in effect, to put 
 this subject at rest ; if I may use the expression, 
 to wink it out of sight. To this, Mr. President, 
 I cannot give my assent. If we take a concise 
 view of our country previous to the declaration 
 of independence, and the trying scenes through 
 which our fathers passed to gain and establish 
 this independence, I presume we shall be fully 
 satisfied, that the few remaining veterans of 
 the Revolution, bowed down with infirmity 
 and age, deserve the interposing hand of the 
 National Government for their relief, for the 
 mitigation of their wants in their declining 
 
 What, sir, was our situation antecedent to the 
 bold assertion of our independence ? "Wo were 
 an oppressed, insulted, degraded people. "We 
 were burdened with unjust acts and duties, too 
 offensive and unreasonable to be endured by a 
 people sensible of their rights and privileges. 
 "We were invaded by an armed force. The same 
 power who we had reason to expect would, as a 
 
 parent, protect our privileges, entered our har- 
 bors, blockaded our ports, landed an army on 
 our shores, demolished and burnt our towns, and 
 fought and killed our citizens. These events 
 roused the spirit, called forth the energy, and 
 marshalled the strength of the nation. This 
 was a time that tried men's souls ; this was the 
 day in which the patriot and the hero distin- 
 guished himself from the sycophant of a deluded 
 monarch. Independence was declared by a 
 new Government, imperfectly organized. Now, 
 sir, it needed the co-operation of the whole 
 strength, patriotism, and energy of the nation. 
 The heroes of the country flew to arms ; they 
 ran to the field of battle ; they met the invading 
 foe, and repelled him with undaunted deter- 
 mination. 
 
 And what were the sacrifices of those who 
 fought our battles, and achieved the numerous 
 blessings which we enjoy ? Many of us, Mr. 
 President, who have seats in this House, who 
 are participating the favors purchased by their 
 toils, and basking in the beams of national 
 glory, were too young minutely to recollect the 
 distresses of that day. Those who were of age, 
 and were active on that memorable era, have 
 informed us. History has not been silent on a 
 subject so momentous. 
 
 Were I to endeavor, sir, to paint to you the 
 sacrifices of those times, I should fail in the at- 
 tempt. I will only say, they forsook every do- 
 mestic accommodation; they left their homes 
 and their families, and submitted the cultivation 
 of their farms, in numerous instances, to their 
 wives, their little sons, and their daughters, 
 who were under the necessity of laboring in 
 the field to procure subsistence ; while they 
 endured the noisome camp, the fatigues of an 
 army, and the dangers of battle. But, sir, their 
 efforts were not unsuccessful ; they disputed 
 the ground at the cannon's mouth ; they sur- 
 vived the mighty conflict ; they obtained the 
 ultimate object national independence; and 
 some of them now live to enjoy the fruit of their 
 labor, though in indigence and want. These are 
 the characters, Mr. President, whose necessities 
 I wish to relieve. Providence has protracted 
 their years ; they are declining under the pres- 
 sure of poverty and age ; they are now peti- 
 tioning yon for assistance. Will you suffer the 
 gray hairs of these veterans of the Revolution to 
 come down with sorrow to the grave ? They, 
 sir, have a claim upon your benevolence and 
 humanity nay, more, your justice. Though 
 some honorable gentlemen suggest that these 
 Revolutionary patriots, having been well paid, 
 have no claim upon the justice of Coniriv-s I 
 am inclined to think otherwise, because I con- 
 ceive many of the infirmities under which they 
 are now groaning, are in consequence of the 
 privations and exposures endured while in the 
 service of their country. In the camp and the 
 field, their constitutions were broken down ; 
 the natural effects of which are infirmity and 
 distress in advanced years. 
 
 Permit me, Mr. President, to ask the honor-
 
 26 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 Surviving Officers of the Revolution. 
 
 [JANUARY, 1818. 
 
 able members of this Senate, if they are willing 
 to see the warworn soldiers of the Eevolution 
 hovering round their dwellings, round this Cap- 
 itol, asking for a pittance, and not manifest a 
 disposition to afford them that pecuniary as- 
 sistance necessary to supply the cravings of na- 
 ture, and repair their tattered garments ? This 
 is the only tribunal to which they can apply. 
 Shall they seek in vain? Shall those who met 
 the foo at Lexington, Bunker's Hill, Monmouth, 
 and Bennington, supplicate your aid without 
 success? No, sir; we, who possess the bless- 
 ings procured by their sufferings, have too 
 much magnanimity, too much humanity 1 They 
 need assistance; they merit assistance. It is 
 to the indigent that I would extend the hand 
 of liberality. And, sir, so long as I have the 
 honor of a seat in this House, I will exert my 
 feeble powers for the mitigation of the necessi- 
 ties of those who, by their valor, toils, and 
 blood, achieved the civil and religious privi- 
 leges which we now enjoy. 
 
 Mr. MAOON, of North Carolina, said, when he 
 came to the Senate this morning, he had no in- 
 tention or expectation of saying a word on this 
 question, which had excited so much feeling. 
 It seemed to him that the friends of the bill 
 founded their arguments entirely on feeling a 
 feeling, he was ready to acknowlege, of the most 
 honorable kind ; but he was not perfectly satis- 
 fied that it was proper to legislate on feeling 
 alone. The constitution certainly never in- 
 tended it, or it would not have required a cer- 
 tain age for any appointment; nor did he 
 believe the motion to postpone liable to the ob- 
 jection which had been made ; that the friends 
 of the bill were forced to defend it as it was, 
 when they wished to amend it. The motion 
 was agreed by all to be perfectly in order, and 
 it only brought the principle of the bill into de- 
 bate, which gave both sides the fairest opportu- 
 nity to urge whatever they thought proper; 
 and this he conceived ought to be the nature of 
 every first discussion, especially when a great 
 and important change was about to be made in 
 the character of a long-established law; the 
 principles of which were settled by the Revolu- 
 tionary Congress, and not attempted, he be- 
 lieved, to be changed before the present session. 
 A debate like the present ought always to take 
 place in every legislature, when motions which 
 only contain first principles are under considera- 
 tion, and cannot with propriety be omitted. 
 
 Mr. M. said he felt more than usual embar- 
 rassment in attempting to speak at this time, 
 because there was reason to suppose that a great 
 and decided majority was opposed to him, and 
 it was not agreeable to speak to those who were 
 prepared to vote, but it was all that a minority 
 could do to state their opinions, and because, 
 contrary to the practice of the Senate, two mo- 
 tions, distinct from each other, had been debat- 
 ed at the same time ; that of the gentleman 
 from New York (Mr. KING) to recommit the bill 
 to the Military Committee, with instructions so 
 to amend it, as only to include the officers who 
 
 were in service at the end of the war, and that 
 of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. BAKBOUH) 
 to postpone the bill and motion to a day beyond 
 the session. He would here say, that the ob- 
 servations of the gentleman from New York, in 
 support of his motion, had not convinced him, 
 that a discrimination such as he desired, or any 
 other, could with justice or propriety bo made. 
 To discriminate in a satisfactory manner, at any 
 time, or in any country, between those who 
 were equally worthy, was a task not easily per- 
 formed ; that gentleman having failed to show 
 that it could be done, as he with great defer- 
 ence verily believed, it might now be considered 
 as utterly impossible, and would not, in his 
 opinion, be attempted by any other. 
 
 Mr. President, when the character, numbers, 
 and wealth of the British nation, to which may 
 be added its constant preparation for Avar, are 
 compared with the situation of the United 
 States at the commencement of the Revolution, 
 it must prove to all, that every whig in the 
 country had as much as he could do to maintain 
 the independence which the Congress of 1776 
 had manfully declared, to the joy of the nation, 
 and which the whigs boldly determined to de- 
 fend at the risk of their lives and their fortunes. 
 It was the day that tried men's souls. The im- 
 mortals words " Liberty or Death," on the hunt- 
 ing shirt of every friend of the Revolution, con- 
 tained nothing but the truth. The practice was 
 according to the motto; but now, no matter 
 what services may have been rendered, unless 
 the persons who rendered them were in the reg- 
 ular army, they are not to receive a cent un- 
 der the bill, though they may have paid many. 
 The bill does not provide for one-half who have 
 equal merit ; as to claim, there is none ; and 
 the motion of the gentleman from New York 
 will leave a much greater number not provided 
 x>r. No man can estimate higher than I do the 
 worth and service of the Continental troops, but 
 ;he fall of Charleston left none in the Southern 
 States, and it is certainly true, that after that 
 event the men commanded by Suinter, Marion, 
 ind Jackson, rendered as much service as any 
 n the nation ; in fact, they had no superiors ; 
 ;hey left their wives, their children, their homes 
 and their all, to the rage of a victorious enemy, 
 ho was in pursuit of those he declared rebels, 
 and enraged neighbors, in the most gloomy and 
 disastrous period of the great struggle, to fight 
 'or their country, its liberty and independence, 
 ^"or is there any provision for that man, with 
 his small band of warriors, who started with 
 heir parched corn on their backs, into the 
 country, or rather wilderness, mostly inhabited 
 >y savages, and gained by their victories a 
 country to the nation, out of which five large 
 States will be added to the Union ; indeed, two 
 are already added, and a third soon will be. It 
 s scarcely necessary to state that General 
 Jeorge R. Clark and his warriors are meant. 
 Dan justice, honor, generosity, or feeling, re- 
 quire that all these, together with the widows 
 and children of those who were slain in battle,
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 27 
 
 JANUARY, 1818.] 
 
 Surviving Officers of the Revolution. 
 
 [SENATE. 
 
 as well as the deranged officers mentioned by 
 the gentleman from New York, should be tax- 
 ed to support their fellow patriots, who were at 
 that time, as far as respects the officers, in a 
 more enviable situation? It is well known, 
 that the deranged officers constantly complain- 
 ed of their being deranged, and that they pre- 
 ferred to have been continued in the service ; 
 many of them, not willing to stay at home, ob- 
 tained commands in the militia, and in that way 
 served the country. Nor ought it to be for- 
 gotten, that tents and all camp utensils were 
 never plenty, and often scarce, and that the reg- 
 ulars were always first supplied with whatever 
 could be furnished, and that too with the best 
 there was ; whatever was left, after furnishing 
 the regulars, was divided among the militia, 
 who were frequently without tents or camp 
 utensils, unless they" carried them from their 
 homes, and in many parts of the Southern 
 States these necessary articles were not abun- 
 dant. In wet and stormy days it was not un- 
 common to see tents formed by two or three or 
 more men putting together not their blankets, 
 for but very few had them, but bed covers, 
 which had been spun and wove at home ; those 
 who were not fortunate enough to carry any 
 thing of this kind, stood by trees with bark or 
 whatever they could get to cover their heads 
 to keep the rain off. The character the war 
 then assumed, forbade any article necessary or 
 convenient to the soldier to be in plenty ; there 
 was nothing like it in any other part of the na- 
 tion, if in the world. In calamity and fury it 
 so far surpassed a common civil war, that the 
 name is improper for it. He knew not by what 
 name to call it, perhaps a domestic war would 
 come nearer to it than any other. In the parts 
 of the country where the Whigs and Tories 
 were mixed, it was neighbor against neghbor, 
 house against house, and neighborhood against 
 neighborhood ; destruction and death were the 
 orders of the day ; each party hunted the other, 
 either alone or in numbers, as circumstances 
 would permit neither trouble nor pains were 
 spared to destroy and kill. In many places, 
 houses, fences, and every thing necessary to 
 support life, were burnt, leaving the women and 
 children only with the clothes they had on, to 
 depend on a more fortunate neighbor for sus- 
 tenance and shelter. In some cases this was 
 done, when the husband or son, or perhaps 
 both, were confined in jail, because they were 
 Whiga; many plantations were left without 
 stock of any kind, not a horse nor cow, in this 
 forlorn condition to be cultivated by the women 
 and children, who, if they were fortunate 
 enough to gather a part of the corn they had 
 labored to produce, were compelled to beat it in 
 a mortar into meal, or carry it themselves to a 
 mill to be ground, if one was left in the neigh- 
 borhood. Places may yet be seen where houses 
 were burnt, which yet remain not built on. 
 The rich and the poor who survived, and who 
 would not agree on any terms to remain neu- 
 tral at home, when parts of the country were 
 
 overrun by the enemy, shared nearly the same 
 fate, left with nothing bnt life and liberty. 
 
 Many gallant actions were performed in this 
 neighborhood war, which history will never re- 
 cord, and many gallant and patriotic men fell, 
 whose names will in a little time be forgotten 
 in this their beloved country, for which they 
 freely shed their blood and lost their Hies. Me- 
 bane and Kulp are of the number who were 
 slam in these terrible conflicts, and are now 
 almost forgotten. These engagements were 
 generally fatal and sanguinary in proportion to 
 the few that fought. With permission he would 
 repeat that it could not be just or right to tax 
 these people to give a pension to any, because 
 they were in the regular army ; it seemed like 
 taxing the bones of the brave and the ashes of 
 distress ; the officers of the army, at the end of 
 the war, received five years 1 full pay, and both 
 officers and soldiers land from the United States ; 
 besides, every State which had back land un- 
 settled, gave land to the same officers and sol- 
 diers, which were raised in the State. But it 
 is said that the Continental troops were paid in 
 depreciated certificates, not worth more than 
 one-eighth of their value. This is undoubtedly 
 true ; yet they were considered to be more val- 
 uable than the State certificates, in which the 
 others were paid. Certificates were then the 
 only currency of the governments ; they made 
 all their payments in them. After the fall of 
 the paper money, provisions for the army were 
 frequently taken from families which could not 
 well spare them. Whenever necessity com- 
 pelled this, Whig and Tory fared alike ; bnt a 
 certificate was the only payment. The depre- 
 ciation was a national calamity, from which no 
 one was exempt ; it was as general as the liberty 
 we now enjoy, and, though equally free, we are 
 not now equally rich. 
 
 We have been frequently told that some of 
 the officers and soldiers of the Continental army 
 are poor. This no doubt was true. He also be- 
 lieved it was equally true that some of the 
 troops which he had mentioned were equally so. 
 This will be the case among every class of men ; 
 some will get rich while others do not ; there 
 is a time to get and a time to spend ; the in- 
 dustrious and careful will either get rich or com- 
 fortable, while those who are not so, will neither 
 be rich nor comfortable. To undertake to pro- 
 vide for those who will not provide for them- 
 selves, will, on experiment, be found an endless 
 task; it may suit other countries, but it does 
 not this; it "will drain any treasury no matter 
 how full, and, instead of repealing taxes, new 
 ones ought to be imposed. Pass the bill, and 
 the pension will not do those who do not pro- 
 vide for themselves as much good as it will 
 others, who know their failings, and will take 
 care to be with them when it shall be received. 
 The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. GOLDS- 
 BOROUGH) wishes the bill to pass, to do away 
 an opinion which had been entertained, that 
 Republics were ungrateful ; he did not state it 
 to be his opinion. It was a pleasing fact that
 
 28 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 Surviving Officers of the Revolution. 
 
 [JANUARY, 1818 
 
 the history of the United States did, in the most 
 satisfactory manner, prove that it was not true, 
 as it regarded them, nor did he believe it, as it 
 regarded others. It has been promulgated by 
 the flatterers and sycophants of kings and des- 
 pots, to become their favorites and pensioners, 
 to live sumptuously on their folly or wicked- 
 ness, or both, on the profits of the labor of those 
 who were more virtuous and better than them- 
 selves. The opinion is founded in idleness and 
 hatred to free Governments, where every man 
 ought to live by the sweat of his own brow 
 where no man ought to be paid to do nothing. 
 But, do as you will, the same class of people will 
 entertain and promulgate the same opinion ; and 
 he was unwilling to attempt to do away the 
 opinion by passing that which he conceived to 
 be an improper and unjust act. He would add, 
 that, in despotic Governments, to complain 
 would be deemed a crime, and that the only 
 liberty enjoyed was that of abusing Kepublics. 
 It has been said that the officers of the Revo- 
 lutionary army would have been severely pun- 
 ished if the United States had been conquered. 
 This, he believed, was not thought of at the 
 time, because no Whig ever calculated on being 
 conquered, and every one had determined not 
 to be. But whether they would have been pun- 
 ished more severely than others, he did not 
 know ; all had committed openly what, in that 
 case, would have been deemed treason. He, 
 however, was of opinion that the most severe 
 punishment would not have been inflicted on 
 the army. The history of the times warranted 
 the opinion. He rather thought it would have 
 been inflicted on those daring patriots who were 
 members of the first Congress, those who declared 
 independence with the halter about their necks, 
 and those who ordered an army to be raised. 
 These are the men, he thought, on whom ven- 
 geance would have been taken. Permit me here, 
 said Mr. M., to state what was certainly true, 
 and that too in praise of a class of men who 
 rarely received praise that no class of men in 
 the nation had more merit for the Revolution 
 than the lawyers. Where he was acquainted, 
 they were all Whigs ; he did not at this mo- 
 ment recollect a single exception. They un- 
 derstood better than most others the rights and 
 privileges of the then colonies, and exerted 
 themselves, with advantage to the country and 
 honor to themselves, to persuade others to ex- 
 amine and understand them ; they succeeded, 
 and we now enjoy the benefit. He hoped this 
 digression would be pardoned; he had only 
 given the well-merited praise. He would return 
 to the subject. If the pensions are to be given, 
 because the army deserved well of the country, 
 and some of them are now poor, would it not 
 follow that all who deserved well, and are now 
 poor, ought to receive a pension ? Would it 
 not follow that if any members of the Congress 
 he had mentioned, were now alive and poor, 
 that they, too, for the same cause, ought to 
 have a pension? It would, he thought, be 
 difficult to give a reason for one, which would 
 
 not apply as forcibly to the other. The deserv- 
 ing well and being poor, would apply equally 
 to both. He repeated that he wished it to be 
 distinctly understood that he was not denying 
 the worth or merit of the Revolutionary army. 
 God forbid that he should ; he never for a mo- 
 ment entertained a single sentiment that even 
 tended toward its dishonor ; but he was oppos- 
 ing the principles of the bill, and the motion to 
 recommit, both of which he fully believed were 
 against the principles which carried it into the 
 field. Nor did he mean to class them with the 
 seventeen hundred applicants for office in the 
 late war, which had been mentioned. He, how- 
 ever, felt no hesitation to acknowledge that he 
 approved their conduct ; they did what at all 
 times they ought to do show a willingness to 
 aid their country in defence of its just rights, 
 and to take part in a war which had been em- 
 phatically called a second war for independence. 
 Pass the bill, and it makes a precedent for the 
 army engaged in that war and in every other. 
 Precedent is now almost equal to the constitu- 
 tion, and will probably, in a few years, be quite 
 so. It does not require the gift of prophecy to 
 foretell that thirty or forty years hence, as much 
 may be said in favor of the army engaged in the 
 second war for independence, as we have now 
 heard about the first, though as much may not 
 be said about the state of the country and of 
 the sufferings of the people, because the facts 
 will not warrant it. The troops, however, in 
 the late war, in the uninhabited parts of the 
 country, suffered greatly, and bore their suffer- 
 ings manfully. The victories obtained by them 
 have not been surpassed in any age or any 
 country ; they were fully equal to those of Lex- 
 ington and King's Mountain; but the men who 
 fought these two glorious battles are not pro- 
 vided for in the bill, because they were militia. 
 It is not improper to observe, that pensions 
 in all countries begin on a small scale, and are 
 at first generally granted on proper considera- 
 tions, and that they increase till at last they are 
 granted as often on whim or caprice as for 
 proper considerations. The bill is an entire de- 
 parture from any principle heretofore establish- 
 ed in this country ; it requires little or no proof 
 to get the pension, and it gives to all alike, 
 without regard to disability or meritorious ser- 
 vices. The history of the half-pay for life, and 
 the commutation for it of five years' full pay, 
 show as clear as daylight the opinion then en- 
 tertained by the nation on the subject of pen- 
 sions, and the bill as clearly shows how much 
 that opinion has changed since, and that the 
 opinion in favor of pensions is fast gaining 
 ground. It seemed to him that it must ope- 
 rate on the mind like sweet poison does on the 
 taste ; it pleases at first, but kills at last. The 
 objects to whom they are granted are only 
 thought of at the time, without reflecting that 
 a part of the money to pay them is to be taken 
 from those who are not in a situation to spare 
 it conveniently; the few rich are not apt to 
 complain of taxes, especially if they believe they
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 FEBRUARY, 1818.] 
 
 Surviving Officers of the Revolution. 
 
 [SENATE. 
 
 are intended to promote what they deem the 
 glory and splendor of the country ; they take a 
 full share of that to themselves, and they can 
 live well and pay the tax ; but it is not so with 
 the poor ; every cent taken from him diminish- 
 es his comfort and lessens his independence. 
 It is quite probable that some of the poor, who 
 may contribute their mite to pay the pensions 
 given by the bill, may have been reduced to 
 poverty,, by the enemy's burning and destroy- 
 ing their property, for fighting on the same 
 side, and probably in the same battles with 
 those who are to receive them. lie would just 
 remark, that he did not think this a proper 
 place to speak of our charity at home. Charity 
 is commendable in all men, it is enjoined on all 
 men, but it ought to be so given as not to let 
 one hand know what the other does. Besides, 
 our private worth, whether for charity or any 
 other virtue, is best known to our neighbors, 
 who always duly appreciate it. He had heard 
 so much said of the feelings of gentlemen on this 
 interesting and important question, that he was 
 almost induced to doubt whether he had as fine 
 feelings as others. He, however, hoped he 
 had, but others must judge, not himself; but, 
 whether he had or not, he could not consent 
 to gratify them at the expense of his judg- 
 ment. 
 
 The old Congress is often praised and always 
 deservedly; on the present occasion it would 
 seem proper that their decision should have 
 great weight, as they conducted the Revolution, 
 raised the Army, and settled with it, and gave 
 to each individual whatever was his due, under 
 all the circumstances of his case. It may not 
 be improper to state that that Congress only 
 paid the Continental troops; the militia and 
 State troops were paid by the States to which 
 they belonged, and the States granted and paid 
 them pensions till within a few years past, 
 when the General Government assumed the 
 pension list of each State, placing all the pen- 
 sions granted for Revolutionary services on the 
 same ground ; and this policy, if the bill is to 
 pass, ought now to be followed that is, to 
 place all having equal merit on the same 
 ground. 
 
 The recommendation of this subject to the 
 consideration of Congress by the President, who 
 was a Revolutionary character, had been men- 
 tioned. This recommendation, like every other 
 from the Executive, he felt it his duty to exam- 
 ine with deliberation, and treat with respect ; 
 he had, however, to regret that he could not 
 agree to pass an act in conformity to it ; the 
 reasons for this he had endeavored to state; 
 his regret, however, would be much greater, if 
 all the preceding Presidents had not also have 
 been Revolutionary characters ; and he did not 
 recollect at this time that any one of them 
 had made a similar recommendation, though he 
 had not examined their Messages to ascertain 
 the fact, he spoke only from a momentary re- 
 collection of a memory not now very good ; if 
 the fact was, as he believed, no one could 
 
 doubt but that one of them, General WASHING- 
 TON, was as much attached to the Army as any 
 man in the nation. He had thought proper to 
 say this much to enable all to decide whether 
 the national opinion was tending towards pen- 
 sions or not. 
 
 As much had been said about our rich Treas- 
 ury, and but few to provide for, he thought 
 proper to state that neither of these facts had 
 any weight with him ; if justice required that 
 the bill should pass, neither the condition of the 
 Treasury nor the number to be provided for 
 ought to be taken into consideration. As to 
 the Treasury being rich, it had been more so 
 some years past, but was emptied without the 
 aid of such a bill as this. 
 
 He hoped the gentleman from New York 
 would pardon him for saying, that, whether 
 the national opinion was changing or not, he 
 thought the vote on this motion, and that for 
 passing the bill, would prove that the gentle- 
 man and himself were both a little out of fash- 
 ion. He, however, believed that they would 
 bear it as it became them, without grieving or 
 complaining; each generation would govern it- 
 self, and they had had their day. 
 
 On the exertions of the Whigs in the South- 
 ern States, after the fall of Charleston and the 
 sufferings of the people, he could, he was sure, 
 speak a month, and not exhaust the subject. 
 He had, however tired himself, and, he feared, 
 fatigued the Senate. He would, therefore, take 
 his seat. 
 
 MONDAY, February 2. 
 
 The following Message was received from the 
 PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES : 
 To the Senate of the United States : 
 
 In compliance with a resolution of the Senate of 
 the 8th of last month, requesting me to cause to be 
 laid before it, the proceedings which may have been 
 had under " An act, entitled ' An act for the gradual 
 increase of the Navy of the United States,' " specify- 
 ing the number of ships put on the stocks, and of 
 what class; the quantity of materials procured for 
 ship building, and also the sums of money which 
 may have been paid out of the fund created by said 
 act, and for what objects ; and likewise, the contracts, 
 which may have been entered into, in execution of 
 the act aforesaid, on which moneys may not yet have 
 been advanced ; I now transmit a report of the Secre- 
 tary of the Navy, accompanied by a report from the 
 Board of Commissioners of the Navy, with documents 
 which contain the information desired. 
 
 JAMES MONROE. 
 
 The Message and accompanying reports and 
 documents were read. 
 
 THTTESDAT, February 3. 
 Surviving Officers of the Revolution. 
 Agreeably to the special order of the day, 
 the Senate resumed, as in Committee of the 
 Whole, the consideration of the bill entitled 
 " An act to provide for certain surviving offi- 
 cers and soldiers of the Revolutionary Army,"
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 Surviving Officers of the Revolution. 
 
 [FEBRUARY, 1818. 
 
 together with the amendments reported thereto 
 by the Committee on Military Affairs; and the 
 question recurring on the motion to postpone 
 the further consideration of the bill until the 
 first Monday in July next 
 
 Mr. GOLDSBOBOUGH addressed the Chair as 
 follows : 
 
 Mr. President, as it appeared to be the dispo- 
 sition of the Senate, when this subject was un- 
 der discussion some days past, to go into the 
 merits of the bill now before you, upon the 
 question of postponement, submitted by the 
 honorable gentleman from Virginia, I must 
 conform to that wish, although I had much 
 rather that the discussion could have been de- 
 ferred until the bill had been so modelled as to 
 have approached more nearly to the wishes of all. 
 
 I hope the motion for a postponement of this 
 bill to a day beyond the session will not be car- 
 ried, as I consider it a high and solemn duty in- 
 cumbent upon us to make some remuneration 
 to the worthy and indigent men who are now 
 presented to our attention. The feelings of all 
 who have delivered their opinions upon this 
 subject seem to be in accordance with the ob- 
 ject of this bill ; but difficulties arise on every 
 side that appear to be insurmountable, the 
 greatest of which is, to what class of men we 
 shall direct our benevolence. The merits of all 
 have been exhibited to view, and we are told, 
 if we discriminate we shall do injustice ; and if 
 we include all, that the finances of the country 
 will be exhausted in the undertaking. It is not 
 my purpose, sir, to detract from the merits of 
 any ; but surely, Mr. President, if there is any 
 one definite class of men more meritorious than 
 another ; if there are any men in this country, 
 who, by their services and sufferings, have ren- 
 dered themselves most dear to our recollections, 
 and most worthy of our gratitude, they are the 
 officers and soldiers of the Revolutionary Army. 
 If they are infirm, we ought to sustain them ; 
 if they are indigent, we ought first to help 
 them. 
 
 The objections which have been offered to 
 the question now before us are formidable, from 
 their number and variety. It will be proper 
 for me in the first place to examine these objec- 
 tions, not with the arrogant pretension of effect- 
 ually doing them away, but of endeavoring to 
 place them in such a point of view as in some 
 degree to impair their force, and to render 
 them less imposing than they have been con- 
 sidered. 
 
 It is objected, that the Revolutionary officers 
 and soldiers have no claim against the Govern- 
 ment; that all that was ever promised them 
 has been given, and all that was ever stipulated 
 has been complied with. It is not pretended 
 by any of the advocates of this measure that 
 these men have any strict claim in law, but the 
 expectation is most ardently and sincerely en- 
 tertained that a case can be made out that will 
 authorize (and we hope induce) a grateful coun- 
 try to make them the objects of generous muni- 
 ficence. 
 
 By various resolutions of the old Congress, 
 certain officers of the Revolutionary Army were 
 to be placed on half-pay for life. This half-pay 
 was afterwards commuted for five years' full- 
 pay. From whom the proposition of commu- 
 tation came, is a disputed point ; and as I do 
 not know that it has any material bearing upon 
 this question, I will forbear to inquire into it. 
 The origin of the commutation is to be traced 
 to those murmurings and discontents which 
 were exhibited in many parts of the country 
 against the half-pay establishment; and those 
 who were to receive it, notwithstanding the 
 pledges of devotion to their country which they 
 had given in the field, were met with the op- 
 probrious epithets of hireling, mercenary, and 
 pensioner ! It is to the prejudice which existed 
 everywhere amongst us, against the country 
 from which we had been separated, and against 
 every establishment similar to hers, that we 
 are to look for the cause of this sensation. It 
 is allowable to call it a prejudice, sir ; for, what 
 we term a prejudice now, was a virtue then. 
 The superior officers in the Army, who were 
 the oldest, first agreed to this commutation. 
 At their time of life, the bargain was a pretty 
 good one, if they had been paid in good money ; 
 but not so with the young officers, who consti- 
 tuted by far the greater portion. Yet these, 
 under the influence of their superior officers, to 
 whom, from habits of discipline and long-tried 
 confidence, they had ever looked with a venera- 
 tion that knew no change, and with an affection 
 that found no limit, at length consented, and 
 accepted the commutation. It seemed to be 
 the last chance the only hope. No sooner 
 had they accepted the terms, and received the 
 final settlement certificate, as the evidence of 
 the debt due them from the Government, than 
 their necessities forced them into the hands of 
 the remorseless speculator, and they sold the 
 reward of their toils some for eighteen pence, 
 some for two shillings, and some (more fortu- 
 nate than the rest) for half a crown in the 
 pound. 
 
 A captain's pay is always taken as a fair aver- 
 age in the Army, on which to found calculation. 
 The pay of a captain was forty dollars a month 
 four hundred and eighty dollars a year. The 
 commutation of five years' full-pay would 
 amount to twenty-four hundred dollars. There 
 was due at the time of disbanding the Army 
 about two years' and a half pay, or fifty per 
 cent, upon the amount of commutation. This 
 added to the commutation would be twelve 
 hundred dollars more ; making in all thirty-six 
 hundred dollars. A final settlement for thirty- 
 six hundred dollars, with a captain, sold by him 
 then at two-and-sixpence in the pound, or thir- 
 ty-three and a third cents in the two dollars, and 
 sixty-six and two-thirds of a cent, would give 
 him about four hundred and fifty dollars a sum 
 less than the pay for one year for his whole com- 
 mutation and arrearages. If it is remarked that 
 the act of selling was his own, I reply, that it 
 was his necessity, and not his will, consented
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 31 
 
 FEBRUARY, 1818.] 
 
 Surviving Officers of the Revolution. 
 
 [SENATE. 
 
 a necessity produced by the incapacity of the 
 country to pay him in money of value. 
 
 The certificate of final settlement for thirty- 
 six hundred dollars purported upon its face to 
 bear an interest of six per cent, until paid. It 
 was passed in 1783. Six years afterwards, Con- 
 gress, unable to pay off these claims, had re- 
 course to the plan of funding them, and instead 
 of paying the six years' six per cent, interest 
 upon the certificate of thirty-six hundred dol- 
 lars, (which would have been twelve hundred 
 and ninety-six dollars,) they converted that in- 
 terest into a stock bearing three per cent, inter- 
 est. Thus, by the very act of conversion, 
 saving to the Government and taking from the 
 captain half the amount of his interest, (equal 
 to six hundred and forty-eight dollars ;) for, if 
 any interest was due, it was six per cent. Again : 
 The amount of principal, being thirty-six hun- 
 dred dollars, was also converted into a stock 
 bearing six per cent, interest, two-thirds of 
 which was to bear a present interest of six per 
 cent, and the interest upon the remaining third 
 was deferred for ten years, saving again to the 
 Government the interest of six per cent, upon 
 twelve hundred dollars for ten years, which is 
 equal to seven hundred and twenty dollars; 
 thus, the Government saved to itself, out of the 
 money due a captain, by the mode of payment 
 which it adopted, six hundred and forty-eight 
 dollars of the interest due him, and seven hun- 
 dred and twenty dollars by withholding the in- 
 terest upon one-third of his principal for ten 
 years, making, in the whole, the sum of thirteen 
 hundred and sixty-eight dollars. Instead, then, 
 of paying the captain the amount of principal 
 and interest due him by the evidence of his 
 certificate from under the hand of the Govern- 
 ment, their necessities compelled them to have 
 recourse to a system of payment to which the 
 creditor was not a party, that saved to the Gov- 
 ernment the sum of thirteen hundred and sixty- 
 eight dollars, and took it from him to whom it 
 was justly due. I do not pretend to say, sir, 
 that this constitutes a debt at this time of day, 
 according to, and recoverable by law ; but to 
 my mind it creates an obligation to make some 
 remuneration, against which neither time nor 
 circumstances can avail. 
 
 I know full well, Mr. President, that it was 
 the depressed condition of the finances of the 
 country at that time, that produced this calami- 
 tous state of things. I am aware of it, and I 
 regret it. The condition of the nation, then, 
 was that of an unfortunate debtor, who had 
 stopped payment with a prospect of more ample 
 resources at a future day, and called upon her 
 creditors, who were her benefactors, and made 
 the most equitable and fair composition with 
 them that she could. It is now, sir, when this 
 debtor, our country, is opulent, and powerful, 
 and prosperous, that we desire her to do, what 
 every honorable member in this Senate, I am 
 persuaded, would do in his own private capacity, 
 I mean to remunerate those who had sustained 
 
 losses in consequence of her former disability 
 to discharge her just debts. 
 
 Other objections to this bill are derived from 
 the various classes of men who served and suf- 
 fered in the Revolution. We are told of those 
 who served in the councils of the country at 
 that time of those who suffered from the 
 ravages of the enemy, and from the destructive 
 neighborhood wars, which existed in some of 
 the States, in consequence of a difference of 
 sentiment and lastly, of the militia. And, as 
 a strengthener to all, we are told, that the States 
 individually have done much for the officers 
 and soldiers of the Revolution. Mr. President, 
 towards those illustrious men who filled the 
 councils of this country, during the great Rev- 
 olutionary struggle, I can feel nothing but the 
 most exalted reverence, and respect, and admira- 
 tion. It was to their steady perseverance and 
 unshaken fortitude, that we owe the success of 
 that contest which gave independence to this 
 country. Their wisdom, their constancy, and 
 their fidelity, will ever be remembered. But 
 what they planned in council, your army sus- 
 tained in the field. If they toiled and watched 
 over your destinies, they had some periods of 
 time that they could devote to their families 
 and their private concerns they had it in their 
 power to pay some attention to domestic cares 
 and, in the midst of their faithful labors, 
 their health was taken care of ; they were plen- 
 tifully fed, and comfortably lodged at night. 
 Not so with your army : half-starved, half- 
 naked, tracked on their course by the blood 
 from their unshod feet, they followed their 
 Heaven-directed leader with heroic constancy 
 and courage defying the elements exposed to 
 every vicissitude of season and of weather 
 bearing up against the multiplied calamities of 
 the most ill-provided warfare, they sunk from 
 their toils to catch a moment of repose upon the 
 frozen field, uncovered, except by the skies. 
 Sir, there is no comparison between the suffer- 
 ings of these men ; and as little between their 
 present condition, arising from the difference ot 
 that service. 
 
 Whatever may have been the misfortunes of 
 those who were injured by the fury of the ene- 
 my, or of their neighborhood wars, it is im- 
 possible at this time of day to estimate. The 
 case is remediless with all its horrors. We have 
 seen the difficulty, for some years past, of pro- 
 viding for the destruction committed in the late 
 war. Two years have been consumed in estab- 
 lishing the principles which shall govern in those 
 cases, and yet every day a memorial is laid 
 upon our table, asking redress for cases not in- 
 cluded in the law. If such difficulties are felt 
 on account of losses of such recent date, how 
 can we hope to redress those where time has 
 swallowed up both the parties and the evidence ; 
 and gentlemen must excuse me, sir, for saying, 
 that I do not consider it altogether fair to intro- 
 duce an impracticable case against us, and then 
 deny that we ought to do that which is feasi-
 
 32 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OP THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 Encouragement to Emigrants. 
 
 [FEBEUABY, 1818. 
 
 ble, because we don't do that which is impos- 
 sible. 
 
 As for the militia, sir, their services were 
 often useful, often admirable but their employ- 
 ment was very different from that of the Con- 
 tinental army. The militia were generally 
 employed for short periods, and not taken far 
 from home ; their services were mostly perform- 
 ed in defence of their own neighborhood, and 
 their fatigues and exposure were comparatively 
 small when contrasted with that of the regular 
 army. As to the rewards which the States 
 have benevolently bestowed upon such of the 
 officers and soldiers as were within their re- 
 spective limits, it does them much honor, but 
 we cannot shelter ourselves under the charity 
 of others. It was for the nation at large that 
 these men fought and bled ; it was for the coun- 
 try they encountered all their hardships, and it 
 is from the national Treasury they ought to be 
 reimbursed. 
 
 But the greatest objection of all, is the sup- 
 posed exorbitancy of the sum necessary for the 
 object. This is the point at which I fear we 
 shall falter. Perhaps a little examination into 
 this point may diminish the obstacles that our 
 alarms have created. There is no certain evi- 
 dence to which we can have recourse at this 
 time to ascertain, with exactness, the number of 
 surviving officers and soldiers of the Continen- 
 tal army. Various calculations have been made 
 by those who may be supposed to have the 
 most accurate means of information, and these 
 have proved unsatisfactory. The only docu- 
 ment we can find upon the subject, is the num- 
 ber of men discharged at the time the army 
 was disbanded, which was about thirteen thou- 
 sand five hundred if to this is added one-fourth 
 of that amount, to include those who have been 
 discharged after one, two, or three years' service, 
 we shall have in the whole the number of 16,875 
 men. A better computation can be made of 
 the officers, who are more known in the com- 
 munity, and who are generally recorded in the 
 society of the Cincinnati. They are estimated 
 at rather more than two hundred survivors, 
 being one-tenth of the whole. If we calculate 
 the men by this mode, and it will be an extrava- 
 gant calculation for in all the estimates of 
 human life the most precarious hold, the great- 
 est mortality, is always found to be among that 
 class of men who, from their condition, are most 
 exposed, least attended to, and most destitute of 
 essential comforts. If, I remark, we adopt this 
 mode of calculation, we shall have 1,614 sur- 
 vivors of the non-commissioned officers and 
 privates of the Continental army a number, 
 one-third if not one-half exceeding what any 
 intelligent Kevolutionary officer now alive be- 
 lieves to be the true one. Taking then the 
 estimate, at this large calculation, of two hun- 
 dred officers and sixteen hundred and eighty- 
 seven privates, the whole amount of half-pay 
 per annum to each, (estimating a captain's half- 
 pay as the measure of that of the officers,) 
 
 would not exceed one hundred and fifteen thou- 
 sand four hundred and eighty dollars, a sum in- 
 considerable in itself when compared with the 
 object, and a sum that will diminish hi an accel- 
 erated ratio every year, until, in ten years from 
 this, there will not be a tenth remaining to be 
 paid. If there is an error in this statement, it 
 unquestionably is by making the estimate too 
 large, and when we come to reflect upon the 
 object to be accomplished, and the means neces- 
 sary for the purpose, I trust that we shall 
 neither feel hesitation nor reluctance. 
 
 FRIDAY, February 13. 
 Surviving Revolutionary Soldiers. 
 
 The Senate resumed, as in Committee of the 
 Whole, the consideration of the bill, entitled 
 " An act to provide for certain surviving officers 
 and soldiers of the Kevolutionary army," to- 
 gether with the amendments reported thereto 
 by the Committee on Military Affairs ; and the 
 question recurring on the motion, that the fur- 
 ther consideration thereof be postponed until 
 the first Monday in July next, it was determined 
 in the negative yeas 3, nays 30, as follows: 
 
 YEAS. Messrs. Barbour, Macon, and Smith. 
 
 NATS. Messrs. Ashmun, Burrill, Campbell, Crit- 
 tenden, Daggett, Dickerson, Eppes, Fromentin, Gail- 
 lard, Goldsborough, Hunter, King, Lacock, Leake, 
 Morril, Morrow, Noble, Otis, Ruggles, Sanford, Stokes, 
 Storer, Tait, Talbot, Taylor, Troup, Van Dyke, Wil- 
 liams of Massachusetts, Williams of Tennessee, and 
 Wilson. 
 
 MONDAY, February 16. 
 Encouragement to Emigrants. 
 Mr. SANFOBD presented the memorial of the 
 New York Irish Emigrant Association, praying 
 that a portion of unsold lands (in the Illinois 
 Territory) may be set apart, or granted to trus- 
 tees, for the purpose of being settled by emi- 
 grants from Ireland, on an extended term of 
 credit, as stated in the memorial ; which was 
 read, and referred to the Committee on Public 
 Lands. 
 
 The memorial is as follows : 
 To the honorable the Senate and Home of Represent- 
 atives of the United States of America in Congress 
 assembled. 
 
 The memorial of the New York Irish Emigrant 
 Association respectfully showeth : That your memo- 
 rialists, while they presume most respectfully to solicit 
 your attention to the helpless and suffering condition 
 of the numerous foreigners who, flying from a com- 
 plicated mass of want and misery, daily seek an asylum 
 in the bosom of the United States, are emboldened by 
 the recollection that a liberal encouragement to the 
 settlement of meritorious strangers has always char- 
 acterized the Government and constituted authorities 
 of theUnion. The wise and brave founders of its in- 
 dependence held out to the oppressed and suffering of 
 every nation the consoling assurance, that in this 
 country, at least, they should find a refuge and a 
 home. The successors of these illustrious men have 
 continued to redeem, in calmer and happier times, the
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 FEBRUARY, 1818.] 
 
 Encouragement to Emigrants. 
 
 [SENATE. 
 
 pledge made to philosophy and benevolence amidst 
 perilous scenes of distress and difficulty. From this 
 humane and beneficent policy America has reaped a 
 rich and happy harvest She has added to the na- 
 tional resources the moral and physical strength to be 
 derived from so many thousands and tens of thousands, 
 who, actuated by attachment to her free constitution, 
 have adopted the nation where liberty has made, and 
 is making, her most glorious stand, as the country of 
 their choice. 
 
 Your memorialists, in addressing your honorable 
 body, need not seek to enforce by argument the gen- 
 erally received maxim of political economy, that the 
 wealth and solidity of a nation consist in the number, 
 the social comforts, and the productive industry of its 
 people. In the dense and crowded States, and under 
 the existing Governments of Europe, these sources of 
 wealth and stability are not always found will com- 
 bined. It frequently does not happen that the social 
 comforts, or even the productive industry, are propor- 
 tioned to the number of the people. In the extended 
 territory and scattered population of the United States, 
 however, and under their free and blessed institutions, 
 it is an unquestionable and important truth, that every 
 increase of inhabitants, when wisely and judiciously 
 distributed and settled, adds to the social comforts and 
 productive industry of the whole, and that the excess 
 of population, which cannot be considered as giving 
 stability to the various Governments of Europe, if suf- 
 fered or encouraged to settle here, would incalculably 
 increase our wealth and strength. But that accession 
 is doubly valuable which also brings to the common 
 fund, with a mass of laborious industry, unalterable 
 attachment to the laws and constitution of the country. 
 And, surely, to give a wise direction to that industry, 
 and to secure by well-placed kindness that attach- 
 ment, are among the noblest exercises of legislative 
 authority. 
 
 Your memorialists beg leave respectfully to represent 
 that at no period since the establishment of American 
 independence have the people of Europe, particularly 
 the laboring classes, discovered so great a disposition 
 as at present to emigrate to the United States. But 
 the people of Ireland, from the peculiar pressures under 
 which that country has so long been placed, have 
 flocked thither in the greatest number, and perhaps 
 under the most trying and necessitous circumstances. 
 They come, indeed, not to return and carry back the 
 profits of casual speculations, but to dedicate to the 
 land of their hopes then: persons, their families, their 
 posterity, their affections, their all. 
 
 It is, however, a truth, regretted by those who have 
 the best means of observation, that, for want of guides 
 to their steps, and congenial homes, where all their 
 honest energies might be called at once into activity, 
 and their hardy enterprise turned to their own advan- 
 tage, as well as to the general good, they remain per- 
 plexed, undecided, and dismayed, by the novelty and 
 difficulty of their situations. They have fled from 
 want and oppression they touch the soil of freedom 
 and abundance ; but the manna of the wilderness 
 melts in their sight. Before they can taste the fruits 
 of happy industry, the tempter too often presents to 
 their lips the cup that turns man to brute, and the 
 very energies which would have made the fields to 
 blossom make the cities groan. Individual benevo- 
 lence cannot reach this eviL Individuals may indeed 
 solicit, but it belongs to the chosen guardians of the 
 public weal to administer the cure. Nor is the mis- 
 direction or the destruction of the capabilities and in- 
 Vou VI. 3 
 
 dustry of these emigrants to be regretted only on its 
 own account. The story of their blessed hopes and 
 fortunes is transmitted back, and retailed with ma- 
 licious exaggeration. Others, possessing more abun- 
 dant means and more prudent habits, who have been 
 accustomed to look with longing eyes to this free 
 country, and contrast its happiness with the present 
 state of Europe, are discouraged and deterred by their 
 sufferings and misfortunes; and thus a large current 
 of active population and wealth, inclined to flow into 
 and enrich the United States, is dammed up at the 
 fountain-head. A serious consideration of these cir- 
 cumstances induce your memorialists to hope, and 
 most earnestly but respectfully to request, on behalf of 
 those whose interests they urge, that a portion of un- 
 sold lands may be set apart or granted to trustees, for 
 the purpose of being settled by emigrants from Ireland, 
 on an extended term of credit. The conditions of this 
 grant your memorialists wish to be such as may give 
 to the settlers its entire benefit, and may exclude all 
 private speculation in others. They also beg leave to 
 suggest, after contemplating the various uncultivated 
 tracts which invite the labor of man, that a situation 
 adapted for a settlement of that description might be 
 found among the lands lately purchased in the Illinois 
 Territory. 
 
 Your memorialists are fully sensible that many of 
 the most persuasive arguments in favor of then- appli- 
 cation must be addressed, and will not be addressed in 
 vain, to the benevolence and sympathies of the Legis- 
 lature ; but they also confidently appeal to its wisdom 
 and patriotism. The lands to which they have alluded, 
 being frontier and remote, are neither likely to be 
 speedily exposed to sale, to be rendered by cultivation 
 subservient to the general prosperity, nor by settle- 
 ment conducive to the general strength. The portion 
 which might be granted on extended credit would 
 probably be paid for almost as soon as if it had not been 
 brought into the market before its regular turn. Dur- 
 ing that time, in which it would otherwise remain 
 unproductive, (and therefore unprofitable,) thousands 
 of families would have acquired opulence, would have 
 benefited the country by its cultivation, by the estab- 
 lishing of schools, the opening of roads, and the other 
 improvements of social and civilized life. They would 
 form a nucleus round which a more abundant popu- 
 lation would rapidly accumulate, and all the con- 
 tiguous lands would be largely increased in value. The 
 small loss which might appear to be sustained by the 
 suspension of interest on the* credit (if it should have 
 any existence) will be abundantly compensated by the 
 money and labor that must be almost immediately ex- 
 pended on works of general utility, which the conve- 
 nience and necessities of the settlers will naturally in- 
 duce them to accomplish. But who can calculate the 
 physical or moral, or even the pecuniary advantages 
 in time of war, of having such a strong and embattled 
 frontier ? 
 
 The Irish emigant, cherished and protected by the 
 Government of the United States, will find his attach- 
 ment to then- interest increase in proportion to the 
 benefits he has received. He will love with enthusi- 
 asm the country that affords him the means of honor- 
 able and successful enterprise, and permits him to 
 enjoy unmolested and undiminished the fruits of his 
 honest industry. Ingratitude is not the vice of Irish- 
 men. Fully appreciating his comparative comforts, 
 and the source from whence they flow, he will him- 
 self cherish, and will inculcate on his children, an un- 
 alterable devotion to his adopted and their native
 
 34 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 Fugitive Slaves. 
 
 [MAECH, 1818. 
 
 country. Should hostilities approach her in that 
 quarter, whether in the savage forms of the tomahawk 
 and scalping-knife, or with the deadlier weapon of 
 civilized warfare, the Irish settlers, with their hardy 
 sons, will promptly repel the invasion, drive back the 
 war upon the enemy, and give to our extended frontier 
 security and repose. 
 
 Your memorialists therefore humbly pray your hon- 
 orable body to receive and listen favorably to their 
 application. And, as in duty bound, they will ever 
 pray, <fec. 
 
 On behalf of the New York Irish Emigrant Asso- 
 ciation : 
 
 NEW YORK, December, 1817. 
 
 THOS. ADDIS EMMET, President. 
 
 DANIEL McCORMICK, Vice President. 
 
 JAMES McBRIDE, 2d Vice President. 
 
 ANDREW HERRIS, Treasurer. 
 
 JOHN W. MULLIGAN, Secretary. * 
 
 WILLIAM SAMPSON, Secretary. 
 Wm J. Macnevan, James Sterling, 
 
 Mat L. Davis, Wm. Edgar, jr., 
 
 J. Chambers, Matthew Carroll, 
 
 Thomas Kirk, John Mayhue, 
 
 D. H. Doyle, John Heffernan, 
 
 John R. Skidds, Dennis McCarthy, 
 
 Robert Fox, James R. Mullany. 
 
 R. Swanton. 
 
 TUESDAY, February 17. 
 Great Britain Extra Dues. 
 
 The following Message was received from the 
 PEESIDENT OP THE UNITED STATES : 
 To the Senate and House of Representatives : 
 
 I lay before the House of Representative copies of 
 two communications received at the Department of 
 State from the Minister of Great Britain, and submit 
 to their consideration the propriety of making such 
 legislative provisions as may be necessary for a com- 
 pliance with the representations contained in them. 
 
 By the express terms of that compact it was, when 
 ratified by the two Governments, to be in force for 
 the term of four years from the day of its signa- 
 ture. The revocation of all the discriminating duties 
 became, therefore, the obligation of both Governments 
 from that day, and it is conceived that every indi- 
 vidual who has been required to pay, and who has 
 paid, any of the extra duties revoked by the Conven- 
 tion, has a just and lawful claim upon the respective 
 Governments for its return. From various accidents 
 it has happened that, both here and in Great Britain, 
 the cessation of the extra duties has been fixed to 
 commence at different times. It is desirable that 
 Congress shall pass an act, providing for the return 
 of all the extra duties, incompatible with the terms of 
 the Convention, which have been levied upon British 
 vessels or merchandise, after the 3d of July, 1815. 
 The British Parliament have already set the example 
 of fixing that day for the cessation of the extra duties 
 of export, by their act of. 30th June last, and the 
 Minister of the United States in London is instructed 
 to require the extension of the same principle to all 
 the extra duties levied on vessels and merchandise of 
 the United States in the ports of Great Britain since 
 that day. It is not doubted that the British Govern- 
 ment will comply with this requisition, and that the 
 act suggested may be passed by Congress, with full 
 
 confidence that the reciprocal measure will receive 
 the sanction of the British Parliament. 
 
 JAMES MONROE. 
 WASHINGTON, Feb. 12, 1818. 
 
 THURSDAY, February 19. 
 DANIEL D. TOMPKINS, Vice President of the 
 United States and President of the Senate, at- 
 tended, and took the Chair. 
 
 THURSDAY, February 26. 
 
 HENRY JOHNSON, appointed a Senator by the 
 Legislature of the State of Louisiana, to supply 
 the vacancy occasioned by the death of the late 
 William Charles Cole Claiborne, produced his 
 credentials, was qualified, and took his seat in 
 the Senate. 
 
 Surviving Revolutionary Soldiers. 
 
 The Senate resumed the consideration of the 
 bill, entitled " An. act to provide for certain sur- 
 viving officers and soldiers of the Revolutiona- 
 ry Army." 
 
 The bill having been further amended, on 
 the question, "Shall the amendments be en- 
 grossed, and the bill be read a third time, as 
 amended?" it was determined in the affirma- 
 tive yeas 23, nays 8, as follows : 
 
 YEAS. Messrs. Burrill, Crittenden, Daggett, Eppes, 
 Fromentin, Gaillard, Goldsborough, Horsey, Hunter, 
 Johnson, King, Leake, Morrill, Otis, Ruggles, Stokes, 
 Storer, Tait, Talbot, Tichenor, Van Dyke, Williams 
 of Mississippi, and Williams of Tennessee. 
 
 NAYS. Messrs. Barbour, Dickerson, Lacock, Ma- 
 con, Morrow, Roberts, Smith, and Taylor. 
 
 MONDAY, March 2. 
 Fugitive Slaves. 
 
 Agreeably to the special order of the day, 
 the Senate resumed, as in .Committee of the 
 Whole, the consideration of the bill respecting 
 the transportation of persons of color for sale, 
 or to be held to labor, and the bill having been 
 amended, the PEESIDENT reported it to the 
 House accordingly; and on the question to 
 agree to the amendment made, as in Committee 
 of the Whole, to strike out the 6th section of 
 the bill, amended as follows : 
 
 " SEC. 6. And be it further enacted, That no per- 
 son shall transport or convey by land, from one State 
 to another, or from one State or Territory to another, 
 any negroes, mulattoes, or persons of color, for the 
 purpose of sale, without first recording the name, age, 
 sex, color, and stature of every such negro, mulatto, 
 or person of color in the office of the court of the 
 county where such negro, mulatto, or person of color 
 last resided, together with his own name and place 
 of residence. And any person who shall attempt, 
 or be engaged in the transportation or conveyance 
 by land of any negro, mulatto, or person of color, 
 as aforesaid, without first making the record as 
 aforesaid, a copy of which, under seal and duly 
 attested by the clerk of the court in which such re- 
 cord is made, shall be the only evidence, shall forfeit 
 and pay one thousand dollars for each and every ne- 
 gro, mulatto, or person of color thus attempted to be 
 transported or conveyed by land, one moiety thereof 
 to the use of tfce United States, the other to any
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 35 
 
 MARCH, 1818.] 
 
 Fugitive Slaves. 
 
 [SENATE. 
 
 person or persons who shall sue for, and prosecute 
 the same to effect, in any court of the United States 
 having jurisdiction thereof." 
 
 It was determined in the affirmative yeas 
 23, nays 6, as follows : 
 
 YEAS. Messrs. Barbour, Crittenden, Eppes, Fro- 
 mentin, .Gaillard, Hunter, Johnson, King, Leake, 
 Macon, Morrill, Otis, Sanford, Smith, Stokes, Storer, 
 Tait, Talbot, Taylor, Tichenor, Van Dyke, Williams 
 of Mississippi, and Williams of Tennessee. 
 
 XAYS. Messrs. Burrill, Goldsborough, Horsey, No- 
 ble, Roberts, and Ruggles. 
 
 On motion by Mr. TALBOT, the further con- 
 sideration of the bill was postponed until Fri- 
 day. 
 
 FRIDAY, March 6. 
 Fugitive Slaves. 
 
 The Senate resumed, as in Committee of the 
 Whole, the consideration of the bill, entitled 
 " An act to provide for delivering up persons 
 held to labor or service in any of the States or 
 Territories, who shall escape into any other 
 State or Territory." 
 
 Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina, said, when this 
 subject was first brought before the Senate, he 
 had determined to take no part in the debate. 
 But, as it had assumed such a complexion, both 
 as it respects the constitutionality of the provi- 
 sions of the bill itself, and the subject-matter 
 upon which it is founded, as well as the severity 
 of the remarks used by gentlemen opposed to 
 its passage, he considered it his duty to make 
 some reply. The gentleman from Rhode Island 
 (Mr. BrEEiLL) insists that the privilege of the 
 writ of habeas corpus, secured by the ninth sec- 
 tion of the first article of the constitution, will 
 be infringed by this bill, because a person of 
 color taken under it cannot have the right to 
 his freedom tried by the judge before whom the 
 return of the writ of habeas corpus is made. 
 Mr. S. said he pretended to no law knowledge 
 beyond that of other gentlemen, yet he did 
 most unequivocally deny the construction of 
 the constitution as given by that gentleman. 
 The writ of habeas corpus was never intended 
 to give a right of trial. It merely gives the 
 right to the person confined to demand an in- 
 quiry whether he is held in custody upon a 
 ground warranted by law ; and if the judge be- 
 fore whom he is brought finds he is detained by 
 k\L-;il authority and upon legal grounds, he can- 
 not discharge him, but is obliged to remand 
 him. If the authority by which he is held ap- 
 pears to be legal, it is perfectly immaterial 
 whether the cause is a just one or not. And 
 when a fugitive from labor has been taken un- 
 der this law, the cause of his detention will be 
 fully set forth in the certificate by the judge 
 before whom he is to be taken, whose duty it 
 is specially made to do so. Then can it be pre- 
 tended, after you pass a law prescribing ex- 
 pressly under what proofs a fugitive shall be 
 taken, and that the fugitive shall be specially 
 described by the judge in the order he is to 
 
 give for his removal, and that the proofs have 
 been satisfactorily made before him the person 
 therein described is a fugitive slave, and be- 
 longs to the person who holds him in custody, 
 that another judge has a right to question all 
 this, and take upon himself alone to try his 
 right to freedom, and discharge him ? It is im- 
 possible. The writ of habeas corpus was never 
 intended to give any such right. 
 
 This would give a judge the sole power of 
 deciding the right of property the master claims 
 in his slave, instead of trying that right by a 
 jury, as prescribed by the constitution. He 
 would be judge of matters of law and matters 
 of fact ; clothed with all the powers of a jury 
 as well as the powers of a court. Such a prin- 
 ciple is unknown in your system of jurispru- 
 dence. Your constitution has forbid it. It 
 preserves the right of trial by jury in all cases 
 where the value in controversy exceeds twenty 
 dollars. The gentleman has said, if this biU 
 should pass it will enable the Southern planters 
 to take and carry away, not only their own fu- 
 gitive slaves, but any other person of color, 
 whether he be a free man or a slave. It would 
 enable them to carry off a free white man, and 
 even one of the members of this Senate. Sir, 
 the gentleman from Rhode Island may consider 
 himself as perfectly safe from any such hazard ; 
 for, however much we may respect our North- 
 ern friends as gentlemen, as lawyers, and as 
 statesmen, we should have no sort of use for 
 them in our cotton fields. Nor should we ad- 
 mire their political instructions to our slaves if 
 they should carry with them their present im- 
 
 The honorable gentleman has spoken of the 
 practice of the Southern people in kidnapping 
 their free negroes, and calls them man-stealers. 
 And the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
 ROBERTS) has called them kidnappers, men- 
 stealers, and soul drivers; and he asks, in a 
 very emphatic manner, who drew this bill, and 
 upon what authority? Or if it was brought 
 in upon the application of any of the abolition 
 societies? And then he answers these ques- 
 tions himself, and says it was not, but that it 
 had been drawn by a cunning lawyer, and was 
 supported by lawyers. Sir, this language does 
 not comport with the moderation which that 
 gentlemen expressed a desire should prevail in 
 this discussion when he addressed the Senate 
 on the subject early in this debate. Is tMs 
 the language we are to meet when we are suing 
 for our constitutional rights ? The Constitution 
 of the United States has guaranteed to the mas- 
 ter a right to pursue his fugitive slave, and has 
 enjoined upon the State to which he shall fly to 
 deliver him up. It has not left it optional with 
 the State to which he flies, but has made it im- 
 perative that he shall be delivered np. And 
 has it come to this, that we must wait for the 
 permission of the abolition societies before a 
 law can be offered to secure the recovery of 
 just rights? This was not more novel than 
 strange.
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 Fugitive Slaves. 
 
 [MARCH, 1818. 
 
 Mr. S. said, it had been a practice in monarch- 
 ical governments to discredit lawyers, where 
 they had often been foremost in checking a high- 
 handed tyranny ; but he had not expected to 
 hear it practised in the Senate of the United 
 States. The lawyers of this country had noth- 
 ing to fear upon an investigation of their general 
 character. They had been wanting in no public 
 duty. During the [Revolutionary war, as well 
 as the late war, many of them had displayed as 
 much gallantry in the field, and as much ability 
 in the councils, as any men in the nation, whilst 
 these abolition societies were in ease and securi- 
 ty at home, following their domestic pursuits, 
 and leaving it to others to fight their battles. 
 Mr. S. said he was sorry to make these remarks, 
 but they were just, and were forced from him. 
 He admired the moderation and virtue of these 
 people ; he thought them worthy of imitation in 
 many respects, but he did not admire their con- 
 stant efforts to alienate the affections of the 
 people of color from their masters, with whom 
 they lived happy, and by whom they were bet- 
 ter provided for than the peasantry of any 
 other country upon earth ; or, indeed, in some 
 portions of this country, if the facts given by 
 their writers be correct. Mr. Melish, of Phila- 
 delphia, in an essay published only a few days 
 ago, states, that there are in the city and county 
 of Philadelphia at least fifteen thousand people, 
 all able and willing to work, who are either 
 idle or occupied in unproductive labor, and says, 
 that melancholy picture pervades the country 
 throughout. This place is the very centre of 
 emancipation ; and if unable to furnish employ- 
 ment for their own population, is there any rea- 
 son why they should add to this picture of 
 growing distress, by an accumulation of free 
 negroes ? 
 
 Notwithstanding all that has been said by 
 our northern brethren against us for keeping 
 slaves, they employ their free blacks in all their 
 drudgery, and obtain their labor on better terms 
 than masters do. And although it does not 
 apply to that body generally, yet it is a fact, 
 susceptible of proof, that some who profess to 
 promote this principle of abolition, have seduced 
 the slaves from the neighboring States under 
 promises to secure their emancipation, instead 
 of which they put them to work, and treat them 
 with so much more severity and injustice than 
 their masters, that the slaves either made it 
 known where they were, or run away from 
 these new tyrants and went back to their for- 
 mer state of slavery, as a better and more de- 
 sirable condition. 
 
 With all this boast about freedom and emanci- 
 pation, there are only four States that have no 
 slaves. Even the magnificent State of Penn- 
 sylvania is a slaveholding State ; so is the State 
 of Rhode Island. Those which are non-slave- 
 holding States, with the exception of Ohio, 
 have not long since got rid of them. Ehode 
 Island, New York, and Pennsylvania, previous 
 to taking steps to abolish slavery, furnished the 
 Southern markets with considerable numbers. 
 
 And the very moment the African trade was 
 opened in South Carolina, in the year 1803, 
 these very States furnished their full proportion 
 of shipping to carry it on. Even our friends in 
 Boston, and other New England States, were 
 willing to help with their shipping ; besides, it 
 furnished a market for their surplus rum. So 
 we perceive, whenever interest is concerned, 
 and a little profit is to be made, all this delicacy 
 about slavery is laid aside. 
 
 Whilst it was their interest to hold slaves, so 
 long they kept them. Whenever the interest 
 coupled with it ceased, slavery ceased, but not 
 before. After the war, trade revived, especially 
 in the Eastern States ; it was found that a negro 
 capital must give way to a commercial capital; 
 which was infinitely more profitable. So it is 
 now with banking capital. Even in the States 
 where slavery exists to the greatest extent, we 
 find many selling off their negroes and vesting 
 the proceeds in bank stock ; and especially those 
 who live in the towns and cities. This capital, 
 being so much more profitable than the other, it 
 is constantly increasing. And there are no per- 
 sons more apt to remonstrate against that cry- 
 ing sin slavery, than such as have just sold off 
 their stock of negroes, and vested the price in 
 bank stock. Slavery, then, becomes very odious. 
 They wish to see it abolished they do not like 
 to see this traffic in human flesh. But it is be- 
 cause they have got its precious price in a stock 
 that will yield them a three or four-fold profit ; 
 not till then can they see its enormity. It is a 
 very convenient thing to be receiving a large 
 profit upon his stock, which is going on under 
 the fostering hand of bank directors, whilst the 
 owner is asleep or taking his pleasure. We 
 have lately seen it published, that some banks 
 have divided as much as thirty per cent, upon 
 their capital, whilst the most successful planter 
 will not receive more than ten, and, very many 
 years, not half that amount. This banking sys- 
 tem is what will form the groundwork for 
 overthrowing this species of property, by grad- 
 ually diminishing the number of its holders, 
 and increasing the bank stock influence. Look 
 how slavery has diminished in the public esti- 
 mation, as the other system has grown. The 
 States which have taken measures to abolish 
 slavery, have become perfectly bank mad. New 
 York has abolished slavery after ten years, and 
 she is convulsed with banks, and not yet satis- 
 fied. There was a late attempt to establish one 
 with a capital of six millions, but it was checked 
 by the Executive. ^The State of Pennsylvania, 
 already abounding in banks, incorporated forty- 
 seven by one law they climbed over the Exec- 
 utive veto to do so ; two-thirds of the Senate, 
 and about three-fourths of the House of Repre- 
 sentatives supporting it. Many of these banks, 
 without a farthing of capital, drawing a large 
 income from the hard earnings of the honest 
 and unwary part of the community, and abso- 
 lutely refusing to redeem their paper, without 
 one compunction for the misery and rum it 
 brings with it. When these very frauds were
 
 DEBATES OF CONGKESS. 
 
 87 
 
 MARCH, 1818.] 
 
 Fugitive Slaves. 
 
 [SENATE. 
 
 practising to an enormous degree, without a 
 murmur, except from those who were sinking 
 under it, the feelings of that country were .bleed- 
 ing for the supposed distress of the slaves of the 
 South. 
 
 The famous article in the Treaty of Ghent, hy 
 which we have guaranteed to England our co- 
 operation in abolishing the African slave trade, 
 is worth notice. Our Commissioners, friendly 
 to banks and opposed to slavery, had no instruc- 
 tions to enter into any such stipulation. Great 
 Britain had not long before abolished that trade ; 
 and our Government had done so forty years 
 before, by an ordinance of the First Congress, 
 in 1774, and which had been rendered more 
 complete by a law of 1807. It was totally un- 
 connected with the subject of negotiation. We 
 were at war upon other grounds entirely. Not 
 even a question of commerce had ever arisen 
 between the two nations upon it ; yet it found 
 its way, an isolated article, into a Treaty of 
 Peace ! 
 
 The Colonizing Society is another step in this 
 grand scheme. This society intends to send the 
 free negroes, and other persons of color, into 
 the wilds of Africa ; by which they are to be 
 torn from the land of their nativity, and every 
 thing to which they are attached by friendship 
 and habit, and the advantages of civilized life, and 
 left to sink again into all the miserable barbarity 
 of their ancestors. But it is said it will pave 
 the way to a general emancipation. 
 
 We do by no means suppose that any honora- 
 ble member of Congress would think of such a 
 thing as a general emancipation ; because, inde- 
 pendently of interfering with private rights, 
 they know too well that such a measure could 
 not take place without involving the whole of 
 the United States in an awful situation. But, 
 that a general emancipation is intended there 
 can be no doubt, by the Eastern and Northern 
 States, if they can find means to effect it. The 
 abolition societies are avowedly for it ; what 
 else can the very name itself indicate? Al- 
 though their numerous petitions, now before 
 Congress, purport to extend no further than to 
 prevent kidnapping, yet, look at the language 
 of the petitions. If they had applied directly 
 for emancipation, they could not speak plainer. 
 Connected with these petitions, now in the 
 possession and under the consideration of Con- 
 gress, is the resolution of the gentleman from 
 Rhode Island, (Mr. BUEEILL,) to inquire " into 
 the expediency of the United States taking 
 measures, in concert with other nations, for the 
 entire abolition of said trade." As this resolu- 
 tion had been once before the Senate, and had 
 been referred by a majority to a committee to 
 report with what nations, and under what reg- 
 ulations we should connect ourselves to effect 
 this project, Mr. S. said it would not be out of 
 the way to advert to it, and inquire what hopes 
 we had of a fortunate result. With whom is 
 this Government to connect itself in this desira- 
 ble work ? It would seem that it ought to be 
 with nations whose general policy is favorable 
 
 to emancipation, and whose subjects enjoy the 
 blessings of civil liberty at home, before we 
 could expect much beneficial aid from their co- 
 operation. We are not to hope for this from 
 Russia, Prussia, and Austria, whose subjects are 
 borne down by the iron hand of tyranny. Their 
 peasantry are bought and sold at home like 
 slaves, and are suffered to be sent to this coun- 
 try and sold in our markets. Nor is it to be 
 hoped for from England, if her policy should 
 dictate to her a different course. She is now 
 riding foremost in this career, because it prom- 
 ises to extend and promote her commercial 
 interest, whilst her millions of paupers at home 
 are dying in garrets, or falling by the wayside, 
 and if they assemble, to raise their cry to their 
 rulers for bread, the riot act is read, and then 
 the military is ordered to fire on them. Three 
 of these nations, assisted by the ships of the 
 other, have spread their sceptre over the des- 
 tinies of Europe, and formed a holy league 
 against its dawning liberties. These are the na- 
 tions with whom you are to associate to abolish 
 slavery. It is not to be wondered at, under all 
 this influence, with a total want of knowledge 
 of the comfortable condition of the slaves, that 
 our northern neighbors should feel unfavorable 
 to slavery. But most of the northern gentle- 
 men, when they remove to the southward, and 
 when they can see and judge for themselves, 
 have no hesitation in buying slaves. General 
 Greene, to whom the State of Georgia gave a 
 plantation that cost five thousand guineas, and 
 South Carolina ten thousand pounds sterling, 
 for his services during the Revolutionary war, 
 had no hesitation in purchasing a large gang of 
 negroes to cultivate this plantation, notwith- 
 standing he had been raised to the northward, 
 and had been brought up a Quaker. 
 
 But, there is another perpetual source of mis- 
 representation, which serves to place it in an 
 odious light to strangers : it is the number of 
 catch-penny prints and pamphlets that are pub- 
 lished by persons who know no more of the 
 condition of the slaves than they do of the man 
 in the moon. Go to a bookstore, and you meet 
 prints hung up in some conspicuous place, in 
 large capital letters, "Portraiture of Domestic 
 Slavery," published in Philadelphia; or the 
 " Horrors of Slavery," published in Cambridge, 
 and sold in Boston. These pamphlets contain 
 all the extraordinary cases collected on the high 
 seas, in the West Indies, or United States, to- 
 gether with such inflammatory speeches of 
 travellers, who have no other means of giving 
 to their writings interests, than by dealing hi 
 the marvellous; or of fanatic preachers, or 
 speeches in the British Parliament, calculated 
 to inflame without being able to instruct, and 
 suited more to promote a particular policy than 
 to promote the rights of humanity. 
 
 At the time the memorials of the several abo- 
 lition societies were presented to the Senate, 
 some unknown hand had laid on the desk of 
 each Senator a pamphlet entitled u The Horrors 
 of Slavery, in two parts, by John, Kenrick ; sold 
 
 428978
 
 38 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 Fugitive Slaves. 
 
 [MARCH, 1818. 
 
 in Boston, price twenty cents." This twenty- 
 cent pamphlet gives many horrible pictures of 
 slavery; and no doubt the author knew this 
 great moving cause, the twenty cents, would 
 multiply in proportion to the extravagance of 
 his descriptions. This twenty-cent pamphleteer, 
 amongst his other good offices, has pointed out 
 Louisiana as a very fit place to colonize all the 
 slaves, after they are emancipated, (which he 
 seems to think a certain event,) and takes care 
 Dot to lose sight of the fine market it would af- 
 ford for their manufactures. Mr. S. said, if an 
 emancipation should take place he would rather 
 see them settled in the Northern States among 
 their friends, where they could be better super- 
 intended. The people of the Southern States 
 would by no means thank Mr. Kenrick for such 
 neighbors ; and more especially if they are to 
 be educated like the free negroes in the North- 
 ern and Eastern States, if the account given by 
 the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. DAGGETT) 
 be correct, of which we have no doubt. He 
 says they have fifty white inhabitants for one 
 black, and that there are three public crimes 
 committed by the blacks where there is one 
 committed by a white person. This will make 
 the proportion one hundred and fifty to one. 
 And, if we are to judge from the registers of 
 their penitentiaries, we should believe they have 
 their full share of crimes, even amongst their 
 whites. 
 
 This same pamphleteer, after giving us the 
 pious effusions of English travellers, Northern 
 pamphleteers, American map-makers, and Brit- 
 ish members of Parliament, gives us a pathetic 
 extract from the speech of the late Mr. Pitt, 
 in the British House of Commons, upon the 
 question for abolishing the African slave trade, 
 which, sir, is worth reading. It is in the follow- 
 ing words : " The present was not a mere ques- 
 tion of feeling. The argument which ought, in 
 his opinion, to determine the committee, was, 
 that the slave trade was unjust. It was there- 
 fore such a trade as it was impossible for him 
 to support, unless it could first be proved to 
 him that there were no laws of morality binding 
 on nations, and that it was not the duty of a 
 Legislature to restrain its subjects from invading 
 the happiness of other countries, and from vio- 
 lating the fundamental principles of justice." 
 This, sir, was the language of Mr. Pitt, the cele- 
 brated orator and accomplished statesman, who 
 decries the traffic, after his country has filled 
 her colonial possessions with slaves, whilst there 
 was yet an inch of ground for them to cultivate, 
 and to check the growth of the colonies of other 
 rival nations, and under whose policy every 
 nation in Europe has been drenched in blood 
 for twenty years ; and who, at the very moment 
 he was remonstrating so strongly against in- 
 vading the happiness of other countries, and 
 violating the fundamental principles of justice, 
 was planning and carrying on a most cruel and 
 desolating war in the distant regions of Asia 
 a war, not of defence, but a war purely for con- 
 quest a war carried on by corrupting and ex- 
 
 citing rival chiefs, and then holding out terms 
 of friendship to the conqueror, who is made 
 the tool of further treachery, and who falls in 
 his turn, a victim to the same perfidy; until 
 England has reduced under her dominions more 
 than seventy millions of people, who pay them 
 tribute, and have no liberty left, but that of 
 worshipping Juggernaut ! At no time since the 
 days of civilization has the happiness of other 
 nations been more disturbed or injustice more 
 practised towards them than during the admin- 
 istration of Mr. Pitt. When the sources of our 
 admonitions shall become more pure, we shall 
 no doubt allow them more weight. 
 
 But we are told by these pamphlet writers, 
 that slavery is " a violation of the Divine laws." 
 And the gentleman from New York, (Mr. KIXG,) 
 in discussing this subject, has told us, "it is 
 contrary to our holy religion." And the gen- 
 tleman from New Hampshire (Mr. MOERJLL) has 
 told us, that in New England, they believe " all 
 men are born equally free and independent ;" 
 that "every human affection recoils at their 
 bondage." The gentleman has said, "the Bible 
 is our moral guide ;" and says it was for dealing 
 "in gold and silver, and precious stones, and 
 pearls, and chariots, and slaves, and souls of 
 men, that produced the downfall of the great 
 Babylon." And he seems to think, that, unless 
 we abolish slavery, we shall provoke the wrath 
 of Heaven, and that we shall go next. The gen- 
 tleman has forgot one of the great offences of that 
 people ; it was for taking of usury. The same 
 Bible which he has adopted for his moral guide 
 says : " Take thou no usury of him, or increase ; 
 but fear thy God." This part of the Bible must 
 have become obsolete in New England since the 
 introduction of banks. It must now be pleasing 
 in the sight of Heaven to see a dividend as large 
 as twenty per cent, to each bank share. There 
 are as many chariots, as many pearls, as much 
 gold and silver, perhaps, in New England, as 
 there was in Babylon, at the time of its fall ; 
 yet they are in no danger till the vengeance of 
 Heaven has fallen on the slaveholding States 
 first, the gentleman seems to think. 
 
 Upon this great question, sir, notwithstanding 
 the opinion of honorable gentlemen to the con- 
 trary, there have been some very respectable 
 opinions as to the Divine authority in fuvor of 
 slavery. We all know that Ham sinned against 
 his,Gpd and against his father, for which Noah 
 the inspired patriarch cursed Canaan the son of 
 Ham, and said, " A servant of servants shall he 
 be unto his brethren." Newton, who was per- 
 haps as great a divine as any in New England, 
 and as profound a scholar, in a book of great 
 celebrity, called his Prophecies, in which he en- 
 deavors to prove the divinity of the Bible by 
 the many prophecies that are now fulfilling, says 
 that this very African race are the descendants 
 of Canaan, and have been the slaves of many 
 nations, and are still expiating in bondage the 
 curse upon themselves and their progenitors. 
 But it may be said that this is only- an opinion 
 of Mr. Newton, and that we can see no reason
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 39 
 
 MARCH, 1818.] 
 
 Fugitive Slaves. 
 
 [SENATE. 
 
 in it. Mr. S. said, if the gentleman was unwill- 
 ing to believe Mr. Newton, he would surely 
 believe Moses and the prophets. And if the 
 Senate would indulge him, he would show from 
 the Bible itself, that slavery was permitted by 
 Divine authority ; and for that purpose he would 
 open to the xxvth chapter of Leviticus, and read 
 as follows: "And the Lord spake unto Moses 
 in Mount Sinai, saying, Speak unto the children 
 of Israel, and say unto them," &c. 39. " And if 
 thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen 
 poor, and be sold unto thee ; thou shalt not 
 compel him to serve as a bond- servant : 40. 
 But as an hired servant, and as a sojourner, he 
 shall be with thee, and shall serve thee unto the 
 year of jubilee." 44. " Both thy bond-men and 
 thy bond-maids, which thou shalt have, shall 
 be of the heathen that are round about you : 
 and of them shall ye buy bond-men and bond- 
 maids. 45. Moreover, of the children of the 
 strangers that do sojourn among you, of them 
 shall ye buy, and of their families that are with 
 you, which they begat in your land : and they 
 shall be your possession : 46. And ye shall take 
 them as an inheritance for your children after 
 you. to inherit them for a possession ; they shall 
 be your bond-men forever," &c. 
 
 This, Mr. President, is the word of God, as 
 given to us in the Holy Bible, delivered by the 
 Lord himself to his chosen servant Moses. It 
 might be hoped this would satisfy the scruples 
 of all who believe in the divinity of the Bible ; 
 as the honorable gentleman from New Hamp- 
 shire certainly does, as he has referred to that 
 sacred volume for his creed. It might satisfy 
 the scruples of Mr. Kenrick, and the divines 
 who appear so shocked at seeing a father dispose 
 of his slaves to his children by his last will and 
 testament, as they will perceive the Scriptures 
 direct them to go as an inheritance. The hon- 
 orable gentleman says, he speaks not only his 
 own, but the universal sentiments of all those 
 he represents. If he and his friends of New 
 Hampshire have not turned aside after strange 
 gods, it is hoped the authority I have quoted 
 might satisfy them. 
 
 The Senate adjourned to Monday morning. 
 
 MONDAY, March 9. 
 Fugitive Slaves. 
 
 The Senate resumed, as in Committee of the 
 "Whole, the consideratiom of the bill, entitled 
 " An act for delivering up persons held to labor 
 or service in any of the States or Territories, 
 who shall escape into any other State or Ter- 
 ritory." 
 
 Mr. MOREILL addressed the Chair as follows : 
 Mr. President, I think it correct and proper 
 for any gentleman who is not in favor of the 
 bill, to present his objections on the second 
 reading, that its friends may have a fair oppor- 
 tunity to amend it. Under these impressions, I 
 make a motion for a recommitment, that any 
 imperfections may be properly laid before the 
 Senate. 
 
 I am not insensible, sir, of the peculiar disad- 
 vantages under which I address you on the bill 
 upon your table. I am extremely depressed 
 with an apprehension of unfavorable impres- 
 sions, which may have been erroneously made, 
 on the minds of honorable gentlemen from the 
 South, in consequence of remarks which fell 
 from me on another occasion, upon a subject 
 not altogether foreign from this. Sentiments 
 which originated in the purest motives, and, in 
 my opinion, in perfect coincidence with the 
 spirit of our constitution ; I may, therefore, be 
 allowed this opportunity peremptorily to dis- 
 claim any hostility to the provisions of the con- 
 stitution respecting slavery ; or to any law 
 founded upon the principles and in accordance 
 with such provisions. Sir, I wish it to be dis- 
 tinctly understood, that I have no disposition 
 to deprive slaveholders of that species of prop- 
 erty; to aid their slaves in escaping; to de- 
 tain them when they have escaped; or to im- 
 pede their exertions in recovering them in a 
 constitutional and legal manner, without en- 
 dangering the rights, or infringing the privi- 
 leges of free citizens. 
 
 I very readily acknowledge, that there are 
 provisions in the constitution which recognize 
 slavery which I consider a kind of compact 
 by compromise, into which the States mutually 
 entered when they adopted that instrument, 
 about which I have neither a right nor disposi- 
 tion to complain. I hold it, sir, as sacredly 
 binding as any part of this palladium of our 
 rights, and to prevent its due operation is not 
 the wish of my heart ; at the same time, I am 
 far from being the advocate or friend of slavery. 
 If I were to be governed by my own personal 
 feelings, independent of any other control, or 
 were I to be guided by my views of the princi- 
 ples of the common law, I should assuredly say, 
 no slavery. But, sir, in my present situation, 
 I deem it my duty to divest myself of all pre- 
 possessions and partialities, and, as a legislator, 
 to be directed by the express provisions of the 
 constitution the glory of our country, and the 
 admiration of the world. 
 
 Previous to my adverting to the provisions 
 and details of this bill, it was my intention to 
 make a few observations upon the law now in 
 force upon this subject ; the existence of which, 
 in my view, renders the passing of this alto- 
 gether unnecessary. But, as my remarks have 
 been anticipated by the honorable gentleman 
 from Ehode Island, (Mr. BUREUX,) I shall very 
 consisely observe, that law provides "that 
 when any person held to labor in any of the 
 States or Territories, under the laws thereof, 
 shall escape into any other State or Territory, 
 the person to whom such labor or service may 
 be due, his agent or attorney, is empowered to 
 seize or arrest such fugitive from labor, and to 
 take him or her before any judge of the circuit 
 or district courts of the United States, residing 
 or being within the State, or before any magis- 
 trate of a county, city, or town corporate, 
 wherein such seizure or arrest shall be made ;
 
 40 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 Fugitive Slaves. 
 
 [MAKCH, 1818. 
 
 and upon proof, to the satisfaction of such 
 -udge or magistrate, either by oral testimony 
 or affidavit, taken before and certified by a 
 magistrate of any such State or Territory, that 
 the person arrested doth, under the laws of the 
 State or Territory from which he or she fled, 
 owe service or labor to the person claiming 
 him or her, it shall be the duty of such judge 
 or magistrate to give a certificate thereof to 
 such claimant, his agent or attorney, which 
 shall be a sufficient warrant for removing the 
 said fugitive from labor to the State or Terri- 
 tory from which he or she fled." 
 
 In this section of the law, sir, I conceive every 
 provision is made for the speedy recovery of 
 fugitive slaves, that gentlemen can rationally 
 expect or reasonably desire. They have noth- 
 ing more to do than seize the fugitive, and apply, 
 by themselves or agent, to a judge or magis- 
 trate, and prove, to his satisfaction, by oral 
 testimony or affidavit, that the person so seized 
 has fled, and does owe labor or service to the 
 claimant, and the judge or magistrate shall 
 issue his certificate, which shall be sufficient 
 for removing such fugitive to the place from 
 which he or she absconded. This is a consise, 
 plain, and easy course. But, sir, permit me 
 now to examine the bill under our immediate 
 consideration. 
 
 The provisions and details of this bill, in my 
 humble opinion, are very deficient, imperfect, 
 and improper. The first section provides " that 
 when any person held to labor, &c., shall es- 
 cape, &c., the person to whom such labor may 
 be due, or his agent, may apply to any judge 
 of the district or circuit court, &c., or to any 
 judge, or two justices of a court of record, of 
 the State or Territory from whence such fugi- 
 tive shall have escaped ; and upon proof to the 
 satisfaction of such judge or magistrates that 
 such fugitive is a slave, &c., and does owe labor 
 to the person claiming him, and shall become 
 bound in a recognizance, &c., to perform cer- 
 tain acts, then, and in that case, it shall be the 
 duty of such judge of the district or circuit 
 court, or such judge or magistrates of the State 
 or Territory from whence such fugitive shall 
 have escaped, to award a certificate, stating 
 the place of abode of such claimant, and setting 
 forth the name, age, and sex of such fugitive. 
 This certificate shall be verified by the signa- 
 ture of the judge or justice awarding the same, 
 and by the certificate of the clerk, under the 
 seal of his court, (if there be a seal,) that the 
 person signing the certificate first mentioned is 
 a judge or justice of the description required 
 by this act." The second section provides 
 u that on producing such certificate as afore- 
 said, to any judge of the circuit or district 
 court, or judge or justice of a court of record 
 in the State or Territory to which such fugitive 
 shall have escaped, it shall be the duty of such 
 judge or magistrate to grant a warrant, author- 
 izing any marshal, sheriff, sergeant, constable, 
 or public bailiff of the State or Territory last 
 aforesaid, to apprehend such fugitive, and bring 
 
 him before such judge or justice. And if it 
 shall thereupon appear to the satisfaction of 
 such judge or magistrate, by the oath of one 
 or more credible witnesses, who shall, upon 
 their own knowledge, swear to the identity of 
 such fugitive, (the owner or claimant being, for 
 this purpose, deemed a competent witness,) or 
 by the voluntary confession of such fugitive, 
 that the person so apprehended hath escaped 
 from the State wherein the said certificate was 
 granted, and is the same person named in the 
 said certificate, the said judge or justice shall 
 deliver such person to the owner or his agent, 
 with his certificate thereof, or, at the request 
 of such owner or agent, shall issue his warrant, 
 requiring any marshal, sheriff, sergeant, con- 
 stable, or public bailiff, of such State or Terri- 
 tory, to take charge of such fugitive, and de- 
 liver him to the said claimant, &c., on the 
 confines of the State or Territory last afore- 
 said ; " and, by the same process, he shall be 
 conducted to the place from which he ab- 
 sconded. 
 
 The most prominent exception which I shall 
 note in the first section, respects the character 
 of the officers to be employed to take cognizance 
 of a crime, and aid in carrying into effect the 
 provisions of this bill. In this case, it is made 
 the duty of two magistrates to take the testi- 
 mony, that such fugitive, being very imperfectly 
 described, is a slave, to award a certificate of 
 this fact, to be verified and certified as therein 
 directed. Here, sir, you call upon a State offi- 
 cer, under the State government, to perform a 
 judicial act authorized by a law of the United 
 States. Upon the services of this officer you 
 have no claim ; to demand them you have no 
 power. This certificate, which is the founda- 
 tion of a warrant, is granted without oath or 
 affirmation, on a mere representation of the case. 
 
 By the second section, on producing this 
 certificate, you make it the imperative duty of 
 a justice of the peace to grant a warrant, au- 
 thorizing a sheriff or constable (as he may 
 please) to apprehend such fugitive, as therein 
 mperfectly described, and bring him before 
 such justice for examination. In this instance, 
 you give as much validity to this certificate of a 
 justice, granted in a distant State or Territory, 
 as is given to a judgment obtained by a solemn 
 decision of the Supreme Court of any State in 
 the Union in any other State. In obtaining 
 judgments or judicial decisions in civil actions, 
 you require witnesses upon oath; but here, 
 where the liberty and rights of the citizen may 
 be depending, you require none. Judgments 
 out of the State where they are obtained, are 
 considered no more than prima facie evidence 
 of a debt; but in this respect the certificate is 
 made stronger evidence of a fact. Here, con- 
 trary to all the ordinary rules in criminal pros- 
 ecutions, you oblige a justice of the peace to 
 .ssue his warrant to apprehend a person, with- 
 out requiring the applicant to give oath or 
 affirmation of the existence of a crime, or of the 
 ground of suspicion. You require him to per-
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 41 
 
 MARCH, 1818.] 
 
 Fugitive Slaves. 
 
 [SENATE. 
 
 form a judicial act, which may seriously and 
 very materially affect the rights of the citizen, 
 whose jurisdiction in civil actions is restricted 
 to thirteen dollars thirty-three cents, and in 
 criminal to six dollars sixty-six cents, by the 
 constitution and laws of the State which gave 
 him judicial existence. These remarks, how- 
 ever, particularly apply to the State of New 
 Hampshire. By the same section, you require 
 and oblige (or subject to a fine) a constable or 
 sheriff to perform an act under a law of the 
 United States, which exposes and puts in jeop- 
 ardy the freedom of the citizen, the most val- 
 uable privilege he can enjoy or possess here on 
 earth. 
 
 The constable, under the laws of the State 
 which are to direct his conduct, is not empow- 
 ered to serve a precept where the sum demanded 
 exceeds thirteen dollars thirty-three cents. He 
 is chosen by a town, without a commission or 
 responsibility, many times little informed, and 
 generally unacquainted with your laws and the 
 duties required under them. If a sheriff is em- 
 ployed, he is a county officer, appointed by the 
 Governor and Council for five years, and knows 
 no other duties than such as are pointed out to 
 him by the laws of the State in which he lives, 
 and particularly relate to his official conduct, 
 within the limits of the county in which he re- 
 sides. 
 
 "What is this officer directed to do ? To arrest 
 a fugitive upon a warrant, founded upon a cer- 
 tificate illegal in its origin, and imperfect in its 
 structure. The only description given of the 
 fugitive by which the officer is to identify and 
 be governed in making the arrest, is, " name, 
 age, and sex," which, in fact, is no description. 
 There is neither color, size, nor any other marks 
 required to be given, by which the officer can 
 identify the person, or safely make an arrest. 
 
 Here, Mr. President, is a simple statement of 
 facts, as they arise in examining this bill. I 
 shall venture to say, the course here directed is 
 improper. Nay, more : the United States can- 
 not constitutionally demand, or employ, the 
 agency of any other power than its own, to dis- 
 charge duties and perform services, under crim- 
 inal laws emanating from Congress. The Con- 
 stitution of the United States expressly says, 
 " The judicial power shall extend to all cases in 
 law and equity arising under this constitution, 
 the laws of the United States, and the treaties 
 made, or which shall be made, under their au- 
 thority." 
 
 By this process of the constitution, we may 
 distinctly see where the judicial power of the 
 United States is deposited that the laws of the 
 United States are to be explained and enforced 
 only by officers created by the constituted au- 
 thorities of the United States. Are State and 
 county judges, and justices of the peace, officers 
 made under the Government of the United 
 States ? If they are, they are so made by a 
 law of Congress. "Will it be pretended that 
 Congress have authority, by a legislative act, 
 to prescribe the duty, create the office and the 
 
 officer, ordain and establish the court and the 
 judge ? The doctrine is preposterous ; it is too 
 absurd to be admitted for a moment ; it would 
 be an assumption of power inconsistent in its 
 nature and dangerous in its consequences. A 
 part of this duty is confided to another branch 
 of the Government by the express provision of 
 the constitution and immemorial usage. The 
 Government of the United States is composed 
 of three distinct branches each of which has 
 duties to perform the Legislative, Executive, 
 and Judicial. They are designed to be kept as 
 distinct and independent of each other, as the 
 nature of a free Government will admit. It is 
 the province of the Legislature to make laws, 
 not judges. You have lately passed a law 
 dividing the State of Pennsylvania into two 
 districts, by which a new court is created, but 
 you have not created the judges. To do this 
 t>y law, would have been too manifest a viola- 
 tion of legislative power to be countenanced in 
 this House. These State and county officers 
 are not officers of this Government, and Con- 
 gress have no claims upon their services as 
 such. It is the duty of the Executive depart- 
 ment to appoint officers. For this important 
 feature in the structure of our Government, 
 there are many cogent reasons. The law, and 
 the execution of the law, s.hould always emanate 
 from different sources. This is a fundamental 
 principle in a republican government. And 
 when this principle is abandoned, one of the 
 great barriers to the encroachments of power is 
 annihilated usurpation is the natural result, 
 and collision must be the unavoidable conse- 
 quence. It is the business of the judicial power 
 to expound and execute the laws. For these 
 duties the courts are qualified by their previous 
 education and application to the general and 
 particular principles of jurisprudence. 
 
 The extent of the several powers and duties 
 of these respective branches of the Govern- 
 ment, are distinctly prescribed by the constitu- 
 tion. Each has an orbit in which it may safely 
 revolve, and, while it keeps within its own 
 sphere, no danger will result from its legitimate 
 action ; but, when permitted to diverge, colli- 
 sion, confusion, and destruction, are the inevi- 
 table consequences. It is not sufficient that an 
 agent, who performs an act for the United 
 States, be an officer of the United States; it 
 must also appear that his authority to perform 
 that act is derived from a legitimate source, 
 otherwise the act is void. For an officer, in 
 the District of Columbia, to apprehend a per- 
 son, by virtue of a law of Virginia, would be an 
 illegal arrest, and, of course, void. We may re- 
 verse the position. It is not competent for an 
 officer, who executes a law of the General Gov- 
 ernment, to show that there is such a law ; but, 
 that he derived his office from the constituted 
 authority of the United States. Apply this to 
 the State or county officer whom you employ. A 
 warrant, an arrest, a commitment, or trial, pre- 
 supposes authority, power, and jurisdiction. The 
 granting of a warrant, pre-supposes authority.
 
 4-2 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SKNATE.] 
 
 Fugitive Slaves. 
 
 [MARCH, 1818. 
 
 To arrest, pre-supposes power. To commit or 
 try, pre-supposes jurisdiction. 
 
 From what source does the county justice re- 
 ceive authority to arrest a person under a law 
 of the United States? Surely not from the 
 State, from the United States. You give him 
 no authority you cannot. The laws of the 
 General Government do not make him a judi- 
 cial officer, nor invest him with judicial power. 
 He possesses powers for certain purposes, to be 
 exercised according to the constitution and laws 
 of that independent sovereignty from whom he 
 derived all his authority. 
 
 On this view of the subject, sir, I am led to 
 the conclusion that Congress has no constitu- 
 tional power to authorize an officer, under a 
 State government, to perform a judicial act. As 
 false premises give rise to incorrect conclusions, 
 it may be proper for me distinctly to state and 
 define my view of judicial power and a judicial 
 act. Sound premises render sophistical reason- 
 ing unnecessary, and present the force of an ar- 
 gument in a convincing point of view. By 
 judicial power, I understand constitutional and 
 "legal authority and discretion to adjudicate 
 on any matter, which is, in some form or way, 
 the subject of litigation and controversy ; and 
 he who exercises such authority and discretion, 
 performs a judicial act." To declare what shall 
 be a rule, or make a law, is an act of legislation ; 
 but to apply the law to the case, is a judicial 
 act. Judicial discretion extends only to the ap- 
 plication of the rules of law to the facts and 
 circumstances of each case. And this discre- 
 tionary power of applying the rules of law to 
 the variety of cases which may be presented 
 for adjudication, carries with it other incidental 
 powers, as the right to judge of the compe- 
 tency, pertinency, and credibility of evidence. 
 If these positions are correct, it needs no argu- 
 ment to show, that, under the provisions of this 
 bill, the judge or justice exercises judicial power 
 in every instance in which he is authorized to act. 
 On the application of the owner of a fugitive, or 
 his agent, the judge or justice is to decide, in 
 view of the testimony presented, whether he is 
 a slave, and does owe service or labor to the 
 claimant, according to the laws of the State or 
 Territory from which such fugitive may have 
 escaped. This being decided in the affirmative, 
 the claimant, or his agent, enters into a recog- 
 nizance, on certain conditions, to perform cer- 
 tain acts. In consequence of which, the judge 
 or justice grants his certificate, setting forth the 
 name, age, and sex, of such fugitive, which cer- 
 tificate shall be verified by the signature of the 
 person who grants it, and shall be certified by 
 a clerk of a court that such officer is a judge or 
 justice of the description required by this act. 
 
 This, sir, I consider a judicial act not be- 
 cause giving a certificate of a fact is a judicial 
 act, but because the certificate has, in its ulti- 
 mate operation, the very nature of a warrant. 
 The efficacy given to it, by the provisions of 
 this bill, entirely changes it from the original 
 character of a simple certificate, and makes it a 
 
 sufficient warrant for a specific, judicial act. On 
 presenting this certificate to a judge or justice, 
 in a State or Territory to which the 1'ugitivo 
 may have escaped, it is made ample authority 
 for him, nay, you declare it is his "duty to 
 grant a warrant, authorizing a sheriff or con- 
 stable to apprehend such fugitive and bring him 
 before such magistrate ; and if it shall there- 
 upon appear to the satisfaction of such judge or 
 magistrate," by the testimony then produced, 
 " that the person so apprehended has escaped, 
 &c., the said judge or justice shall deliver such 
 person to the owner, or his agent, with his cer- 
 tificate thereof, or at the request of such owner, 
 or agent, shall issue his warrant requiring any 
 sheriff, &c., to take charge and custody of such 
 fugitive, and deliver him," &c. If it shall here 
 appear, on examination, by the testimony offer- 
 ed, that the person named in the certificate, and 
 arrested, is a fugitive, the justice shall deliver 
 him to the claimant, or issue his warrant, and 
 commit him to the custody of an officer. In 
 these instances, I presume, no one will contend 
 that the justice does not perform judicial acts. 
 If it is possible for a magistrate to exercise ju- 
 dicial power, it must be in the performance of 
 the duties above enjoined. 
 
 It is not only in granting a warrant, but in 
 determining on the competency of the testimo- 
 ny, and the legality of the duty performed, that 
 this judicial power is exercised ; it is the prov- 
 ince of a judicial officer to judge of the pro- 
 priety and exercise the power of issuing a war- 
 rant to arrest a person. This, I presume, is a 
 principle universally admitted. " To judge of 
 the grounds of an accusation, on which a war- 
 rant to arrest may or may not be issued, is as 
 really a judicial act as the process of trial and 
 condemnation." Neither names of office, forms 
 of evidence, nor degree of criminality, have any 
 essential weight in determining the abstract 
 nature and character of judicial power. This 
 capacity to exercise the judgment, in view of 
 testimony, for the purpose of removing doubts, 
 obviating objections, and deciding on matters 
 which are affirmed on the one part and presumed 
 to be denied on the other, is always accompanied 
 with a confidence of trust, the exercise of 
 which, even in the incipient act of a justice 
 of the peace, in granting a warrant to arrest a 
 person, is an exercise of judicial power. 
 
 But, sir, permit me to take another view of 
 the subject. It is not expedient for the United 
 States to call on State and county officers, un- 
 der State governments, to perform any duty 
 under the criminal laws of Congress. It is much 
 more suitable, correct, and proper, to empower 
 only the officers of the General Government to 
 execute its laws. It may justly be considered a 
 perversion of the Constitution of the United 
 States, and extremely dangerous, to commit 
 power into the hands of those who are no way 
 officially responsible ; and, also, very unjust to 
 exact service without compensation ; especially, 
 in many instances, where the State constitution 
 and laws peremptorily prohibit the performance
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 43 
 
 MARCH, 1818.] 
 
 Fugitive Slaves. 
 
 [SENATE. 
 
 of such official acts with the informalities allow- 
 ed by the provisions of this bill. "With the offi- 
 cers of the United States it is otherwise. They 
 derive their appointment and official existence 
 from your Government, to be employed in your 
 service in the execution of your laws ; they are 
 compensated by the General Government, re- 
 sponsible to it, removable and punishable by it, 
 and upon their services you have just claims. 
 But this connection and mutual obligation be- 
 tween the Government of the United States and 
 individual State and county officers does not, 
 and cannot, exist. They derive their official 
 existence and power from the Government of 
 the State in which they reside. The constitu- 
 tion and laws of their State define and regulate 
 their power and duties; the extent of their 
 jurisdiction in civil and criminal causes, and the 
 tenure of their offices. They are commissioned 
 to perform services for the State ; they are com- 
 pensated by the State; they are amenable to 
 the State ; they are removable and punishable 
 by the State, and by that only. 
 
 WEDNESDAY, March 11. 
 Fugitive Slaves. 
 
 The Senate resumed, as in Committee of the 
 Whole, the consideration of the bill, entitled 
 "An act for delivering up persons held to labor 
 or service in any of the States or Territories, 
 who shall escape into any other State or Terri- 
 tory ;" and the bill having been further amend- 
 ed, on motion by Mr. RUGGLES, that the further 
 consideration thereof be postponed until the 
 first Monday in July next, it was determined in 
 the negative yeas 11, nays 18, as follows : 
 
 YEAS. Messrs. Burrill, Daggett, Horsey, Hunter, 
 King, Morrow, Noble, Roberts, Ruggles, Tichenor, 
 and Van Dyke. 
 
 NAYS. Messrs. Campbell, Crittenden, Dickerson, 
 Eppes, Fromentin, Gaillard, Goldsborough, Johnson, 
 Leake, Macon, Otis, Sanford, Smith, Tait, Talbot, 
 Taylor, Williams of Mississippi, and Williams of Ten- 
 nessee. 
 
 On motion by Mr. DAGGETT to strike out the 
 following section of the bill : 
 
 SEC. 6. And be it further enacted, That whenever 
 the Executive authority of any State in the Union, 
 or of either of the Territories thereof, shall, for or in 
 behalf of any citizen or inhabitant of such State or 
 Territory, demand any fugitive slave of the Execu- 
 tive authority of any State or Territory, to which 
 such slave shall have fled, and shall moreover pro- 
 duce a certificate, issued pursuant to the first section 
 of this act, it shall be the duty of the Executive 
 authority of the State or Territory to which such 
 fugitive shall have fled, to cause him or her to be ar- 
 rested and secured, and notice of the arrest to be 
 given to the Executive authority making such de- 
 mand, or to the agent of such authority appointed to 
 receive the fugitive, and to cause such fugitive to be 
 delivered to the said agent, on the confine or boundary 
 of the State or Territory in which said arrest shall 
 be, and in the most usual and direct route to the 
 place from whence the said fugitive shall have escap- 
 ed ; and the reasonable expense of such arrest, de- 
 
 tention, and delivery of such fugitive, shall be paid 
 by the said agent. 
 
 It was determined in the negative yeas 13, 
 nays 16, as follows: 
 
 YEAS. Messrs. Burril], Daggett, Dickerson, Hor- 
 sey, Hunter, King, Lacock, Morrill, Noble, Roberts, 
 Ruggles, Tichenor, and Van Dyke. 
 
 NAYS. Messrs. Campbell, Crittenden, Eppes, Fro- 
 mentin, Gaillard, Goldsborough, Leake, Macon, Otis, 
 Smith, Stokes, Tait, Talbot, Taylor, Williams of Mis- 
 sissippi, and W'illiams of Tennessee. 
 
 On motion by Mr. VAN DYKE, to insert in 
 section 2, line 13, after "certificate," "and 
 doth, under the laws of the State or Territory 
 from which he or she fled owe service or labor 
 to the person claiming him or her ;" it was de- 
 termined in the negative yeas 11, nays 18, as 
 follows : 
 
 YEAS. Messrs. Bnrrill, Daggett, Horsey, Hunter, 
 Lacock, Morrill, Noble, Roberts, Ruggles, Storer, arid 
 Van Dyke. 
 
 NAYS. Messrs. Campbell, Crittenden, Eppes, Fro- 
 mentin, Gaillard, Goldsborough, Johnson, King, 
 Leake, Macon, Otis, Sanford, Smith, Stokes, Tait, 
 Talbot, Williams of Mississippi, and Williams of Ten- 
 
 The bill having been farther amended, the 
 PRESIDENT reported it to the House according- 
 ly ; and the amendments having been concurred 
 in, on motion by Mr. LACOCK, to add the follow- 
 ing section to the bill : 
 
 " SEC. . And be it further enacted, That this law 
 shall be and remain in force for the term of four 
 years, and no longer " 
 
 The Senate being equally divided, the PRESI- 
 DENT determined the question in the affirmative ; 
 and, on the question, " Shall the amendments 
 be engrossed and the bill be read a third time, 
 as amended ?" it was determined in the affirm- 
 ative. 
 
 THURSDAY, March 12. 
 
 Fugitive Slaves. 
 
 The amendments to the bill, entitled "An 
 act to provide for delivering up persons held to 
 labor or service in any of the States or Territo- 
 ries, who shall escape into any other State or 
 Territory," having been reported by the com- 
 mittee correctly engrossed, the bill was read a 
 third time as amended ; and, on the question, 
 " Shall this bill pass as amended?" it was de- 
 termined in the affirmative yeas 17, nays 18, 
 as follows : 
 
 YEAS. Messrs. Campbell, Crittenden, Eppes, Fro- 
 mentin, Gaillard, Goldsborongh, Johnson, Macon, 
 Otis, Sanford, Smith, Stokes, Tait, Talbot, Taylor, 
 Williams of Mississippi, and Williams of Tennessee. 
 
 NAYS. Messrs. Burrill, Daggett, Dickerson, Hor- 
 sey, Hunter, King, Lacock, Morrow, Noble, Roberts, 
 Buggies, Tichenor, and Van Dyke. 
 
 So it was Resolved, That this bill pass with 
 amendments.
 
 44 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 Seminole Indians. 
 
 [MARCH, 1818. 
 
 TUESDAY, March 24. 
 Case of R. W. Meade. 
 
 Mr. BARBOTTB, from the Committee on For- 
 eign Relations, to whom was referred the peti- 
 tion of sundry citizens of Philadelphia, asking 
 the interposition of Congress in behalf of Rich- 
 ard "W. Meade, an American citizen, unjustly 
 and wantonly confined in a dungeon in Spain, 
 by the authority of that Government, made a 
 report ; which was read, as follows : 
 
 The Committee of the Senate on Foreign Rela- 
 tions, to whom was referred the petition of sundry 
 citizens of Philadelphia, asking the interposition of 
 Congress in behalf of Richard W. Meade, an Ameri- 
 can citizen, unjustly and wantonly confined hi a dun- 
 geon in Spain, by the authority of that Government, 
 have given to the subject the deliberation its im- 
 portance deserved, and beg leave to submit the fol- 
 lowing report : It appears from the documents, R. 
 W. Meade is an American citizen, who went to Spain 
 in the year 1803 on lawful business ; that in the 
 year 1806, such was the confidence of the Govern- 
 ment in his integrity, that he was appointed Navy 
 Agent for the United States at the port of Cadiz; a 
 station which he held until the time of his confine- 
 ment. Such was the correctness of his deportment, 
 as to have been appointed by the tribunal of com- 
 merce at Cadiz, with the consent of all the parties 
 concerned, assignee of a bankrupt, the amount of 
 whose estate involved a high responsibility. He per- 
 formed the duties thus devolved upon him, honestly ; 
 and, having collected for distribution fifty thousand 
 dollars, he several times petitioned the tribunal to 
 permit him to remit this sum to the creditors of the 
 bankrupt resident in England ; the only proper 
 course left him to pursue, inasmuch as he had, when 
 appointed agent of the bankrupt, given his bond to 
 that tribunal conditioned to take charge of the effects 
 of the bankrupt, and to be responsible solely to the 
 tribunal for the proceeds, being prohibited under the 
 penalty of the bonds from disposing of the funds 
 without the sanction of the tribunal. A controversy 
 having arisen between the creditors and bankrupt 
 about the distribution, Meade offered the money to 
 either, if they would give bond, with sureties, to the 
 satisfaction of the tribunal of commerce, by which 
 his own might be cancelled. This they were unable 
 to do. The tribunal, of its own accord, and unex- 
 pectedly, decided that Meade should, on the following 
 morning, place the money in the King's treasury, un- 
 til the parties litigant should give the security re- 
 quired ; it being declared that all Meade's property 
 should be sequestered in the case of non-payment at 
 the time limited. The money was forthwith paid by 
 Meade into the treasury, in treasury notes equal to 
 specie, and hence acknowledged by the Treasurer, 
 that the deposit had been made in due form, under 
 his inspection, in effective specie, and that whenever 
 the tribunal should order its payment, His Majesty 
 would pay it in the same coin. 
 
 Notwithstanding this judgment, and the discharge 
 thereof, by the payment aforesaid, Mr. Dermot, the 
 agent for the British creditors, brought suit against 
 Meade in the same court to recover the very sum he 
 had heretofore paid in conformity to its own judg- 
 ment. The court awarded judgment against Meade 
 a second time for this money. The latter appealed 
 to the superior tribunal, called Abradas. During its 
 pendency, it is charged by Meade, that the cause was 
 
 removed, by the interposition of the British Minister, 
 to the council of war, and, by the same interposition, 
 his arrest and confinement were procured, from which 
 he could be relieved only by a repayment of the mo- 
 ney. He has languished in confinement from the 2d 
 of May, 1816, down to the last accounts from Spam. 
 
 The Representative of this nation at that Court 
 has repeatedly appealed to His Catholic Majesty for 
 the relief of Meade ; and the appeal has been in vain 
 the Court of Spain having refused either to restore 
 the money deposited in its own treasury, by order of 
 its own competent judicial authority, or to release 
 the person of Meade from the long confinement to 
 which he has been doomed ; and, finally, the Presi- 
 dent of the United States, whose peculiar province is 
 to take cognizance of subjects of this kind, has caused 
 a representation of the subject to be made to the 
 Minister of Spain to the United States, demanding 
 his immediate liberation. Nothing but a confidence 
 that this representation will produce the desired re- 
 sult, would have restrained your committee from re- 
 commending the adoption of measures of severe ret- 
 ribution. 
 
 Your committee are of opinion, that it is due to 
 the dignity of the United States to adopt, as a funda- 
 mental rule of its policy, the principle, that one of its 
 citizens, to whatever region of the earth his lawful 
 business may carry him, and who demeans himself 
 as becomes his character, is entitled to the protec- 
 tion of his Government, and whatever intentional 
 injury may be done him should be retaliated by the 
 employment, if necessary, of the whole force of the 
 nation. 
 
 Medals to Harrison and Shelby. 
 
 Mr. DiCKEBSOJf, agreeably to notice given 
 yesterday, asked leave to introduce a resolution 
 offering the thanks of Congress to Major Gen- 
 eral William Henry Harrison and Isaac Shelby, 
 late Governor of Kentucky, for their distin- 
 guished bravery and good conduct in capturing 
 the British army under command of Major Gen- 
 eral Proctor, at the battle of the Thames in 
 Upper Canada, on the 5th of October, 1813. 
 
 Mr. D. then offered the following resolution: 
 
 Resolved by the. Senate and House of Representatives 
 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
 That the thanks of Congress be, and they are hereby, 
 presented to Major General William Henry Harrison, 
 and Isaac Shelby, late Governor of Kentucky, and 
 through them to the officers and men under their 
 command, for their gallantry and good conduct in 
 defeating the combined British and Indian forces un- 
 der Major General Proctor, on the Thames, in Up- 
 per Canada, on the 5th day of October, one thousand 
 eight hundred and thirteen, capturing the British 
 army, with their baggage, camp equipage, and ar- 
 tillery; and that the President of the United States 
 be requested to cause two gold medals to be struck, 
 emblematical of this triumph, and presented to Gen- 
 eral Harrison and Isaac Shelby, late Governor of 
 Kentucky. 
 
 The resolution was read and passed to a sec- 
 ond reading. 
 
 WEDNESDAY, March 25. 
 
 Seminole Indians. 
 
 The folio wing Message was received from the 
 PKESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES :
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 45 
 
 MARCH, 1818.] 
 
 Honors to Colonel R. M. Johnson. 
 
 [SEHATE. 
 
 To the Senate of the United States : 
 
 I now lay before Congress all the information in 
 the possession of the Executive, respecting the war 
 with the Seminoles, and the measures which it has 
 been thought proper to adopt, for the safety of our 
 fellow-citizens on the frontier exposed to their rav- 
 ages. The enclosed documents show that the hos- 
 tilities of this tribe were unprovoked, the offspring of 
 a spirit long cherished, and often manifested towards 
 the United States, and that, in the present instance, 
 it was extending itself to other tribes, and daily as- 
 suming a more serious aspect. As soon as the nature 
 and object of this combination were perceived, the 
 Major General commanding the Southern division of 
 the troops of the United States, was ordered to the 
 theatre of action, charged with the management of 
 the war, and vested with the powers necessary to 
 give it effect. The season of the year being unfavor- 
 able to active operations, and the recesses of the 
 country affording shelter to these savages, in case of 
 retreat, may prevent a prompt termination of the 
 war, but it may be fairly presumed that it will not be 
 long before this tribe, and its associates, receive the 
 punishment which they have provoked and justly 
 merited. 
 
 As almost the whole of this tribe inhabits the coun- 
 try within the limits of Florida, Spain was bound, by 
 the Treaty of 1795, to restrain them from commit- 
 ting hostilities against the United States. We have 
 seen, with regret, that her Government has altoge- 
 ther failed to fulfil this obligation, nor are we aware 
 that it made any effort to that effect. When we 
 consider her utter inability to check, even in the 
 slightest degree, the movements of this tribe, by her 
 very small and incompetent force in Florida, we are 
 not disposed to ascribe the failure to any other cause. 
 The inability, however, of Spain, to maintain her 
 authority over the territory, and Indians within her 
 limits, and in consequence to fulfil the treaty, ought 
 not to expose the United States to other and greater 
 injuries. When the authority of Spain ceases to ex- 
 ist there, the United States have a right to pursue 
 their enemy, on a principle of self-defence. In this 
 instance, the right is more complete and obvious, 
 because we shall perform only what Spain was bound 
 to have performed herself. To the high obligations 
 and privileges of this great and sacred right of self- 
 defence will the movement of our troops be strictly 
 confined. Orders have been given to the General in 
 command not to enter Florida, unless it be in pur- 
 suit of the enemy, and in that case, to respect the 
 Spanish authority, wherever it is maintained, and he 
 will be instructed to withdraw his forces from the 
 province, as soon as he shall have reduced that tribe 
 to order, and secure our fellow-citizens, in that quar- 
 ter, by satisfactory arrangements, against its unpro- 
 voked and savage hostilities in future. 
 
 JAMES MONROE. 
 
 WASHINGTON, March 25, 1818. 
 
 The Message and accompanying documents 
 were read, and two hundred additional copies 
 thereof ordered to be printed for the use of the 
 Senate. 
 
 TUESDAY, March 81. 
 
 Honors to Colonel R. M. Johnson. 
 
 Agreeably to notice given, Mr. BAKBOUK 
 
 asked and obtained leave to bring hi a resolu- 
 
 tion requesting the President of the United 
 States to present to Colonel Richard M. John- 
 son a sword, as a testimony of the high sense 
 entertained by Congress of the daring and dis- 
 tinguished valor displayed by himself and the 
 regiment of volunteers under his command, in, 
 charging the enemy on the Thames, in Upper 
 Canada, on the 5th October, 1813; and the 
 resolution was read twice by unanimous con- 
 Bent, and considered as in Committee of the 
 Whole, and having been amended, the PRESI- 
 DENT reported it to the House accordingly ; and 
 the amendments being concurred in, the reso- 
 lution was ordered to be engrossed, and read a 
 third time. 
 
 On introducing the proposition for causing 
 a sword to be presented to Colonel B. M. John- 
 son 
 
 Mr. BARBOTTB said, in availing himself of the 
 notice given on yesterday, of asking leave to 
 introduce a resolution, whose object would be 
 to present to Colonel Richard M. Johnson some 
 testimonial of the high sense entertained by the 
 nation of the distinguished services rendered by 
 him on the 5th October, 1813, in the battle of 
 the Thames, he considered himself bound to 
 make a few remarks, disclosing the propriety 
 of granting the leave asked. 
 
 As to the distinguished merit of Colonel 
 Johnson, he presumed there could be no differ- 
 ence of opinion ; the only objection that could 
 possibly present itself would be, the time when 
 the resolution was presented, or possibly the 
 grade which Colonel Johnson held in the army. 
 To remove these, if they exist, was all that de- 
 volved on him. As to the objection of time, it 
 will at once be removed by reflecting on that 
 which has just occurred the vote of thanks 
 which has been awarded in favor of General 
 Harrison and Governor Shelby. It is not un- 
 known that rumor, the result of envy, or some 
 other bad passion, had attempted to throw a 
 shade around the character of that distinguished 
 commander. He felt as he ought, and sought 
 an investigation, to vindicate his character from 
 the foul aspersions which had been cast upon 
 it. It, after some delay, took place, and re- 
 sulted hi an honorable acquittal. In the mean 
 tune the venerable Shelby was, at his own re- 
 quest, withheld from the notice of the nation, 
 as it regarded the distinguished services he had 
 rendered Shelby, a name which can never be 
 mentioned without awakening in every Ameri- 
 can bosom emotions of gratitude. I see in this 
 illustrious character a display of that love of 
 country and chivalrous spirit which conceived 
 and effected our independence, and, unabated 
 by age, it reappeared to vindicate those rights, 
 to the establishment of which, in his more 
 youthful days, he had so essentially contributed ; 
 but he is as generous as he is brave, and he re- 
 fused to accept a tribute of respect, whose indi- 
 rect consequence might have been a reflection 
 on the Commander-in-chief, to whose zeal, pa- 
 triotism, and capacity in conducting this cam- 
 paign, he always bore a cheerful testimony.
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 Honors to Colonel R. M. Johnson. 
 
 [MAHCH, 1818. 
 
 Colonel Johnson, influenced by the same sensi- 
 bility, peremptorily refused to his friends the 
 Eission of bringing this subject before the 
 esentatives of the people. I, however, 
 barely remark, in regard to the command- 
 ing general, that, with the regrets which the 
 delay of justice to this citizen must necessarily 
 create, will be mingled some consolation in the 
 reflection, that his character has been entirely 
 purified from the censure which had been im- 
 properly cast upon it ; and that the meed now 
 dispensed has the sanction of the deliberate judg- 
 ment of the nation, unbiassed by passion or the 
 false fire of the moment. He will now receive 
 it with a grateful feeling, as the highest reward 
 which freemen can give or a freeman receive. 
 
 With regard to Colonel Johnson, it is due to 
 him to say, this proposition is now made without 
 his consent. Mr. B., however, who took a pride 
 in calling him his friend, took the responsibility 
 upon himself, because he thought it would be an 
 act of consummate injustice, were no lasting 
 memorial to be erected to the valor which he 
 so signally displayed on the occasion alluded 
 to. Another motive with Mr. B. was, a notifi- 
 cation on the part of Colonel Johnson, of his 
 retiring from public life. While he regretted 
 this event as a serious loss to the public coun- 
 cils, he was perfectly satisfied that his reasons 
 were sufficient to justify it. While upon this 
 subject he would barely add, that he was satis- 
 fied it would not be deemed an exaggeration 
 when he asserted that no man in Congress had 
 performed more service than Colonel Johnson. 
 In addition to the just claims of his own par- 
 ticular constituents upon him, what part of the 
 Union is it from which applications have not 
 been made and cheerfully attended to by this 
 patriotic citizen ? So much for the first objec- 
 tion that might possibly be made, although he 
 did not anticipate it. As to the second diffi- 
 culty, that might exist in the opinion of some 
 gentlemen, the grade of Colonel Johnson if 
 there were no precedent applicable to this case, 
 Mr. B. would have had no difficulty in fixing 
 one. It is the attribute of all governments to 
 adapt their proceedings to the endless vicissi- 
 tudes which human affairs continually present. 
 The valor displayed by Colonel Johnson is un- 
 surpassed by any example in the annals of man- 
 kind. But it is not now necessary to press this 
 question, because you have a precedent in the 
 case of McDonough and his associates, in the 
 distinguished victory gained by them on Lake 
 Champlain, over a British squadron, and some 
 others. Mr. B. said he should but ill represent 
 the feelings of his friend, or his own, if, in ask- 
 ing for this tribute of respect, any thing could 
 be inferred from what is said or done, unfavor- 
 able to those patriotic officers holding grades 
 between Colonel Johnson and the Commander- 
 in-chief. It was but justice to them to say, 
 that had it been their good fortune on the day 
 of battle to have had the post of honor, they 
 would have acquired those laurels so dearly 
 earned by Colonel Johnson. Generous as 
 
 brave, so far from looking with an eye of envy 
 upon this honorable tribute of gratitude, dis- 
 pensed in behalf of this distinguished citizen, 
 they will warmly participate in the fine feel- 
 ings with which Colonel Johnson will receive 
 this mark of his country's distinction. 
 
 As to the merit of Colonel Johnson to this 
 evidence of our gratitude, Mr. B. said, he had 
 already declared that upon this point there 
 could be no difference of opinion. To expatiate 
 upon it would be unnecessary; yet he could 
 not dismiss this subject without briefly enumer- 
 ating some of the leading acts of his public life, 
 so far at least as they connect themselves with 
 the question under consideration. 
 
 Let it then be remembered that he was zeal- 
 ously in favor of the war. Not content with 
 the distinguished place he held in the councils 
 of the nation, he patriotically resolved to vindi- 
 cate with his own arm those rights which he 
 had so manfully asserted while voting for the 
 declaration of war. He erects his standard and 
 proclaims his purpose, and although much was 
 to have been expected from the patriotism, the 
 zeal, the enterprise, and courage of Kentucky 
 a people Mr. B. delighted to honor, as, in addi- 
 tion to their merit, he considered them his own 
 kindred, thousands of his near and highly re- 
 spected relations being there although, he said, 
 much was to have been expected, yet, when we 
 reflect upon the devotedness of those old and 
 young, rich and poor, rallying around the stand- 
 ard of their country, we see a new subject of 
 admiration. 
 
 In doing justice to those patriots, let it not 
 be understood that any invidious distinction is 
 intended to be made in their favor. Mr. B. 
 said he well knew that illustrious examples of 
 courage and patriotism were exhibited in other 
 portions of the Union, and on all proper occa- 
 sions he was prepared to lift his feeble voice to 
 do them ample justice. But, to return to the 
 patriotic volunteers, who embodied at the call 
 of Colonel Johnson, displaying a spectacle as 
 honorable to themselves as to Colonel Johnson 
 manifesting the high confidence they reposed 
 in this their illustrious citizen these brave 
 men, leaving their homes and their domestic 
 blessings, and, weighing the honor of their 
 country and the defence of her rights against 
 the privations and hazards of war, willingly 
 accepted them as an equivalent. Undeterred 
 by the difficulties or dangers to which they are 
 about to be exposed, they fearlessly commit 
 themselves to the trackless desert, to the secret 
 danger of the ambuscaded savage, or the more 
 open perils of their less savage ally. A night 
 of misfortune had shed its disastrous gloom 
 over our affairs. It was given to Commodore 
 Perry to turn back the tide of adversity upon 
 the fountain from which it flowed. Lake Erie 
 was reserved for the display of the brilliant su- 
 periority of American bravery and seamanship 
 over our then haughty foe achieving a victo- 
 ry, which, in the language of President Madi- 
 son, will fill an early page in our naval annals,
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 47 
 
 APRIL, 1818.] 
 
 British West India Trade. 
 
 [SENATE. 
 
 as having never been surpassed in lustre, how- 
 ever much it may have been in magnitude. 
 The way having been opened, the commanding 
 general" and his veteran associate, with promp- 
 titude, availed themselves of the opportunity 
 thus offered, to throw themselves in the ene- 
 my's country, and pursuing, with unanimity 
 and an- unexampled rapidity, (of which pursuit 
 Colonel Johnson led the van,) speedily overtook 
 them. The battle is arrayed ; the post of hon- 
 or, for such he made it, is assigned Colonel 
 Johnson. The enemy have the Thames on the 
 left ; a British regiment, seven hundred strong, 
 has also a ravine on the right, beyond which 
 was the celebrated Tecumseh, at the head of 
 fifteen hundred savages a force truly formida- 
 ble. When we refer to the commander, of 
 whom it may be said, unless his character has 
 been greatly exaggerated, that, had he have 
 been favored with the embellishments of civil- 
 ized life, and the benefits of military experience, 
 he would have been one of the most distin- 
 guished captains of the present eventful period ; 
 to which, when we superadd that his associates 
 were acting under the impression of their being 
 under the particular favor of Heaven, it well 
 may be said that the force thus to be encoun- 
 tered was indeed formidable. This force, so 
 placed, and so formidable to ordinary minds, 
 presented nothing alarming to the mounted 
 regiment. Colonel Johnson divides his regi- 
 ment, say one thousand strong one battalion 
 placed under the command of Colonel James 
 Johnson, who gave, in accepting his station un- 
 der a younger brother, an honorable evidence 
 of his patriotism ; the other battalion, headed 
 by himself, passed a defile, and placed itself on 
 the right of the marsh. The bugle was to an. 
 nounce the readiness for attack. The sound is 
 heard, and, mingled with the watchword, vic- 
 tory or death, floated along the line. The Brit- 
 ish force was overwhelmed in an instant ; they 
 threw down their arms, and on their knees sup- 
 plicated mercy. Although there was a long 
 account of unatoned-for blood, impiously shed 
 by this united British and Indian force, and re- 
 taliation justified even to their entire extermi- 
 nation, yet, at the cry of mercy, the sword was 
 immediately sheathed, and the guilty survived. 
 Far different was the conflict with the savage 
 foe ; there man was opposed to man, in single 
 combat, rifle to rifle, and tomahawk to toma- 
 hawk ; wounds and death were mutually dealt 
 out. Colonel Johnson, early in the combat, re- 
 ceived two severe wounds, attended with the 
 loss of much blood. In this trying crisis an or- 
 dinary courage would have retired from the 
 combat; on him it had a different effect. It 
 seemed to impart to him new courage, which 
 manifested itself in a prodigy of valor, which 
 loses nothing in a comparison with the most 
 splendid achievement recorded hi the whole 
 extent of "backward time." Calling around 
 him twenty spirits, the bravest among the 
 brave, he resolved, at their head, to precipitate 
 himself on the fiercest part of the conflict, 
 
 where Tecumseh in person commanded, and 
 who was the soul of the battle. Of these dar- 
 ing spirits, composing the forlorn hope, one 
 only escaped. The others were all cut down, 
 some to rise no more ; the remainder mangled 
 by numerous wounds, of which the subject of 
 the present resolution had his melancholy share. 
 Bleeding, exhausted by effusion of blood, and 
 alone, his fate seemed inevitable, when Tecum- 
 seh, cool, and collected, approached with his 
 unerring rifle and ruthless tomahawk. It 
 pleased Providence to interpose. Amidst uni- 
 versal carnage, and in the teeth of approaching 
 death, Colonel Johnson remained undismayed, 
 and hurled at Tecumseh that death which had 
 been prepared for him. This is the man and 
 the services to which Mr. B. wished an honor- 
 able testimony to be erected, one more lasting 
 than that which is found in evanescent papers 
 of the day. If any thing was necessary to be 
 added in support of the high claims of this dis- 
 tinguished citizen upon the gratitude of his 
 country, it would be found in the honorable 
 notice taken of him by the commanding gener- 
 al, and repeated, in the most flattering manner, 
 by President Madison, hi communicating the 
 result of the battle to Congress. But it is more 
 than unnecessary to furnish any additional 
 proofs. Wherever there is an American, the 
 courage and services of Colonel Johnson are 
 known and applauded. Mr. B. indulged a 
 hope, bordering on confidence, that the measure 
 he now proposed would receive the unanimous 
 consent of the Senate, for in that unanimity its 
 principal merit would consist. 
 
 FRIDAY, April 3. 
 British West India Trade Navigation, Bill 
 
 The Senate resumed the consideration of the 
 bill concerning navigation, reported by the 
 Committee of Foreign Relations on Wednesday. 
 
 [The 1st section provides, that from and af- 
 ter the 30th of September next, the ports of the 
 United States shall be and remain closed against 
 every vessel owned wholly or in port by a sub- 
 ject or subjects of His Britannic Majesty, com- 
 ing or arriving from any part or place in a 
 colony or territory of His Britannic Majesty, 
 that is or shall be, by the ordinary laws of 
 navigation and trade, closed against vessels 
 owned by citizens of the United States ; and 
 every such vessel, so excluded from the ports 
 of the United States, that shall enter, or at- 
 tempt to enter the same, in violation of this 
 act, shall, with her tackle, apparel, and furni- 
 ture, together with the cargo on board such 
 vessel, be forfeited to the United States. 
 
 The 2d section provides, substantially, that 
 any British vessel entering onr ports, shall, on 
 her departure, if laden with the productions of 
 the United States, give bonds not to land her 
 cargo at any of the British ports prohibited in 
 the first section, and to forfeit vessel, tackle, 
 &c., if she attempts to sail without so giving 
 bond.
 
 48 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 British West India Trade, 
 
 [APBIL, 1818. 
 
 The 3d section enacts the manner of recover- 
 ing the penalties, accounting for them, &c.] 
 
 Mr. BARBOUR, of Virginia, said, as the organ 
 of the committee who reported the bill, it was 
 expected of him by the Senate that he should 
 disclose the views of the committee on this in- 
 teresting subject. 
 
 It certainly behooved the Senate to give this 
 subject its most serious attention, and to act 
 only upon the most mature deliberation; for 
 remember, when once adopted, it must be ad- 
 hered to. To recede, would be to insure an 
 endless duration to the serious evils of which 
 we complain, and, what is still of more conse- 
 quence, it must be attended with a diminution 
 of character. Any policy, adopted by the unan- 
 imous consent of the nation, founded in jus- 
 tice and wisdom, and sustained by perseverance, 
 must finally be felt and yielded to by any and 
 every nation on which it operates. The object 
 of the bill under consideration, is to relieve from 
 the effects of measures adopted by Great Brit- 
 ain in relation to our commercial intercourse 
 with her North American colonies and West 
 Indies ; measures exclusively against us, as in- 
 jurious to our navigating interest as they are 
 offensive to our dignity. The invidious policy 
 of which we complain, and which is attended 
 with such unpleasant effects, may be summed 
 up in a few words. She has shut her ports in 
 the possessions formerly alluded to, against 
 American vessels and American property. Not 
 a cock-boat, not an atom of any thing that is 
 American, does she permit to enter, while she 
 modestly insists to bring every thing that she 
 pleases from these possessions to the United 
 States, and to purchase, and exclusively to 
 carry the produce and manufactures of the 
 United States in return; that is, she insists 
 upon, and we have been tame enough to sub- 
 mit to it, to enjoy exclusively the whole of this 
 valuable intercourse. 
 
 The evil has been of long standing ; it com- 
 menced upon our becoming an independent 
 people. She was not generous enough to for- 
 get that we had been enemies, nor wise enough 
 to profit by a liberal policy. She would have 
 found in the same language, the same habits, 
 the same feelings; and in the kind affections 
 inseparably attending two people of a common 
 origin, except when repressed by injustice or 
 oppression ; she would have found in these cir- 
 cumstances sure guarantees to an uninterrupted, 
 friendly, and, to her, highly beneficial inter- 
 course. But other counsels prevailed, and dis- 
 played a new proof of the mortifying truth, that 
 small, indeed, is the portion of wisdom that di- 
 rects the government of human affairs. Hence, 
 the moment she acknowledged our independ- 
 ence, she immediately denounced against the 
 United States all the rigor of her colonial sys- 
 temdeparting from it only in such parts as 
 would promote her interest, and render it more 
 injurious and humiliating to us. She super- 
 ciliously rejected all offers at negotiation. The 
 United States, without a common head, and 
 
 pursuing among themselves an insulated, and 
 frequently a selfish and an unwise policy, be- 
 came the footballs of Great Britain, who, 
 watching, as she always does, with a sleepless 
 eye, whatever is to affect her commerce, seized 
 instantly upon her defenceless prey, and push- 
 ed her exclusive system to the uttermost of en- 
 durance. In this spirit, instead of being con- 
 tent with enforcing towards us the real colonial 
 system, which was, that the trade should be ex- 
 clusive through and with the mother country, 
 she permitted the produce of her dependencies 
 to be brought directly to this country, and the 
 produce of this country to be carried back di- 
 rectly to them, but both operations to be effect- 
 ed exclusively by British shipping, to the con- 
 sequent exclusion of the American shipping 
 from the transportation of the produce even of 
 America. So injurious were the effects result- 
 ing from our commercial intercourse, and so en- 
 tirely unable were the United States to coun- 
 teract these effects in their then disjointed 
 condition, that our sanguine anticipations from 
 the successful result of our Revolution, began 
 fast to dissipate, and no little solicitude to be 
 experienced in regard to the future. This state 
 of things produced a convention of the States, 
 and finally resulted in our present happy con- 
 stitution. I am authorized to say, from the 
 best authority, that it is to this cause chiefly, if 
 not entirely, that we are indebted for this 
 greatest blessing of Heaven. In looking through 
 the history of mankind, and tracing the causes 
 which contribute to the rise and downfall of 
 nations, it frequently becomes a subject of curi- 
 ous speculation, when we see the most propiti- 
 ous results flowing from apparently injurious 
 causes, and the worst passions of mankind con- 
 verted into the means of furthering some bene- 
 ficent purpose of Providence. Little did the 
 statesman of Britain think, when indulging his 
 thirst for cupidity or revenge, that he was to 
 become the involuntary benefactor of America, 
 by essentially contributing to the order of 
 things which now exists, and which, under 
 Providence, will insure us an endless succes- 
 sion of power, of prosperity, and of happiness. 
 The new Governemnt being organized, it 
 turned its attention to the particular subject in- 
 trusted to its care. Unfortunately, however, 
 other objects, both foreign and domestic, inter- 
 posed before its deliberations ripened into ac- 
 tion. Europe was agitated by a convulsion 
 the most important in the annals of the world, 
 whether we regard its duration, its extent, or 
 its effects. During this troubled state of the 
 world, the policy now under consideration, en- 
 gaged the attention of Congress. The result of 
 the effort at that time is known to the Senate 
 the causes leading thereto lie out of the proper 
 sphere of the present discussion. Mr. Jay was 
 sent to England he negotiated a treaty so 
 much of it as relates to the trade in question, 
 eventuated in nothing; but such was the con- 
 dition of the nations of Europe, that we enjoy 
 ed, from the necessities of England, what we
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 49 
 
 APBIL, 1818.] 
 
 British West India Trade. 
 
 had a right to expect from her justice. Amer- 
 ica became the carrier of the world, and her 
 commerce, her shipping, and her wealth, in- 
 creased in the most astonishing ratio, till at 
 length America, in her turn, felt the effects of 
 war, and its frequent privations. Peace was 
 no sooner established, than Great Britain re- 
 sorted to her colonial system, with all its abuse. 
 The more intolerable, as it is exclusively di- 
 rected against us, inasmuch as she indulges to 
 the vessels of other nations an intercourse 
 withheld from us ; a course aggravated by the 
 consideration that she stands alone in this 
 policy, American vessels being admitted into 
 French, Spanish, Dutch, and Swedish colonies. 
 This course, so injurious to our interest, and so 
 offensive to a just pride, claimed the immediate 
 attention of the Government, and efforts were 
 made to obtain redress by a treaty ; the result 
 is known. Mr. B. begged leave to read so 
 much of President Madison's Message at the 
 last session of Congress, as regards this subject. 
 Here you perceive the door of negotiation is 
 closed ; all hope of redress in that way is des- 
 perate, and lie calls upon Congress to interpose. 
 Independently of the respect due to the recom- 
 mendation of a President of the United States, 
 there were other considerations which would 
 give a weight to this opinion of Mr. Madison. 
 "When it is recollected, that he devoted the 
 whole of his most useful life to his country, 
 with motives always pure, and with a judgment 
 but little liable to err, guided as it was by a su- 
 perior genius; when such a man, from the 
 commencement of the Government, down to 
 the moment of his quitting public life, with the 
 benefit of thirty years' observation and experi- 
 ence, invariably entertains the same opinion, 
 and, in his last solemn appeal to the nation, 
 strongly inculcates the propriety of the measure 
 now under consideration, Mr. B. was justifiable 
 in saying a recommendation thus sustained 
 would receive from the Senate a degree of con- 
 sideration far beyond that arising from mere 
 official respect. In addition to this, we have 
 been advised by President Monroe of his fruit- 
 less attempts to procure redress by negotiation, 
 and he also submits to Congress the propriety 
 of interposing by regulations, whose effects will 
 produce that which he has in vain sought to 
 obtain by negotiation. 
 
 Mr. KING addressed the Chair as follows : 
 Agriculture, manufactures, and foreign com- 
 merce, are the true sources of wealth and power 
 of nations ; agriculture is the chief and well- 
 rewarded occupation of our people, and yields, 
 in addition to what we want for our use, a great 
 surplus for exportation. Manufactures are 
 making a sure and steady progress; and, with 
 the abundance of food and of raw materials, 
 which the country affords, will, at no distant 
 day, be sufficient, in the principal branches, for 
 our own consumption, and furnish a valuable 
 addition to our exports. 
 
 But, without shipping and seamen, the sur- 
 pluses of agriculture and of manufactures would 
 Vou VL 4 
 
 depreciate on our hands ; the cotton, tobacco, 
 breadstuff's, provisions, and manufactures, would 
 turn out to be of little worth, unless we have 
 ships and mariners to carry them abroad, and to 
 distribute them in the foreign markets. 
 
 Nations have adopted different theories, as re- 
 spects the assistance to be derived from naviga- 
 tion ; some have been content with a passive 
 foreign commerce owning no ships themselves, 
 but depending on foreigners and foreign vessels 
 to bring to them their supplies, and to purchase 
 of them their surpluses; while others, and al- 
 most every modern nation that borders upon 
 the ocean, have preferred an active foreign trade, 
 carried on, as far as consistent with the recipro- 
 cal rights of others, by national ships and sea- 
 men. 
 
 A dependence upon foreign navigiation sub- 
 jects those who are so dependent, to the known 
 disadvantages arising from foreign wars, and to 
 the expense and risk of the navigation of bellig- 
 erent nations the policy of employing a na- 
 tional shipping is, therefore, almost universally 
 approved and adopted: it affords not only a 
 more certain means of prosecuting foreign com- 
 merce, but the freight, as well as the profits of 
 trade, are added to the stock of the nation. 
 
 The value and importance of national ship- 
 ping and national seamen, have created among 
 the great maritime powers, and particularly in 
 England, a strong desire to acquire, by restric- 
 tions and exclusions, a disproportionate share of 
 the general commerce of the world. 
 
 As all nations have equal rights, and each 
 may claim equal advantages in its intercourse 
 with others, the true theory of international 
 commerce is one of equality, and of reciprocal 
 benefits ; this theory gives to enterprise, to skill, 
 and to capital, their just and natural advantages ; 
 any other scheme is merely artificial ; and so 
 far as it aims at advantages over those who 
 adhere to the open system, it aims at profit at 
 the expense of natural justice. 
 
 The colonial system being founded in this 
 vicious theory, has, therefore, proved to be the 
 fruitful source of dissatisfaction, insecurity, and 
 war. According to this system, the colonies 
 were depressed below the rank of their fellow 
 subjects, and the fruits of their industry and 
 their intercourse with foreign countries, placed 
 under different regulations from those of the 
 inhabitants of the mother country ; it was the 
 denial to Americans of the rights enjoyed by 
 Englishmen, that produced the American Rev- 
 olution and the same cause, greatly aggravated, 
 is working the same effect in South America. 
 
 Among the navigators and discoverers of the 
 ifteenth and sixteenth centuries, the Dutch 
 became highly distinguished, and, by enterprise, 
 economy, and perseverance, made themselves 
 ;he carriers of other nations, and their country 
 ;he entrepot of Europe and it was not until 
 ;he middle of the fourteenth century, that Eng- 
 and passed her navigation act, which had for 
 ts object to curtail the navigation of the Dutch 
 and to extend her own.
 
 50 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 British West India Trade. 
 
 [APEIL, 1818. 
 
 According to this act, the whole trade and 
 intercourse between England, Asia, Africa, and 
 America, were confined to the shipping and 
 mariners of England ; and the intercourse be- 
 tween England and the rest of Europe was 
 placed under regulations which, in a great 
 measure, confined the same to English ships 
 and seamen. 
 
 This act was strenuously opposed by the 
 Dutch, and proved the occasion of the obstinate 
 naval wars that afterwards followed. England 
 was victorious, persisted in her navigation act, 
 and, in the end, broke down the monopoly in 
 trade which the Dutch possessed. 
 
 That in vindication of her equal right to navi- 
 gate the ocean, England should have resisted 
 the monopoly of the Dutch, and freely expended 
 her blood and treasure to obtain her just share 
 of the general commerce, deserved the approba- 
 tion of all impartial men. But, having accom- 
 plished this object, that she should herself aim 
 at, and in the end establish, the same exclusive 
 system, and on a more extended scale, is neither 
 consistent with her own laudable principles, nor 
 compatible with the rights of others; who, 
 relatively to her monopoly now, are in the like 
 situation towards England in which England 
 was towards the Dutch, when she asserted and 
 made good her rights against them. 
 
 By the English act of navigation, the trade of 
 the colonies is restrained to the dominions of 
 the mother country, and none but English ships 
 are allowed to engage in it. 
 
 So long as colonies are within such limits as 
 leave to other nations a convenient resort to 
 foreign markets for the exchange of the goods 
 which they have to sell, for those they want to 
 buy, so long this system is tolerable ; but if the 
 
 Crer of a State enables it to increase the num- 
 of its colonies and dependent territories, so 
 that it becomes the mistress of the great mili- 
 tary and commercial stations throughout the 
 globe, this extension of dominion, and the con- 
 sequent monopoly of commerce, seem to be in- 
 compatible with, and necessarily to abridge the 
 equal rights of other States. 
 
 In the late debates in the English Parliament, 
 the Minister, in the House of Lords, stated 
 " that instead of seventeen thousand men, em- 
 ployed abroad in 1791, forty-one thousand were 
 then (1816) required, exclusive of those that 
 were serving in France and in India. That 
 England now has forty-three principal colonies, 
 in all of which troops are necessary ; that six- 
 teen of these principal colonies were acquired 
 since 1791, and six of them had grown into that 
 rank from mere colonial dependencies." And, 
 in the House of Commons, the Minister, allud- 
 ing to the acquisitions made during the war 
 with France, said " that England had acquired 
 what, in former days, would have been thought 
 romanceshe had acquired the keys of every 
 great military station." 
 
 Thus, the commercial aggrandizement of 
 England has become such, as the men who pro- 
 tested against monopoly, and devised the navi- 
 
 gation act to break it down, could never have 
 anticipated ; and it may, ere long, concern other 
 nations to inquire whether laws and principles, 
 applicable to the narrow limits of English 
 dominion and commerce, at the date of the 
 navigation act, when colonies and commerce, 
 and even navigation itself, were comparatively 
 in their infancy ; laws and principles aimed 
 against monopoly, and adopted to secure to 
 England her just share in the general commerce 
 and navigation of the world, ought to be used 
 by England to perpetuate in her own hands a 
 system equally as exclusive, and far more com- 
 prehensive, than that which she was the chief 
 agent to abolish. 
 
 Our commercial system is an open one our 
 ports and our commerce are free to all we 
 neither possess, nor desire to possess, colonies ; 
 nor do we object that others should possess 
 them, unless thereby the general commerce of 
 the world be so abridged, that we are restrained 
 in our intercourse with foreign countries want- 
 ing our supplies, and furnishing in return those 
 which we stand in need of. 
 
 But, it is not to the colonial system, but to a 
 new principle, which in modern tunes has been 
 incorporated with those of the navigation act, 
 that we now object. According to this act, 
 no direct trade or intercourse can be carried on 
 between a colony and a foreign country ; but by 
 the free port bill, passed in the present reign, 
 the English contraband trade, which had been 
 long pursued, in violation of Spanish laws, be- 
 tween English and Spanish colonies, was sanc- 
 tioned and regulated by an English act of Par- 
 liament; and, since the independence of the 
 United States, England has passed laws, open- 
 ing an intercourse and trade between her West 
 India colonies and the United States, and, ex- 
 cluding the shipping of the United States, has 
 confined the same to English ships and sea- 
 men ; departing by this law not only from the 
 principles of the navigation act, which she was 
 at liberty to do, by opening a direct intercourse 
 between the colonies and a foreign country, but 
 controlling, which she had no authority to do, 
 the reciprocal rights of the United States to 
 employ their own vessels to carry it on.* 
 
 Colonies being parts of the nation, are subject 
 to its regulations ; but, when an intercourse and 
 
 country, the foreign country becomes a party, 
 and has a reciprocal claim to employ its own 
 vessels equally in the intercourse and trade with 
 such colonies, as with any other part of the 
 nation to which they belong. 
 
 Governments owe it to the trust confided to 
 them, carefully to watch over, and by all suita- 
 ble means to promote, the general welfare ; and 
 while, on account of a small or doubtful incon- 
 
 * England alone excludes our vessels and seamen from 
 the trade opened between her West India colonies and the 
 United States. In the same trade between the United 
 States and the colonies of France, Spain, Holland, Denmark 
 and Sweden, our vessels and seamen are alike employed, as 
 those of the parent countries, respectively.
 
 DEBATES OF CONGKESS. 
 
 51 
 
 APRIL, 1818.] 
 
 British West India Trade. 
 
 [SENATE. 
 
 venience, they will not disturb a beneficial inter- 
 course between their people and a foreign coun- 
 try, they ought not to omit the interposition of 
 their corrective authority, whenever an impor- 
 tant public interest is invaded, or the national 
 reputation affected. "It is good not to try 
 experiments in states, unless the necessity be 
 urgent, -or the utility evident; and well to 
 beware, that it be the reformation that draweth 
 on the change, and not the desire of change 
 that pretendelth the reformation." 
 
 In this case, the importance of the reforma- 
 tion is seen and acknowledged by every one, 
 and the delay that has occurred in the making 
 of it may call for explanation. 
 
 We are unable to state with accuracy the 
 tonnage and seamen employed before the Rev- 
 olution, in the trade between the territories of 
 the United States and the other English colo- 
 nies, but it is known to have been a principal 
 branch of the American navigation. 
 
 The colonies that England has since acquired 
 from France, Spain, and Holland, together with 
 the increased population of the old colonies, re- 
 quire more ships and seamen to be employed in 
 the trade now than were engaged in it before 
 the independence of the United States. 
 
 Without reference to the tonnage and trade 
 between the United States and the English 
 West India colonies, during the late wars be- 
 tween England and France, which, by reason 
 of the suspension of the English navigation act, 
 and the neutrality of the United States, will 
 afford no standard by which the tonnage and 
 trade of peace can be ascertained, the present 
 custom-house returns are the best documents 
 that we can consult upon this subject. Accord- 
 ing to a late report from the Department of the 
 Treasury, the tonnage employed in this trade 
 during the year 1816, which may be taken as 
 an average, amounted to one hundred and two 
 thousand tons, requiring between five and six 
 thousand seamen. There may be some error in 
 this return, though we are not able to detect 
 it ; the magnitude and importance of the ship- 
 ping and seamen engaged in this trade, will be 
 more readily understood by comparison than 
 otherwise. The tonnage thus employed ex- 
 ceeds the whole tonnage employed by the Eng- 
 lish East India Company in its trade with Asia; 
 is nearly a moiety of the American and Engh'sh 
 tonnage employed between the United States 
 and England, and her possessions in Europe; 
 is equal to the American tonnage employed be- 
 tween the United States and England, and is 
 almost an eighth part of the whole registered 
 tonnage of the United States. 
 
 To the loss of profits, which would accrue 
 from an equal participation in this trade, may 
 be added the loss of an equal share of the freights 
 1 made by the vessels engaged in it ; the amount 
 whereof must be equal to two millions of dol- 
 lars, annually. Other advantages are enjoyed 
 by England, by the possession of the exclusive 
 navigation between the United States and her 
 colonies, and between them and England. 
 
 Freights are made by English vessels between 
 England and the United States, between them 
 and the English colonies, as well as between 
 those colonies and England. English voyages 
 are thus made on the three sides of the triangle, 
 while those of the United States are confined 
 to one side of it, that between the United States 
 and England. 
 
 The documents that have been communicated 
 to the Senate, by the Chairman of the Commit- 
 tee of Foreign Relations, (Mr. BAEBOTTE,) satis- 
 factorily prove that we are independent of the 
 English colonies for a supply of sugar and coffee 
 for our own consumption ; our annual re-expor- 
 tation of these articles exceeding the quantity 
 of them annually imported from the Engh'sh 
 colonies ; and, in respect to rum, the other ar- 
 ticle imported from these colonies, its exclusion 
 will be the loss to England of its best and al- 
 most only market ; and its place will be readily 
 supplied by other foreign rum and by brandy ; 
 or, which is more probable, by domestic spirits 
 distilled from grain. 
 
 The exports from the United States to the 
 English West India colonies have been esti- 
 mated at four millions of dollars annually ; the 
 problem has been disputed ever since the inde- 
 pendence of the United States, and still remains 
 to be solved, whether these colonies could ob- 
 tain from any other quarter the supplies re- 
 ceived from the United States. To make this 
 experiment effectually, further restrictions and 
 regulations may become necessary, which it is 
 not now deemed expedient to propose. If 
 the question be decided in the negative, the 
 supplies will be continued from the United 
 States, and our shipping will be benefited. 
 
 If the articles heretofore supplied from this 
 country can be obtained elsewhere, we must 
 find out other markets for our exports, or the 
 labor employed in preparing them must be ap- 
 
 Elied to some other branch of industry. We 
 ave the power, and hereafter it may become 
 our policy, as it is that of other countries, to 
 resort to a regulation, the effect of which 
 would go far to balance any disadvantage 
 arising from the loss of the English colonial 
 markets. We import annually upwards of six 
 millions of gallons of West India mm, more 
 than half of which comes from the English 
 colonies; we also import, every year, nearly 
 seven millions of gallons of molasses : as every 
 gallon of molasses yields, by distillation, a gal- 
 lon of rum ; the rum imported, added to that 
 distilled from imported molasses, is probably 
 equal to twelve millions of gallons, -which enor- 
 mous quantity is chiefly consumed by citizens 
 of the United States. 
 
 But why has a measure of this importance 
 been so long deferred ? The explanation which 
 this question requires cannot be made without 
 some reference to the history of our communi- 
 cations with England since the peace of 1783. 
 as well as to the views and policy of men and 
 parties that have in succession influenced our 
 public affairs.
 
 ABKIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 British West India Trade. 
 
 [APRIL, 1818. 
 
 As, according to the powers of England, not- 
 withstanding the acknowledgment of our inde- 
 pendence, neither trade nor intercourse could 
 be carried on between the United States and 
 her dominions, it became necessary after the 
 treaty of peace to pass some act whereby this 
 trade and intercourse might be prosecuted, a 
 bill for this purpose was introduced into the 
 House of Commons by the Administration 
 which concluded the treaty of peace with the 
 United States. The general scope and provi- 
 sions of the bill correspond with the liberal 
 principles which were manifested in the treaty 
 of peace. They plainly show that the authors 
 of this bill understood that the true basis of the 
 trade and intercourse between nations is reci- 
 procity of benefit; a foundation on which 
 alone the friendly intercourse between men and 
 nations can be permanently established. The 
 preamble of this bill declares "that it was 
 highly expedient that the intercourse between 
 Great Britain and the United States should be 
 established on the most enlarged principles of 
 reciprocal benefit to both countries ; " and as, 
 from the distance between them, it would be a 
 considerable time before a treaty of commerce, 
 placing their trade and intercourse on a perma- 
 nent foundation, could be concluded, the bill, 
 for the purpose of a temporary regulation 
 thereof, provided, that American vessels should 
 be admitted into the ports of Great Britain, as 
 those of other independent States, and that 
 their cargoes should be liable to the same duties 
 only as the same merchandise would be subject 
 to if the same were the property of British 
 subjects, and imported in British vessels ; and, 
 further, that the vessels of the United States 
 should be admitted into the English plantations 
 and colonies in America, with any articles the 
 growth or manufacture of the United States, 
 and with liberty to export from such colonies 
 and plantations to the United States any mer- 
 chandise whatsoever, subject to the same duties 
 only as if the property of British subjects, 
 and imported or exported in British vessels ; 
 allowing, also, the same bounties, drawbacks, 
 and exemptions, on goods exported from Great 
 Britain to the United States in American ves- 
 sels, as on the like exportation in British ves- 
 sels to the English colonies and plantations. 
 
 The persons benefited by the English exclu- 
 sive system of trade and navigation were put in 
 motion by this bill, which was earnestly op- 
 posed, and, after a variety of discussion, post- 
 poned or rejected. About this period Mr. Pitt, 
 who had supported this bill in the House of 
 Commons, resigned his office of Chancellor of 
 the Exchequer, as his colleagues in Lord Shel- 
 burne's administration had before done. The 
 coalition administration that succeeded intro- 
 duced a new bill, which became a law, vesting 
 in the King and Council authority to make such 
 temporary regulations of the American navi- 
 gation and trade as should be deemed expe- 
 dient. 
 
 Sundry Orders in Council were accordingly 
 
 made, whereby a trade and intercourse in 
 American and English vessels between the 
 United States and Great Britain were allowed ; 
 and, with the exception of fish oil, and one or 
 two other articles, the produce of the United 
 States, imported into Great Britain, was admit- 
 ted freely, or subject to the duties payable on 
 the like articles imported in English vessels 
 from the American colonies. 
 
 An intercourse and a trade in enumerated 
 articles were also opened between the United 
 States and the English West India colonies, but 
 with a proviso, (the principle whereof is still 
 maintained against us,) whereby American ves- 
 sels were excluded, and the whole trade con- 
 fined to English vessels. 
 
 After a periodical renewal of these orders 
 for several years, the regulations that they con- 
 tained were adopted by, and became an act of, 
 Parliament. This act was afterwards modified, 
 and rendered conformable to the provision of 
 Mr. Jay's treaty, the commercial articles of 
 which expired in the year 1803 not long after 
 which date England passed a new act of Par- 
 liament concerning the American navigation 
 and trade. This act maintains the exclusion of 
 American vessels from the intercourse between 
 the United States and the English colonies, and 
 confines the same, as former acts and Orders in 
 Council had done, to English vessels ; it re- 
 pealed the settlement of duties pursuant to Mr. 
 Jay's treaty ; and, giving up the policy of the 
 enlarged and liberal system of intercourse 
 which had been proposed in Mr. Pitt's bill, it 
 repealed such parts of all former acts and 
 orders as admitted the productions of the 
 United States, either freely, or, on paying the 
 same duties only as were payable on the like 
 articles imported from the English colonies and 
 plantations ; and placed all articles the produce 
 of the United States, imported in American 
 vessels, on the same footing as the like articles 
 imported in foreign ships from other foreign 
 countries. This new footing of our trade with 
 England, the importance whereof is well under- 
 stood by those who are engaged in supplying 
 her markets with masts, spars, timber, naval 
 stores, and pot and pearl ashes, may be regarded 
 as decisive evidence of a complete change of 
 policy concerning the American trade and in- 
 tercourse which, however unsatisfactory, as 
 respected the colonial trade, has become more 
 so by the foregoing provision of this act of Par- 
 liament. 
 
 The policy that manifested itself in the treaty 
 of our independence, and which is seen in the 
 bill to regulate the trade and intercourse be- 
 tween England and the United States, prepared 
 by the Administration that made the Treaty of 
 Peace, was to unite in a firm bond of friend- 
 ship, by the establishment of trade and inter- 
 course on the solid basis of reciprocal benefit, a 
 people politically separate, living under differ- 
 ent governments, but having a common origin, 
 a common language, a common law, and kindred 
 blood ; circumstances so peculiar, as not to be
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 53 
 
 APRIL, 1818.] 
 
 British West India Trade. 
 
 [SENATE. 
 
 found between any other nation. Instead of 
 this policy, one of a different sort is preferred 
 one that England has a right to prefer ; and 
 against the many evils of which, we must pro- 
 tect ourselves as well as we are able to do. The 
 intricate, countervailing and perplexing code of 
 commercial intercourse, founded in jealousy, 
 and the rival establishments and pursuits of the 
 powers of Europe bordering upon, and con- 
 stantly interfering with each other, has been 
 adopted and applied to the United States a 
 people, agricultural more than manufacturing 
 or commercial, placed in another quarter of the 
 globe, cultivating, and proposing to others, an 
 open system of trade and intercourse ; and 
 herein, as in many other important discrimina- 
 tions, differing from the nations of Europe, 
 and therefore not fit subjects to which these 
 restrictive and jealous regulations are applica- 
 ble. 
 
 Our policy is, and ever has been, a different 
 one. We desire peace with all nations; and 
 the wars of maritime Europe have taught us 
 that a free system of trade and intercourse 
 would be the best means of preserving it. 
 
 With these principles as our guide, at the ne- 
 gotiation of the Treaty of Peace in 1783, our 
 Ministers were authorized to conclude a treaty 
 of commerce with England on this basis ; but 
 no treaty was concluded. Afterwards, and 
 when a temporary trade and intercourse were 
 opened by England, looking, as we supposed, 
 to a treaty of commerce, Congress instructed 
 Messrs. Adams, Franklin, and Jefferson, to re- 
 new the overture of a treaty of commerce, 
 which was done through the English Ambas- 
 sador at Paris, in the year 1784 ; but no cor- 
 respondent disposition being shown by England, 
 this second overture failed. 
 
 The interest and prejudice of those who were 
 benefited by the monopolies and exclusive sys- 
 tem of England, were opposed to any treaty 
 with this country, on the principle of reciprocal 
 advantage. The political writers of that day, 
 under the influence of these partial views, or 
 not sufficiently appreciating the true theory of 
 commerce, contended that it would be folly to 
 enter into engagements by which England 
 might not wish to be found in future; that 
 such engagements would be gratuitous ; as, ac- 
 cording to their interpretation, Congress pos- 
 sessed no power, under the confederation, to 
 enforce any stipulation into which they might 
 enter ; that no treaty that could be made would 
 suit all the States ; if any were necessary, they 
 should be made with the States separately ; but 
 that none was necessary ; and those who talked 
 of liberality and reciprocity in commercial 
 affairs, were either without argument or knowl- 
 edge ; that the object of England was, not re- 
 ciprocity and liberality, but to raise as many 
 sailors and as much shipping as possible.* 
 
 This unequal footing of our foreign com- 
 merce, and the language made use of by Eng- 
 
 * Sheffield, Chalmers, and Knox. 
 
 land at this juncture, served still more to in- 
 crease the public discontent; especially as it 
 was plainly avowed that England ought to ren- 
 der the trade with us as exclusively advan- 
 tageous to herself as her power would enable 
 her to do. Congress having no power, under 
 the Confederation, to impose countervailing 
 and other corrective regulations of trade, the 
 States separately attempted to establish regula- 
 tions upon this subject. But, as a part only of 
 the States joined in this measure, and as the 
 laws that were passed for this purpose differed 
 from each other, the experiment completely 
 failed. 
 
 In this condition of our navigation and trade, 
 subject to foreign restrictions and exclusion, 
 without a power at home to countervail and 
 check the same, Congress resolved to make an- 
 other effort to conclude a commercial treaty 
 with England. For this purpose Mr. Adams, 
 since President of the United States, was ap- 
 pointed, and went to England. Mr. Adams 
 resided in England for several years ; but found 
 and left the Government unchanged, and equally 
 as before disinclined to make with us a treaty 
 of commerce. 
 
 This further disappointment, with the depre- 
 ciating condition of our navigation and trade, 
 joined to the embarrassment of the public 
 finances, produced what no inferior pressure 
 could have done ; it produced the General Con- 
 vention of 1787, that formed the Constitution 
 of the United States. 
 
 Had England entered into a liberal treaty of 
 commerce with the United States, this conven- 
 tion would not have been assembled. Without 
 so intending it, the adherence of England to 
 her unequal and exclusive system of trade and 
 navigation, gave to this country a constitution ; 
 and the countervailing and equalizing bill now 
 before the Senate, arising from the same cause, 
 may assist us in establishing and extending 
 those great branches of national wealth and 
 power, which we have such constant and urgent 
 motives to encourage. 
 
 The establishment of the Constitution of the 
 United States was coe" val with the commence- 
 ment of the French Kevolution. The sessions 
 of the General Convention at Philadelphia, and 
 of the Assembly of Notables at Paris, were in 
 the same year. 
 
 Laws were passed by the first Congress as- 
 sembled under the new constitution, partially 
 to correct the inequality of our navigation and 
 trade with foreign nations; and a small dis- 
 crimination in duties of impost and tonnage 
 was made for this purpose. 
 
 Afterwards, in the year 1794, a number of 
 resolutions on the subject of navigation and 
 trade were moved in the House of Representa- 
 tives, by a distinguished member of that body. 
 These resolutions had a special reference to the 
 refusal of England to enter into an equal com- 
 mercial treaty with us, aimed at countervailing 
 her exclusive system. Other and more direct 
 resolutions, bearing on England, were also pro-
 
 54 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 British West India Trade. 
 
 [APRIL, 1818 
 
 posed by other members, and referred to the 
 inexecution of the Treaty of Peace, and to the 
 recent captures of American vessels by English 
 cruisers, in the American seas. 
 
 The policy of these resolutions was doubted ; 
 they were therefore strenuously opposed, and 
 the extraordinary mission of Mr. Jay to Eng- 
 land suspended their further discussion. 
 
 The French Kevolution had by this time be- 
 come the subject of universal attention. War 
 had broken out between France and England. 
 The avowed policy of our own Government to 
 avoid war, and to adhere to a system of neu- 
 trality, was much questioned ; and for a time it 
 was matter of great uncertainty whether the 
 country would support the neutrality recom- 
 mended by the President. 
 
 The universal dissatisfaction, on account of 
 the commercial system of England, the inexe- 
 cution of the articles of peace, the numerous 
 captures by orders of the French Government, 
 of our vessels, employed in a trade strictly neu- 
 tral, combined with our friendly recollections 
 of the services of France, and our good wishes 
 in favor of the effort she professed to be 
 making to establish a free constitution, consti- 
 tuted a crisis most difficult and important. 
 
 It was in these circumstances that President 
 WASHINGTON nominated Mr. Jay as Envoy to 
 England. The Senate confirmed the nomina- 
 tion, and the immediate effect was, the sus- 
 pension of the further discussion of the impor- 
 tant resolutions before the House of Repre- 
 sentatives. 
 
 England seems never to have duly appre- 
 ciated the true character and importance of 
 this extraordinary measure. France well un- 
 derstood and resented it. Mr. Jay was received 
 with civility, and concluded a treaty with Eng- 
 land on all the points of his instructions. When 
 published, it met with great opposition. The 
 article respecting the West India trade had 
 been excluded from the treaty by the Senate, 
 by reason of the inadmissible condition or pro- 
 viso that was coupled with it with this excep- 
 tion, it was finally ratified by the President. 
 
 Although the treaty did not come up to the 
 expectation of all, in addition to the satisfac- 
 tory arrangements concerning English debts, 
 the unlawful capture and condemnation of our 
 vessels, and the delivery of the ports, points of 
 very great importance, it contained articles 
 regulating the trade, navigation, and maritime 
 rights of the two countries. No treaty that 
 could have been made with England would, in 
 the highly excited temper of the country, have 
 satisfied it. But, to those whose object it was 
 to prevent the country from taking part in the 
 war between France and England, and to pre- 
 vail upon it to adhere to a system of impartial 
 neutrality ; who, moreover, believed, that the 
 safety, and even liberties of the country were 
 concerned in the adoption of this course, the 
 treaty proved a welcome auxiliary. 
 
 It suspended the further agitation of difficult 
 and angry topics of controversy with England ; 
 
 it enabled the Government to persist in, and ta 
 maintain, the system of neutrality which had 
 been recommended by the Father of his Coun- 
 try a policy, the correctness and benefits of 
 which, whatever may have been the disagree- 
 ment of opinion among the public men of those 
 times, that will now scarcely be doubted. 
 
 During the continuance of this treaty, further 
 though ineffectual attempts were made to es- 
 tablish a satisfactory intercourse with the Eng- 
 lish colonies in the West Indies, and, likewise, 
 to place the subject of impressment on a mutu- 
 ally safe and equitable footing. 
 
 The commercial articles of this treaty expired 
 in 1804, no proposal having been made to re- 
 new them. A subsequent negotiation took 
 place, but nothing was definitively concluded. 
 The peace of Amiens was of short duration. 
 Another war took place between France and 
 England ; no maritime treaty existed between 
 the United States and England ; and the man- 
 ner in which England exercised her power on 
 the ocean ; the great interruption of the navi- 
 gation and trade of neutral nations ; the nu- 
 merous captures of their ships and cargoes under 
 the retaliatory decrees and orders of France and 
 England, with other vexatious occurrences, re- 
 vived the former angry feelings towards Eng- 
 land, and greatly contributed to the late war 
 with that nation. 
 
 This war was closed not long after the con- 
 clusion of the general peace in Europe ; and the 
 Treaty of Ghent was followed by a meagre 
 commercial convention, made at London, and 
 limited, in its duration, to a few years only. 
 
 Neither the spirit of the negotiation, nor the 
 scope of the articles, afford any evidence that 
 England is inclined to treat with this country 
 on the only principle on which a commercial 
 treaty with her can be desirable. Her decision 
 on this point seems to be beyond question, as 
 our latest communications inform us that her 
 ancient system will not be changed ; and, in 
 case we are dissatisfied with its operation, that 
 England has no objection to our taking any such 
 measures concerning the same, as we may deem 
 expedient an intimation that puts an end to 
 further overtures on our part. Such is the ex- 
 planation why the measure now proposed has 
 been so long deferred. 
 
 During the Confederation, Congress were 
 without power to adopt it. 
 
 The treaty concluded by Mr. Jay, 1794, the 
 relaxation of the navigation and colonial laws, 
 during the war between France and England, 
 and the advantages derived from our neutral 
 trade while this war continued, rendered the 
 measure inexpedient during this period. 
 
 And the expectation since entertained that a 
 more enlarged and equal treaty of commerce 
 and navigation, applicable in its .provisions to 
 peace as well as war, might be substituted in 
 place of the present commercial convention, 
 has hitherto suspended the interference of Con- 
 
 This expectation must be given up ; England
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 55 
 
 APRIL, 1818.] 
 
 Bank of the United States. 
 
 [SENATE. 
 
 has apprised us of her decision to adhere to her 
 ancient and exclusive system of trade and navi- 
 gation, and the only alternative before us, is to 
 submit to the regulation of our own navigation 
 by England, or to interpose the authority of the 
 constitution to countervail the same. There 
 can be no hesitation hi the choice. 
 
 The bill before the Senate, is in nothing un- 
 friendly towards England it is merely a com- 
 mercial regulation, to which we are even in- 
 vited; a measure strictly of self-defence, and 
 intended to protect the legitimate resources of 
 our own country from being any longer made 
 use of, not as they should be, for our benefit, 
 but to increase and strengthen the resources and 
 power of a foreign nation. 
 
 Mr. MACON spoke in support of the bill ; after 
 which 
 
 The question, "Shall the bill be engrossed 
 and read a third time ?" was taken, and deter- 
 mined in the affirmative yeas 32, nay 1, as 
 follows : 
 
 YEAS. Messrs. Barbour, Burrill, Crittenden, Dag- 
 gett, Dickerson, Fromentin, Gaillard, Goldsborough, 
 Horsey, Hunter, Johnson, King, Lacock, Leake, Ma- 
 con, Morrill, Morrow, Noble, Otis, Roberts, Ruggles, 
 Sanford, Smith, Stokes, Storer, Tait, Talbot, Taylor, 
 Tichenor, Van Dyke, Williams of Mississippi, and 
 Williams of Tennessee. 
 
 NAY. Mr. Eppes.* 
 
 THUBSDAY, April 9. 
 
 SAMTTEL "W. DANA, from the State of Connec- 
 ticut, took his seat in the Senate. 
 
 On motion by Mr. BABBOUB, it was unani- 
 mously agreed to suspend the third rule for con- 
 ducting business in the Senate, as it respects the 
 honorable Mr. DANA, to wit : " Every member 
 when he speaks shall address the Chair, stand- 
 ing in his place, and when he has finished shall 
 sit down." 
 
 Bank of the United States Application for Au- 
 thority to appoint Persons to sign its Notes. 
 
 Mr. CAMPBELL, from the same committee, to 
 whom was recommended the memorial of the 
 President and Directors of the Bank of the 
 United States, reported a bill supplementary to 
 the act, entitled u An act to incorporate the sub- 
 scribers to the Bank of the United States," and 
 the bill was read twice by unanimous consent, 
 and considered as in Committee of the Whole ; 
 and no amendment having been made thereto, 
 
 * As revolted colonies, we lost the rights of trade with 
 the British dominions, and at the restoration of peace it 
 was found impracticable to recover the right in full the 
 trade to her colonies being the exception, and the direct 
 trade to her West Indies totally interdicted. Negotiation, 
 though tried under every President, failed to obtain it: 
 legislation was resorted to, of which thla bill was one in- 
 stance, but still without effect The interdiction remained 
 until the year 1880, when, under the administration of Pres- 
 ident Jackson, it was removed, and the direct trade with 
 the British West Indies placed upon the Just and fair prin- 
 ciples of reciprocity which have prevailed ever since. 
 
 the PRESIDENT reported it to the House ; and 
 the bill was amended. Mr. C. also laid on the 
 table the following document : 
 
 TREASURY DEPARTMENT, April 7, 1818. 
 
 SIR : I have been informed by the President of the 
 Bank of the United States, that the board of directors 
 have applied to the Congress of the United States for 
 permission to issue bills and notes signed by other 
 persons than the president and cashier of the bank. 
 The intimate connection which necessarily exists be- 
 tween that institution and the department of the Ex- 
 ecutive Government confided to my direction, may 
 render it excusable on my part to present to the Com- 
 mittee on Finance, under whose consideration the 
 subject has been placed by the Senate, some of the 
 reasons which appear to be necessarily connected 
 with the application. It is not my intention to urge 
 the sanction of the committee to the particular modi- 
 fication sought by the bank. I shall attempt only to 
 satisfy the committee that, under the existing provi- 
 sions of the charter, as construed by the corporation, 
 it is impossible to put into circulation an amount of 
 bills of suitable denominations to supply the necessary 
 and indispensable demands of the community. 
 
 The president and cashier of the bank have to sign 
 and countersign all the bills of the bank and of its 
 various offices. They have, in addition to the ordi- 
 nary duties of president and cashier of a bank, to 
 perform all the duties of commissioners of loans for 
 the State of Pennsylvania, and of agents for the pay- 
 ment of pensioners of every description for that State. 
 They are necessarily charged with the general super- 
 intendence of all the offices established by the bank, 
 from the District of Maine to the State of Louisiana, 
 involving a most extensive correspondence, and im- 
 posing upon them an examination of the weekly re- 
 turns of those offices. This examination is neces- 
 sarily imposed upon those officers, who are bound to 
 watch over the interests of the bank generally, and 
 to supply the wants of the different officers ; to trans- 
 mit specie where there is a demand for it, and to 
 withdraw it from points where, from the course of 
 trade or other causes, it may have temporarily accu- 
 mulated. The duty of transmitting the public funds 
 wherever required within the United States demands 
 and receives their unremitted attention. From the 
 view here presented of the various and important 
 duties assigned to them by the charter, many of 
 which are so intimately connected with the Govern- 
 ment as to constitute them highly important officers, 
 it will be readily perceived that but a very small por- 
 tion of their time can be devoted to the mechanical 
 labor of signing bills and notes. It may, indeed, be 
 said that the corporation, having the power of ap- 
 pointing such officers and servants as the interest of 
 the institution may require, may appoint other offi- 
 cers, who may be charged with the superintendence 
 of the interests of the institution generally, and of 
 course with the correspondence and distribution of 
 the capital of the bank among the different offices, 
 according to their various wants and necessities aris- 
 ing out of the course of trade, or any other cause. 
 Such a course might, indeed, be pursued ; but it 
 would be an entire inversion of the established prin- 
 ciple of action, not only in institutions of this nature, 
 but of right reason, when applied to all associations 
 whatsoever. 
 
 The signing of bills and notes is a mere me- 
 chanical act. The superintendence of an institu- 
 tion so extensive and complicated, intimately con-
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 Proceedings. 
 
 1818. 
 
 nected not only with the Government, but with all 
 the wants and conveniences of society, especially in- 
 fluencing in a very high degree the commercial 
 transactions of the nation, requires intellects of more 
 than ordinary elevation, and information as various 
 as the wants and conveniences of civilized society. 
 To metamorphose the highest officers of the institu- 
 tion into mere machines, the operations of which are 
 to he confined to tracing certain characters infinitely 
 repeated, whilst subordinate officers or servants are 
 invested with duties requiring the highest order of 
 intellect and the most extensive degree of informa- 
 tion, would indeed be an inversion of the established 
 ideas of the moral fitness of things. 
 
 It is not my intention, nor is it the wish of the 
 bank, to relieve the president and cashier from the 
 mechanical labor of signing bills. This duty will 
 always be performed by them, as far as a due atten- 
 tion to their other and more important duties will 
 permit 
 
 The reasons and facts which I have presented, in 
 order to prove that it is impossible for the president 
 and cashier to sign the bills necessary to the wants 
 and convenience of the community, are supported by 
 the experience of the bank. Twenty offices have 
 been established, and applications for others remain 
 
 with bills for circulation. Two of those which were 
 organized more than six months back, have not yet 
 been supplied with bills to commence operations. 
 Several of those established in the Western country 
 have been so scantily supplied as to render their 
 operations extremely circumscribed. That estab- 
 lished at Augusta, in Georgia, will probably be 
 abandoned, on account of the impossibility of sup- 
 plying it with bills to make the employment of capi- 
 tal profitable. 
 
 I remain, with sentiments of the highest respect, 
 your most obedient and very humble servant, 
 
 WM. H. CRAWFORD. 
 
 Hon. G. W. CAMPBELL, Chairman Com. Finance. 
 
 FBIDAY, April 10. 
 Statistics of the United States. 
 
 Mr. BAKBOTTB, from the committee to whom 
 was referred the resolution authorizing a sub- 
 scription of five hundred copies of Statistical 
 Annals, proposed to be published by Adam Sey- 
 bert, and the purchase of a certain number of 
 copies of a Statistical view of the Commerce of 
 the United States, by Timothy Pitkin, made a 
 report, accompanied by a bill, authorizing a sub- 
 scription for the Statistical Annals by Adam 
 Seybert, and the purchase of Pitkin's Statistics ; 
 and the report and bill were read, and the bill 
 passed to a second reading. 
 
 The report is as follows : 
 
 That the manuscript of Dr. Seybert's work has 
 been submitted to their inspection, and, in their 
 opinion, it combines a mass of various and valuable 
 facts and materials, collected with thorough diligence 
 from authentic documents, lucidly and conveniently 
 arranged and methodized. Its main object appears 
 to be to furnish complete information as to the past 
 and present state of the population, navigation, com- 
 merce, manufactures, army, navy, public lands, and 
 finances of the United States, and a series of impor- 
 
 tant facts in relation to these and other connected 
 subjects, is condensed into tabular forms and state- 
 ments, exhibiting in one view an entire and compara- 
 tive history of each subject. To this work, much 
 time, industry, and ability must have been devoted ; 
 and it forms a vast depository of information, the whole 
 of which is useful and interesting, and some of which, 
 from the conflagration of the public offices, and other 
 untoward events, is now, perhaps, nowhere else pre- 
 served. It must be apparent, then, that this work 
 must be deemed necessary and acceptable to every 
 functionary of the Government of the United States, 
 either in its administrative or legislative departments. 
 It was principally for their use the work was designed. 
 It will expedite and facilitate the performance of 
 their respective duties, and it is therefore natural and 
 proper that it should receive their protection and en- 
 couragement. It appears to the committee altogether 
 hopeless that the publication of these Statistical An- 
 nals can otherwise be obtained. It will not be un- 
 dertaken by the author at his own risk. From the 
 variety of numerical tables, the expense of printing 
 would considerably exceed that of ordinary books ; 
 and as profit cannot be expected from the sale of a 
 work, which, from its nature, can never be in a cer- 
 tain sense popular, there is no inducement to stimu- 
 late the enterprise of a bookseller. Works of a 
 similar description in other countries have frequently 
 been published at the national charge ; and surely 
 there is something in the nature of our liberal insti- 
 tutions that ought to induce us, as freely as any 
 other nation, to give publicity to all we have done, as 
 fully to develop the principles of our policy, and to 
 ascertain as clearly the causes of our prosperity. 
 And it may be added, that the best mode of deriving 
 benefit from experience, of rendering what is valu- 
 able in onr system of political economy permanent, 
 and of reforming what is injudicious and erroneous, 
 can best be suggested by a systematic collation of 
 the facts and principles on which that system is 
 established. 
 
 The most of the foregoing remarks are likewise 
 strictly applicable to Mr. Pitkin's published work, 
 entitled "Commercial Statistics of the United 
 States." It is a work of undoubted merit and 
 utility; its facts are drawn from authentic official 
 documents, and its numerical tables and calculations 
 exhibit great industry and accuracy of research. It 
 is understood that, intrinsically valuable as this work 
 is, it has produced little or no profit to the publisher 
 or the author ; and it appears to the committee it 
 would be unjust and ungrateful to distinguish one of 
 these works by the praise and patronage of Congress, 
 and leave the other unnoticed and unrewarded. The 
 committee are therefore of opinion that a subscription 
 for both these works ought to be authorized, and re- 
 port a bill for that purpose. 
 
 SATTODAY, April 11. 
 Five o'clock in the Evening. 
 On motion by Mr. MACOU, a committee was 
 appointed on the part of the Senate, jointly with 
 such committee as may be appointed on the 
 part of the House of Representatives, to wait 
 on the President of the United States, and notify 
 him that, unless he may have any further com- 
 munication to make to the two Houses of Con- 
 gress, they are ready to adjourn. Mr. MACON
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 57 
 
 APRIL, 1818.] 
 
 Proceedings. 
 
 [SENATE. 
 
 and Mr. KING were appointed the said commit- 
 tee. 
 
 A message from the House of ^Representatives 
 informed the Senate that the House, having 
 finished the business before them, are about to 
 adjourn. 
 
 Mr. MACON reported from the joint committee, 
 that they had waited on the President of the 
 Cnited States, who informed them that he had 
 
 no further communication to make to the two 
 Houses of Congress. 
 
 Ordered, That the Secretary inform the House 
 of Representatives that the Senate, having 
 finished the Legislative business before them, 
 are about to adjourn. 
 
 Whereupon, the PRESIDENT adjourned the 
 Senate to meet on the third Monday in Novem- 
 ber next.
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 Proceedings. 
 
 [DECEMBER, 1817. 
 
 FIFTEENTH CONGRESS -FIRST SESSION, 
 
 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES 
 
 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES/ 
 
 MONDAY, December 1, 1817. 
 
 This being the day appointed by the Constitu- 
 tion of the United States for the meeting of 
 Congress, the following members of the House 
 of Bepresentatives appeared, produced their 
 credentials, and took their seats, to wit : i 
 
 From New Hampshire Josiah Butler, Clifton 
 Clagett, Salma Hale, Arthur Livermore, John F. 
 Parrott, and Nathaniel Upham. 
 
 From Massachusetts Benjamin Adams, Samuel C. 
 
 Allen, Walter Folger, jr., Joshua Gage, John Holmes, 
 Marcus Morton, Jeremiah Nelson, Benjamin Orr, 
 Albion K. Parris, Nathaniel Ruggles, Zabdiel Samp- 
 son, Henry Shaw, Nathaniel Silsbee, Solomon Strong, 
 and Ezekiel Whitman. 
 
 From Rhode Island John L. Boss, jr. 
 
 From Connecticut Uriel Holmes, Ebenezer Hunt- 
 ingdon, Jonathan 0. Mosely, Timothy Pitkin, Sam- 
 uel B. Sherwood, Nathaniel Terry, and Thomas S. 
 Williams. 
 
 From Vermont Heman Allen, Samuel C. Crafts, 
 
 * LIST OF REPRESENTATIVES. 
 
 New ffamp*Mre.Josla,h Butler, Clifton Clagett, Salma 
 Hale, Arthur Livermore, John F. Parrott, Nahaniel Up- 
 ham. 
 
 Massachusetts. Benjamin Adams, Samuel C. Allen, Tim- 
 othy Fuller, Walter Folger, jr., Joshua Gage, John Holmes, 
 Elijah H. Mills, Jonathan Mason, Marcus Morton, Jeremiah 
 Nelson, Benjamin Orr, Albion K. Parris, Thomas Rice, Na- 
 thaniel Ruggles, Zabdiel Sampson, Henry Shaw, Nathaniel 
 Silsbee, Solomon Strong, Ezekiel Whitman, John Wilson. 
 
 Rhode Island. John L. Boss, jr., James B. Mason. 
 
 Connecticut. Uriel Holmes, Ebenezer Huntingdon, Jona- 
 than O. Mosely, Timothy Pitkin, Samuel B. Sherwood, Na- 
 thaniel Terry, Thomas 8. Williams. 
 
 Vermont. Heman Allen, Samuel C. Crafts, William Hun- 
 ter, Orasmns C. Merrill, Charles Rich, Mark Richards. 
 
 New York. Oliver C. Comstock, Daniel Cruger, John P. 
 Cushman, John R. Drake, Benjamin Ellicott, Josiah Has- 
 brouck, John Herkimer, Thomas H. Hubbard, "William 
 Irving, Dorrance Kirtland, Thomas Lawyer, David A. Og- 
 den, John Palmer, James Porter, John Savage, Philip J. 
 Schuyler, Tredwell Scudder, John C. Spencer, Henry R. 
 Storrs, James Tallmadge, jr., John W. Taylor, Caleb Tomp- 
 kins, George Townsend, Peter H. Wendover, Rensellaer 
 Westerlo, James W. Wilkin, Isaac Williams. 
 
 New Jersey. Ephraim Bateman, Benjamin Bennett, Jo- 
 seph Bloomfleld, Charles Kinsey, John Linn, Henry South- 
 ard. 
 
 Pennsylvania. William Anderson, Henry Baldwin, An- 
 drew Boden, Isaac Darlington, Joseph Heister, Joseph Hop- 
 kinson, Samuel D. Ingham, William Maclay, William P. 
 Maclay, David Marchand, Robert Moore, John Murray, Al- 
 exander Ogle, Thomas Patterson, Levi Pawling, Thomas J. 
 Rodgers, John Ross, John Sergeant, Adam Seybert, Jacob 
 Spangler, Christian Tarr, James M. Wallace, Thomas Wil- 
 son. 
 
 Delaware. Willard Hall, Louis McLane. 
 
 Maryland. Thomas Culbreth, Thomas Bayley, John C. 
 Herbert, Peter Little, George Peter, Philip Reed, Samuel 
 Binggold, Samuel Smith, Philip Stuart. 
 
 Virginia. Archibald Austin, William Lee Ball, Philip 
 P. Barbour, Burwell Bassett, William A. Burwell, Edward 
 Colston, John Floyd, Robert 8. Garnett, Peterson Good- 
 wyn, James Johnson, William J. Lewis, William McCoy, 
 Charles F. Mercer, Hugh Nelson, Thomas M. Nelson, 
 Thomas Newton, James Pindall, James Pleasants, Alexander 
 Smyth, George F. Strother, Henry St. George Tucker, John 
 Tyler. 
 
 North, Carolina. Joseph H. Bryan, Weldon N. .Ed- 
 wards, Daniel M. Forney, Thomas H. Hall, George Mum- 
 ford, James Owen, Lemuel Sawyer, Thomas Settle, Jesse 
 Slocumb, James 8. Smith, James Stewart, Felix Walker, 
 Lewis Williams. 
 
 South Carolina. Joseph Bellinger, Elias Earle, James 
 Ervin, William Lowndes, Henry Middleton, Stephen D. 
 Miller, William Ncsbitt, Eldred Simkins, Sterling Tucker. 
 
 Georgia. Joel Abbott, Thomas W. Cobb, Zadock Cook, 
 Jool Crawford, John Foreyth, William Terrell. 
 
 Kentucky. Richard C. Anderson, jr., Henry Clay, Joseph 
 Desha, Richard M. Johnson, Anthony New, Tunstall 
 Quarles, jr., George Roblrtson, Thomas Speed, David Trim- 
 ble, David Walker. 
 
 Tennessee William G. Blount, Thomas Claiborne, Thom- 
 as Hogg, Francis Jones, George Washington L. Marr, John 
 Rhea. 
 
 Ohio. Levi Barber, Philemon Beecher, John W. Camp 
 bell, William H. Harrison, Peter Hitchcock, Samuel Her- 
 rick. 
 
 Mississippi. George Polndexter. 
 
 Louisiana. Thomas Boiling Robertson. 
 
 Indiana. William Hendricks. 
 
 Illinois Territory. Nathaniel Pope, Delegate. 
 
 Missouri Territory. John Scott, Delegate.
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 59 
 
 DECEMBER, 1817.] 
 
 Election of Speaker, &c. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 William Hunter, Orsamus C. Merrill, Charles Rich, 
 and Mark Richards. 
 
 From New York Oliver C. Comstock, Daniel 
 Cruger, John P. Cushman, John R. Drake, Benjamin 
 Ellicott, Josiah Hasbrouck, John Herkimer, Thomas 
 H. Hubbard, William Irving, Dorrance Kirtland, 
 Thomas Lawyer, John Palmer, James Porter, John 
 SavagOj Philip J. Schuyler, Tredwell Scudder, John 
 C. Spencer, Henry R. Storrs, James Tallmadge, jr., 
 John W. Taylor, Caleb Tompkins, George Town- 
 send, Peter H. Wendover, Rensellaer Westerlo, James 
 W. Wilkin, and Isaac Williams. 
 
 From Neto Jersey Benjamin Bennett, Joseph 
 Bloomfield, Charles Kinsey, John Linn, and Henry 
 Southard. 
 
 From Pennsylvania William Anderson, Andrew 
 Boden, Isaac Darlington, Joseph Heister, Joseph 
 Hopkinson, Samuel D. Ingham, William P. Maclay, 
 David Marchand, Robert Moore, John Murray, 
 Thomas Patterson, Levi Pawling, Adam Seybert, 
 Jacob Spangler, Christian Tarr, James M. Wallace, 
 John Whiteside, and William Wilson. 
 
 From Delaware Louis McLane. 
 
 From Maryland Thomas Culbreth, John C. Her- 
 bert, Peter Little, George Peter, Philip Reed, Sam- 
 uel Ringgold, Samuel Smith, and Philip Stuart, 
 
 From Virginia William Lee Ball, Philip P. Bar- 
 bour, Burwell Bassett, William A. Burwell, Edward 
 Colston, Robert S. Garnett, William McCoy, Charles 
 F. Mercer, Hugh Nelson, Thomas Newton, James 
 Pindall, James Pleasants, Alexander Smyth, George 
 F. Strother, Henry St. George Tucker, and John 
 Tyler. 
 
 From North Carolina Weldon N. Edwards, Dan- 
 iel M. Forney, Thomas H. Hall, George Mumford, 
 James Owen, Lemuel Sawyer, Thomas Settle, Jesse 
 Slocumb, James S. Smith, Felix Walker, and Lewis 
 Williams. 
 
 From South Carolina Joseph Bellinger, William 
 Lowndes, Henry Middleton, Stephen D. Miller, and 
 Sterling Tucker. 
 
 From Georgia Joel Abbott, Thomas W. Cobb, 
 Zadock Cook, Joel Crawford, John Forsyth, and 
 William Terrell 
 
 From Kentucky Richard C. Anderson, jr., Henry 
 Clay, Joseph Desha, Richard M. Johnson, Anthony 
 New, Tuustall Quarles, jr., George Robertson, Thomas 
 Speed, David Trimble, and David Walker. 
 
 From Tennessee William G. Blount, Francis Jones, 
 George W. L. Marr, and John Rhea. 
 
 From Ohio Levi Barber, Philemon Beecher, John 
 W. Campbell, William Henry Harrison, and Samuel 
 Herrick. 
 
 From Louisiana Thomas B. Robertson. 
 
 From Indiana William Hendricks. 
 
 Election of Speaker, &c. 
 
 A quorum, consisting of a majority of the 
 whole number of members, being present, the 
 House then proceeded to the choice of a SPEAK- 
 ER. On counting the votes, it appeared that of 
 147 votes given in, there were for HENBY CLAY, 
 140 ; for SAMUEL SMITH, 6 ; blank, 1. 
 
 So that Mr. CLAY was declared to be duly 
 elected Speaker; and, being conducted to the 
 Chair, the usual oath was administered to him, 
 by Mr. BASSETT ; when the Speaker made his 
 acknowledgments to the House in the following 
 terms : 
 
 " If we consider, gentlemen, the free and illustrious 
 origin of this assembly ; the extent and magnitude 
 of the interests committed to its charge; and the 
 brilliant prospects of the rising confederacy, whose 
 destiny may be materially affected by the legislation 
 of Congress, the House of Representatives justly 
 ranks amongst the most eminent deliberative bodies 
 that have existed. To be appointed to preside at its 
 deliberations, is an exalted honor of which I enter- 
 tain the highest sense ; and I pray you to accept, for 
 the flattering manner in which yon have conferred 
 it, my profound acknowledgments. 
 
 " If I bring into the Chair, gentlemen, the advan- 
 tage of some experience of its duties, far from in- 
 spiring me with undue confidence, that experience 
 aerves only to fill me with distrust of my own capa- 
 city. I have been taught by it, how arduous those 
 duties are, and how unavailing would be any efforts 
 of mine to discharge them, without the liberal sup- 
 port and cheering countenance of the House. I 
 shall anxiously seek, gentlemen, to merit that sup- 
 port and countenance, by an undeviating aim at im- 
 partiality, and at the preservation of that decorum, 
 without the observance of which, the public business 
 must be illy transacted, and the dignity and the 
 character of the House seriously impaired." 
 
 The members having been severally qualified 
 by taking the oath to support the constitution, 
 the House proceeded to elect a clerk. On 
 counting the ballots, it appeared that 144 votes 
 were given in, all of which were for THOMAS 
 DOUGHERTY, who resumed his place as Clerk of 
 the House. 
 
 THOMAS CLAXTON was then reappointed Door- 
 keeper, BENJAMIN BUEOH Assistant Doorkeeper, 
 and THOMAS DUNN Sergeant-at-Arms, without 
 opposition. 
 
 After the usual incipient proceedings, and in- 
 terchanging messages with the Senate, the 
 House adjourned to 12 o'clock to-morrow. 
 
 TUESDAY, December 2. 
 
 Several other members, to wit : from New 
 Jersey, EPHEAIM BATEMAN ; from Virginia, WIL- 
 LIAM J. LEWIS; and from Tennessee, THOMAS 
 CLAIBOKNE and THOMAS HOGG, appeared, pro- 
 duced their credentials, were qualified, and took 
 their seats. 
 
 Mr. HOLMES, of Massachusetts, from the joint 
 committee appointed yesterday to wait on the 
 President of the United States, reported, that 
 the committee had performed that service, and 
 that the President answered, that he would 
 make a communication to the two Houses of 
 Congress to-day, at 12 o'clock. 
 
 A Message in writing, was then received from 
 the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, which 
 was read and referred to the Committee of the 
 Whole on the state of the Union ; and five 
 thousand copies thereof ordered to be printed 
 for the use of the members of the House. [For 
 this Message, see Senate proceedings of this 
 date, page 4.] 
 
 WEDNESDAY, December 3. 
 Several other members, to wit : from Penn-
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R] 
 
 Reference of the Message. 
 
 [DECEMBEH, 1817. 
 
 sylvania, JOHN SERGEANT ; from Virginia, PE- 
 TERSON GoomvYN and THOMAS M. NELSON ; and 
 from South Carolina, WILSON NESBITT, appeared, 
 produced their credentials, were qualified, and 
 took their seats. 
 
 Reference of the Message. 
 
 On motion of Mr. TAY.LOB, of New York, the 
 House resolved itself into a Committee of the 
 Whole on the state of the Union, Mr. SMITH, of 
 Maryland, being called to the Chair. 
 
 The President's Message was the subject of 
 consideration. 
 
 Mr. TAYLOR moved a series of resolutions, 
 embracing the following references of various 
 parts of the Message : 
 
 " Resolved, That so much of the Message of the 
 President of the United States as relates to the sub- 
 ject of Foreign Affairs, and to our commercial inter- 
 course with British Colonial ports, be referred to a 
 select committee." 
 
 The first resolution having been read for con- 
 sideration, Mr. CLAY (the Speaker) moved to 
 amend the same by adding to the end thereof 
 the following words : 
 
 "And that the said committee be instructed to 
 inquire whether any, and if any, what provisions of 
 law are necessary to insure to the American colonies 
 of Spain a just observance of the duties incident to 
 the neutral relation in which* the United States 
 stand, in the existing war between them and 
 Spain." 
 
 Mr. CLAY said, that his presenting at so early 
 a period of the session this subject to the con- 
 sideration of the House, was in consequence of 
 certain proceedings which he had seen repre- 
 sented in the public prints, as having taken 
 place before certain of our courts of justice. 
 Two or three cases bearing on this subject had 
 come to his knowledge, which he wished to 
 state to the House. The first had occurred at 
 Philadelphia, before the circuit court of the 
 United States held in that city. The circum- 
 stances of the case, for which however he did 
 not pretend to vouch, having seen them through 
 the channel already indicated, were these if 
 they were incorrectly stated, he was happy that 
 a gentleman had taken his seat this morning 
 from that city, who would be able to correct 
 him : that nine or ten British disbanded officers 
 had formed in Europe the resolution to unite 
 themselves with the Spanish patriots in the 
 contest existing between them and Spain ; that 
 to carry into effect this intention they had sail- 
 ed from Europe, and in their transit to South 
 America had touched at the port of Philadel- 
 phia ; that, during their residence in Philadel- 
 phia, wearing, perhaps, the arms and habili- 
 ments of military men, making no disguise of 
 their intention to participate in the struggle, 
 they took passage in a vessel bound to some 
 port in South America ; that, a knowledge of 
 this fact having come to the ears of the public 
 authorities, or, perhaps at the instigation of 
 some agent of the Spanish Government, a pros- 
 ecution was commenced against these officers, 
 
 who, from their inability to procure bail, were 
 confined in prison. If, said Mr. C., the circum- 
 stances attending this transaction be correctly 
 stated, it becomes an imperious duty in the 
 House to institute the inquiry contemplated by 
 the amendment which I have proposed. That 
 this was an extraordinary case was demonstrat- 
 ed by the fact of the general sensation which it 
 had excited on the subject in the place where 
 it had occurred. Filled as that respectable and 
 
 prevailed on this subject, which was favorable to 
 the persons thus arraigned. With regard to the 
 conduct of the court on this occasion, he would 
 say nothing. The respect which, whilst he had 
 a seat on this floor, he should always show to 
 every department of the Government ; the re- 
 spect he entertained for the honorable Judge 
 who had presided, forbade him pronouncing 
 the decision of that court to have been unwar- 
 ranted by law. But he felt himself perfectly 
 sustained in saying, that if the proceeding was 
 warranted by the existing law, it was the im- 
 perious duty of Congress to alter the law in 
 this respect. For what, he asked, was the neu- 
 tral obligation which one nation owed to 
 another engaged in war? The essence of it is 
 this : that the belligerent means of the neutral 
 shall not be employed in the war in favor of 
 either of the parties. That is the whole of the 
 obligation of a third party in a war between 
 two others. It certainly does not require of 
 one nation to restrain the belligerent means of 
 other nations. If those nations choose to per- 
 mit their means to be employed in behalf of 
 either party, it is their business to look to it, 
 and not ours. Let the conduct of the persons 
 
 Erosecuted be regarded in its most unfavorable 
 ght; let it be considered as the passage of 
 troops through our country, and there was 
 nothing in our neutral obligations forbidding it. 
 The passage of troops through a neutral coun- 
 try, according to his impressions, was a ques- 
 tion depending on the particular interest, quiet, 
 or repose of the country traversed, and might 
 be granted or refused, at its discretion, without 
 in any degree affecting the obligations of the 
 neutral to either of the parties engaged in the 
 controversy. But surely, Mr. C. said, this was 
 not a case of the passage of troops, the persons 
 apprehended not being in sufficient number; 
 not organized or equipped in such a manner as, 
 under any construction, to constitute a military 
 corps. 
 
 On this case he would detain the House no 
 longer, he said ; for he was satisfied they could 
 not but agree with him, if the law justified the 
 proceeding that had taken place, that law ought 
 to be immediately amended. Other cases had 
 occurred in which it appeared to him it became 
 the Congress to interpose its authority. Per- 
 sons sailing under the flag of the provinces had 
 been arraigned in our courts, and tried for 
 piracy ; in one case, after having been arraign-
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 Gl 
 
 DECEMBER, 1817.] 
 
 Spanish American Provinces. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 ed, tried, and acquitted of piracy, the same in- 
 dividuals, on the instigation of a Spanish officer 
 or agent, had heen again arraigned for the same 
 offence. The gentleman from Massachusetts 
 would correct him if he was wrong, for the 
 case had occurred in the town of Boston. We 
 admit the flag of these colonies into our ports, 
 said Mr. C. ; we profess to be neutral ; hut if 
 our laws pronounce that the moment the prop- 
 erty and persons under that flag enter our ports, 
 they shall he seized, the one claimed hy the 
 Spanish Minister or Consul as the property of 
 Spain, and the other prosecuted as pirates, that 
 law ought to be altered if we mean to perform 
 our neutral professions. I have brought the 
 subject before this House thus promptly, said 
 Mr. C., because I trust that in this House the 
 cause will find justice; that, however treated 
 elsewhere, on this floor will be found a guard- 
 ian interest attending to our performance of 
 the just obligations of neutrality. Hitherto, he 
 said, whatever might have been our intentions, 
 our acts have all been on the other side. From 
 the proclamation of 1815, issued to terminate 
 an expedition supposed to be organizing in 
 Louisiana an expedition existing only in the 
 mind of the Chevalier de Onis -down to the 
 late act, whether the measure was a proper one 
 or not he did not say ; his confidence in the 
 Executive led him to suppose it was adopted 
 on sufficient grounds down to the order for 
 suppressing, as it was called, the establishments 
 at Amelia Island and Galveston all the acts 
 of the Government had been on one side ; they 
 all bore against the colonies, against the cause 
 in which the patriots of South America were 
 arduously engaged. It became us, he said, to 
 look to the other side, honestly intending neu- 
 trality, as he believed we did. Let us recollect 
 the condition of the patriots ; no minister here 
 to spur on our Government, as was said in an 
 interesting, and it appeared to him a very can- 
 did work recently published in this country, re- 
 specting the progress of the South American 
 revolution; no Minister here to be rewarded 
 by noble honors in consequence of the influence 
 he is supposed to possess with the American 
 Government. No ; their unfortunate case, Mr. 
 C. said, was what ours had been in the years 
 1778 and 1779 their Ministers, like our Frank- 
 lins and Jays at that day, were skulking about 
 Europe imploring inexorable legitimacy one 
 kind look some aid to terminate a war af- 
 flicting to humanity. Nay, their situation was 
 worse than ours ; for we had one great and 
 magnanimous ally to recognize us, but no na- 
 tion had stepped forward to acknowledge any 
 of these provinces. Such disparity between 
 tie parties, Mr. C. said, demanded a just at- 
 tention to the interests of the party which was 
 unrepresented ; and if these facts which he had 
 mentioned, and others which had come to his 
 knowledge, were correct, they loudly demand- 
 ed the interposition of Congress. He trusted 
 the House would give the subject their atten- 
 tion, and show that here, in this place, the ob- 
 
 igations of neutrality would be strictly regard- 
 ed in respect to Spanish America. 
 
 Mr. SERGEANT rose in consequence of the 
 gentleman having appealed to him, not to enter 
 'nto any discussion of the question presented bj 
 
 were within his knowledge. The statement 
 made by the Speaker was substantially correct ; 
 it was also correct that the circumstance had 
 occasioned considerable sensation among all 
 parties in the city of Philadelphia. Mr. S. re- 
 capitulated the principal facts, adding, that the 
 vessel in which these persons embarked was 
 laden with munitions of war. As respected 
 the views and intentions of the persons appre- 
 hended, Mr. S. said, he believed they had neither 
 any intention nor any idea of violating the laws 
 of the United States, and that their conduct 
 had been perfectly decorous and correct. The 
 court had thought they had offended against 
 the act of Congress of the last session ; or were 
 so far at least of that opinion, that they thought 
 it necessary to detain them. The bail demand- 
 ed was not high ; but they were not able to 
 procure it, and were, therefore, committed to 
 jail. It was because of the correct deportment 
 of these persons, that, the sentiment in their fa- 
 vor had been so general but no complaint was 
 made of the court, for which the same respect 
 was entertained with which the Speaker him- 
 self had regarded it. He had mentioned these 
 facts only that the House might, when the time 
 came for acting on it, be aware of the construc- 
 tion put on the existing law, so far as any had 
 been given. 
 
 The amendment moved by Mr. CLAY to the 
 first resolution was agreed to without opposi- 
 tion. 
 
 THURSDAY, December 4. 
 Three other members, to wit: from Penn- 
 sylvania, HENBY BALDWIN ; from Maryland, 
 THOMAS BAYLEY ; and from Virginia, JAMES 
 JOHNSON, appeared, produced their credentials, 
 were qualified, and took their seats. 
 
 FEIDAY, December 5. 
 
 Two other members, to wit : from Pennsyl- 
 vania, WILLIAM MAOLAY, and from Virginia, 
 BAULAED SMITH, appeared, produced their cre- 
 dentials, were qualified, and took their seats. 
 
 Spanish American Provinces. 
 
 Mr. ROBERTSON, of Louisiana, offered the fol- 
 lowing resolution for consideration : 
 
 Resolved, That the President of the United States 
 be requested to lay before the House of Representa- 
 tives such information as he may possess and think 
 proper to communicate, relative to the independence 
 and political condition of the provinces of Spanish 
 America. 
 
 The resolution having been read 
 
 Mr. KOBERTBON said that he supposed there 
 would be no objection to the adoption of the 
 resolution which he had just submitted to the
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R] 
 
 Spanish American Provinces. 
 
 [DECEMBER, 1817. 
 
 consideration of the House. He found, from 
 the late Message of the President, that the at- 
 tention of the House, as well as of the nation, 
 had been, in a general way, directed to the situa- 
 tion of the provinces of Spanish America. The 
 President had observed, too, and very truly, 
 that the citizens of the United States sympa- 
 thized in the events which affected their neigh- 
 bors. Mr. R. said that, as far back as the year 
 1811, this subject had excited considerable in- 
 terest ; that a committee had been raised ; the 
 declaration of independence and the constitution 
 of Venezuela, with other information, laid be- 
 fore it by the then President, and a report on 
 them submitted to the House. The report, 
 among other things, expressed much good will 
 towards the Venezuelans, and an intention to 
 acknowledge their independence whenever that 
 independence should be achieved. From that 
 time till the present, silence had been observed 
 in regard to the affairs of that part of the con- 
 tinent. The reason was obvious ; we were soon 
 after engaged in war with England, and since 
 the peace, our own pressing concerns had occu- 
 pied our attention. 
 
 The President has spoken, sir, of the interest 
 and the sympathy we feel in the affairs of our 
 southern neighbors. Perhaps it may be said, 
 with truth, that no subject excites, throughout 
 the civilized world, a stronger interest than the 
 contest in which the provinces of Spanish Amer- 
 ica are engaged. Every wind that blows wafts 
 to our shores the schemes and speculations of 
 European statesmen and politicians ; from the 
 frozen regions of the North to the milder climes 
 of the Peninsula, it elicits remark and commands 
 attention. Even Alexander, he who indites epis- 
 tles about peace and bible societies, while he 
 whets the sword of battle and prepares the 
 weapons of destruction ; he, it is said, is about 
 to furnish his Cossacks to add to the horrors of, 
 as it is already called, the war of death. The 
 thunders of the Pope, too, the head of the Chris- 
 tian church, began to be heard, and no doubt 
 we shall soon see his anathemas giving up the 
 people of South America, body and soul, to the 
 punishments due here and hereafter to the 
 crimes of rebellion and republicanism. If, then, 
 to governments across the Atlantic, the situa- 
 tion of this people be thus interesting, surely it 
 is not a matter of surprise that the citizens of 
 the United States should with some solicitude 
 turn their attention towards them. Every Re- 
 publican in the United States must lament their 
 disasters and exult in their triumphs ; they do 
 but follow the example we have set them ; we 
 owe our glory and our fame to resistance to 
 arbitrary power, and the people of Spanish 
 America, and all others groaning under oppres- 
 sion, must owe their elevation and worth of 
 character to the same circumstance. They do 
 but follow in our footsteps ; it is in vain to deny 
 or disguise the fact; it is known throughout 
 the world whatever of injury despotism or 
 priestcraft have sustained, whether from the 
 revolution of France, or that which now, I hope, 
 
 flourishes in our hemisphere, is laid to the ac- 
 count of our glorious Revolution, and the excel- 
 lent principles of our constitution. 
 
 It is to be regretted, Mr. Speaker, that our 
 acquaintance with the people of Spanish Amer- 
 ica is not more particular and intimate than it 
 is : we entertain but one sentiment about them 
 our feelings are all in unison ; yet we differ 
 and dispute on a variety of points, which it is 
 desirable should be no longer suffered to remain 
 in doubt. Mexico, Peru, Chili, Buenos Ayres, 
 Venezuela, New Granada, are they independ- 
 ent ? Are they struggling for independence, or 
 have they yielded to their European tyrant? 
 Have they made known their situation to the 
 Executive Department ? Have they demanded 
 to be recognized as independent sovereignties ? 
 Do they govern themselves ? elect their agents, 
 legislature, executive, and judiciary? lay and 
 collect taxes, raise and support armies, and na- 
 vies ? It is possible that these facts are in the 
 possession of the President; it is very well 
 known that there have been agents, men of high 
 respectability, sent publicly from the govern- 
 ments of Venezuela, New Granada, Buenos 
 Ayres, and Mexico, to this country, and, for 
 any thing I know to the contrary, from other 
 provinces. It is probable that they have not 
 remained silent, but whatever they may have 
 said has not been made known to this House, or 
 to this nation . As our Government is essentially 
 popular, I wish information to be given to the 
 people. I wish for information, that our judg- 
 ments may sanction sentiments our hearts so 
 warmly approve. I do not mean, Mr. Speaker, 
 to commit myself in regard to my future course 
 it must, to a certain extent, depend upon cir- 
 cumstances. This House will act as circum- 
 stances may require, but for myself, I have no 
 hesitation to say, that if it shall appear that the 
 provinces of Spanish America, or any of them, 
 are really independent, no earthly consideration 
 shall prevent me, in my public character, from 
 acknowledging them as sovereign States. 
 
 Mr. FORSYTE said he was too well acquainted 
 with the temper of the people of the United 
 States on this subject, to oppose any motion for 
 inquiring into it ; such was not his object ; but 
 he knew from experience, that some inquiries 
 were proper and some dangerous. In this case, 
 he thought that all which could be known ought 
 to be known ; but he suggested to the mover 
 of the resolution, whether it was not too broad 
 in its call on the Executive, and whether it 
 ought not to contain the usual qualification of 
 excepting such information as the President 
 might deem the communication of incompatible 
 with the public interest. Mr. F. presumed the 
 President had communicated all that he know, 
 or all that he wished Congress to know on the 
 subject; and as it was usual in requesting in- 
 formation of the Executive, to ask for such only 
 as the public interest would, in his opinion, per- 
 mit to be disclosed, he proposed so to modify 
 this motion ; in which shape only could he con- 
 sent to vote for it.
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 63 
 
 DECEMBER, 1817.] 
 
 Amelia Island and Spanish Patriots. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 Mr. ROBERTSON signified his ready assent to 
 Mr. FOKSYTH'S proposition. 
 
 The resolution passed nem. con. as modified, 
 and a committee of two was appointed to wait 
 on the President with it. 
 
 The House adjourned to Monday. 
 
 MONDAY, December 8. 
 
 Several other members, to wit : from Massa- 
 chusetts, JONATHAN MASON ; from Virginia, AB- 
 CHIBALD AUSTIN and JOHN FLOYD; and from 
 Ohio, PETEE HITCHCOCK, appeared, produced 
 their credentials, were qualified, and took their 
 seats. 
 
 NATHANIEL POPE from the Illinois Territory, 
 and JOHN SCOTT, from the Territory of Missouri, 
 having also appeared and produced their cre- 
 dentials as Delegates to represent the said Ter- 
 ritories in the Fifteenth Congress of the United 
 States, were also qualified, and took their seats. 
 
 Amelia Island and Spanish Patriots. 
 
 Mr. RHEA offered for consideration the fol- 
 lowing resolution : 
 
 Resolved, That the President be requested to lay 
 before the House of Representatives any information 
 he may possess, and think proper to communicate, 
 relative to the proceedings of certain persons who 
 took possession of Amelia Island, at the mouth of the 
 St. Mary's River, near the boundary of the State of 
 Georgia, in the summer of the present year, and made 
 an establishment there ; and also any information he 
 hath, and may think proper to communicate, relative 
 to an establishment made, at an earlier period, by 
 persons of the same description, in the Gulf of Mexico, 
 at a place called Galveston, within the limits of the 
 United States, as we contend, under the cession of 
 Louisiana ; together with the reasons inducing him 
 to issue orders to suppress the said establishments. 
 
 Mr. RHEA said that the establishments referred 
 to in the resolution he had just offered, had al- 
 ready excited much attention throughout the 
 country, which would be still more attracted to 
 that point by the order given to suppress them. 
 His object in offering this motion was to obtain 
 such information as might satisfy the minds of 
 the American people on the expediency of that 
 measure. 
 
 Mr. FOESYTH moved to strike out the last 
 clause of the proposed resolution. It would be 
 an extraordinary course for the House to ask for 
 the reasons of the measure in question, when 
 they were distinctly and satisfactorily avowed 
 in the Message of the President. To call upon 
 Mm, after that exposition, to explain the reasons 
 for his conduct, would be to cast a severe re- 
 flection on the Executive, as implying dissatis- 
 faction at the reasons already given. For his 
 own part, Mr. F. said, the conduct of the Exec- 
 utive appeared to him to have been perfectly 
 correct; but he had no objection to any in- 
 formation desired, if asked for, unconnected 
 with the clause he had excepted to. 
 
 Mr. HUGH NELSON, of Virginia, twice ad- 
 dressed the House on the main subject of the 
 
 resolution, but, being interrupted in his remarks 
 by incidental circumstances, we have connected 
 his observations in the following report of the 
 substance of them. A few remarks are added, 
 which the interruptions referred to prevented 
 him from making. Mr. N. was decidedly in favor 
 of the motion. Like the honorable SPEAKER, 
 who had alluded to this matter when in Com- 
 mittee of the Whole the other day, Mr. N. said 
 he felt his confidence in the Executive not di- 
 minished ; like him, he felt confident that the 
 measure of the suppression of these establish- 
 ments, was founded, in their opinion, in a just 
 sense of propriety, and in a desire to promote 
 the public weal : and he believed that, for the 
 satisfaction of the public, and for a just vindica- 
 tion of the Executive, these documents should 
 be exhibited. I cannot but believe, said he, 
 that the public will see, that, in this measure, 
 the conduct of the Government has been marked 
 by a due respect to the rights of the Spanish 
 provinces, and a vigilant and prompt attention 
 to the rights and interests of our own country. 
 It is the best interest of the Spanish provinces, 
 embarked in the noble cause of emancipating 
 themselves, to give evidence to the world, that all 
 then* proceedings are the result of just and sound 
 principles ; to repel and refute, by a high-minded 
 and magnanimous conduct, the malignant and 
 calumnious representations which would place 
 them in the grade of savages and barbarians. 
 A just regard to the opinions of the civilized 
 world ; a due estimate of their own dignity and 
 self-respect, will lead them to disclaim all con- 
 nection with these piratical establishments. 
 Their own interest would lead them to co- 
 operate in the extinction of these hordes of buc- 
 caneers. There was a time when the union of 
 McGregor, distinguished by his gallant exertions 
 in the patriot cause of the Spanish provinces, 
 with then* naval commander, Aury, and sup- 
 ported by some of the high-minded and gallant 
 spirits of our own late military establishment, 
 might have led to the opinion that it was a 
 bold and valorous enterprise, to wrest from their 
 oppressors a portion of their territory, and 
 bravely to wage the war in the assailable do- 
 minions of the Spanish monarch. But the mo- 
 ment for that opinion has gone by McGregor 
 has abandoned them. Posey and the other 
 gallant spirits of this country, no more give 
 color to the enterprise. And have they not 
 themselves given further proofs, if proofs are 
 wanting, that they are but a horde of bucca- 
 neers, invading our own territory, and plunder- 
 ing our own citizens ? See the accounts from 
 Savannah. To believe that these settlements 
 are sanctioned by the Patriots, would be to de- 
 grade them from the high and dignified station 
 which they hold in our estimation. That the 
 Patriots should themselves countenance such 
 establishments, would be further to descend 
 from the highest pinnacle of honorable eleva- 
 tion, to the lowest abyss of humiliation and 
 contempt. Men embarked in the glorious and 
 magnanimous struggle for freedom and the rights
 
 64 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 Repeal of Internal Duties. 
 
 [DECEMBER, 1817 
 
 of man, can never stoop to the condition of 
 buccaneers, banditti, and pirates. 
 
 Mr. KHEA having accepted Mr. FOBSYTH'S 
 proposed amendment as part of his own motion, 
 the main question was taken on the resolution, 
 and decided in the affirmative without a divi- 
 sion ; and a committee ordered to be appointed 
 to wait on the President therewith. 
 
 TUESDAY, December 9. 
 
 Another member, to wit : ELIAS EABLE, from 
 the State of South Carolina, appeared, pro- 
 duced his credentials, was qualified, and took 
 his seat. 
 
 WEDNESDAY, December 10. 
 Representative Qualifications. 
 Mr. FOBSYTH, of Georgia, offered for consid- 
 eration the following resolution, to obtain a de- 
 cision on a question raised by a memorial yes- 
 terday presented, contesting the election of a 
 member from Ohio, and which Mr. F. considered 
 of great importance : 
 
 Resdved, That the Committee of Elections be in- 
 structed to inquire and report what persons elected to 
 serve in the House of Representatives have accepted 
 or held offices under the Government of the United 
 States since the 4th day of March, 1817, and how 
 far their right to a seat in this House is affected 
 thereby. 
 
 The adoption of this resolution was warmly 
 opposed by Mr. TAYLOE, of New York, and Mr. 
 JOHNSON, of Kentucky, and was also opposed by 
 Mr. SEYBEET, of Pennsylvania, Mr. LIVEEMOEE, 
 of New Hampshire, and Mr. W. P. MACLAY, of 
 Pennsylvania, and was supported by Mr. FOB- 
 
 BYTH. 
 
 It was opposed as a novel proceeding, impos- 
 ing inconvenient and extraordinary duties on 
 the Committee of Elections, by requiring them 
 to go through the alphabet from A to Z, and 
 inquire into the qualifications of every member 
 of the House. It was also opposed as imputing 
 impurity to the House, not justly attributable 
 to it ; since the fact of taking the oath to sup- 
 port the constitution was prima facie evidence 
 that the member taking it was conscious of hav- 
 ing violated no provision of that instrument. If 
 we inquire into the qualifications of members, 
 why not also into others equally prescribed by 
 the constitution ? It was time enough to in- 
 quire into the rights of members to their seats 
 when any specific allegation was made as to the 
 want of qualification of any one or more of them. 
 
 To which the mover (Mr. FOESYTH) replied, 
 by expressing his surprise at the opposition to 
 his motion. There was nothing in it, he said, 
 which accused any part of this House, or any 
 member of it, of improper conduct. It neither 
 charged the House with suffering members to 
 remain who ought not, nor any member of the 
 House with remaining when he ought not. The 
 object was to inquire whether persons in certain 
 situations had a right to a seat or not. It was 
 
 presumed that those gentlemen so situated had 
 examined their own rights, and were convinced 
 of their title to seats here. But as he very 
 much doubted the right of any person so situat- 
 ed to a seat in this House, he wished to have 
 the question settled. If the House should be of 
 his opinion, he should see with great regret any 
 gentleman so situated return even temporarily 
 to his constituents for temporarily he was sure 
 it would be, and that the House would at the 
 next session, if not at the close of this, have the 
 aid of their judgments and abilities. As to 
 specifying the members who would fall under 
 this rule, Mr. F. said he did not know all there 
 were ; he had been informed that there were 
 ten or eleven members whose right to a seat 
 depended on the decision of this question he 
 did not know them ; if he did, he should have no 
 objection to comprehend their names in his mo- 
 tion. He concluded his observations by disclaim- 
 ing the intention to impute the least blame to 
 gentlemen who had taken their seats under these 
 circumstances ; for they had no doubt satisfied 
 themselves on the question. 
 
 The question on the resolution was taken, 
 when there appeared in favor of the resolution 
 85, against it 85. 
 
 The House being equally divided, the SPEAK- 
 EE, assigning as his reason his desire to have the 
 constitutional question fully investigated, voted 
 in favor of the motion, which was therefore 
 adopted. 
 
 Repeal of Internal Duties. 
 
 The House resolved itself into a Committee 
 of the Whole on the bill to abolish the internal 
 duties. 
 
 The bill having been read through 
 
 Mr. LOWNDES, the chairman of the Committee 
 of Ways and Means, made a few remarks of 
 the same bearing as the reasoning of the re- 
 port. He took occasion also to say that it was 
 due to candor and to himself to add, that he 
 should have individually thought it better, in- 
 stead of a total repeal, to have made a modifi- 
 cation of the duties, so as to reduce their amount 
 and lighten their burden, but still to leave a part 
 of the system in operation. Believing, how- 
 ever, that the expectation of the total repeal 
 was such as to render vain any attempt to dis- 
 criminate, or to modify, he had concurred in the 
 course adopted by the committee of recommend- 
 ing a total repeal, in preference to retaining the 
 whole. 
 
 Mr. WILLIAMS, of North Carolina, heartily 
 concurred in the sentiment of the gentleman 
 from South Carolina, that these taxes ought not 
 to be retained for the purpose of adding to the 
 surplus in the treasury. He rejoiced that, 
 whether gentlemen voted on the subject from 
 the spontaneous determination of their own 
 minds, or the recommendation of the Execu- 
 tive, the taxes were to be repealed. He con- 
 gratulated the country, that from this time the 
 people would be exempted from a system as un- 
 equal in its operation as it was unjust. Our
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 65 
 
 DECEMBER, 1817.] 
 
 Expatriation* 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 citizens, lie said, bad sustained it with a patience 
 and long-suffering which was remarkable, and 
 afforded a pledge that, should it be necessary 
 hereafter again to resort to internal taxes, the 
 Government might do so, and trust to the good 
 sense of the people for their justification. The 
 people, he argued, were always willing to pay 
 taxes wjien the necessity of them was apparent. 
 But, for more than a year past, that necessity 
 had not existed for the internal duties, and, 
 therefore, the people had demanded the repeal 
 of them. Mr. W. referred to the estimates of 
 the revenue from imposts for the present and 
 last years, to show that the actual product had 
 nearly doubled the estimate, as had been shown 
 and predicted by the gentleman from Virginia, 
 who was his able coadjutor at the last session, 
 (Mr. JOHNSON,) and himself. He mentioned 
 these facts, he said, to show that, if there was 
 any blame anywhere for the occurrences of last 
 session having reference to this subject and 
 blame had been imputed the blame belonged 
 to those who opposed the repeal of the taxes at 
 that time, and not to those who advocated it. 
 We rejoice now, said Mr. W., that the President 
 has thought proper to recommend the measure, 
 and that there appears to be a unanimous dis- 
 position at this time favorable to it. 
 
 The committee rose and reported their agree- 
 ment to the bill, without amendment. 
 
 On the question to engross the bill 
 
 Mr. BEECHEB, of Ohio, said he was not suffi- 
 ciently acquainted with this subject to act con- 
 clusively on it, and he presumed others might be 
 in the same situation. To give them time to ex- 
 amine, he moved to adjourn. 
 
 This motion was lost by a large majority ; 
 and the bill was ordered to be engrossed for a 
 third reading to-morrow. 
 
 SATURDAY, December 13. 
 Revolutionary Survivors. 
 
 Mr. BLOOMFIELD, of New Jersey, from the 
 committee to whom was referred so much of the 
 President's Message as relates to the surviving 
 Revolutionary patriots, reported, in part, a bill 
 conceruing certain surviving officers and soldiers 
 of the late Revolutionary army. 
 
 [This bill provides that every commissioned and 
 non-commissioned officer or soldier, who had served 
 in the Army during the war which terminated in the 
 Treaty of Peace with Great Britain in 1783, and re- 
 duced to indigence, or by age, sickness, or any other 
 cause, may be unable to procure subsistence by manual 
 labor, shall receive half-pay during life, equal to the 
 half of the monthly pay allowed to his grade of ser- 
 vice during the Revolutionary war provided that no 
 pension thus allowed to a commissioned officer shall 
 exceed the half-pay of a lieutenant-colonel.] 
 
 The bill was twice read and committed. 
 
 The motion submitted by Mr. BASSETT, of 
 
 Virginia, to amend the rules of the House, was 
 
 taken up and agreed to. [The question of con- 
 
 ideration, which has heretofore been a matter 
 
 VOL. VI. 5 
 
 of much contention in the House, in the days of 
 party conflict, is thus expunged from the rules 
 of the House.] 
 
 MONDAY, December 15. 
 Two other members, to wit : from Pennsyl- 
 
 Amelia Island and Galveston. 
 
 The following Message was received from the 
 PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES : 
 To the House of Representatives : 
 
 In compliance with the resolution of the House of 
 Representatives of the 8th of this month, I transmit, 
 for the information of the House, a report from the 
 Secretary of State, with the documents referred to in 
 it, containing all the information of the Executive, 
 which it is proper to disclose, relative to certain per- 
 sons who lately took possession of Amelia Island and 
 Galveston. 
 
 JAMES MONROE. 
 
 WASHINGTON, December 15, 1817. 
 
 DEPARTMENT OF STATE, 
 
 December 13, 1817. 
 
 The Secretary of State, to whom has been referred 
 the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 
 8th instant, requesting the President to lay before the 
 House any information he may possess, and think 
 proper to communicate, relative to the proceedings of 
 certain persons who took possession of Amelia Island, 
 at the mouth of St. Mary's River, in the summer of 
 the present year, and made an establishment there ; 
 and, relative to a similar establishment previously 
 made at Galveston, has the honor to submit to the 
 President the accompanying papers containing the 
 information received at the respective Departments of 
 State, the Treasury, and the Navy, upon the subjects 
 embraced in the resolution. 
 
 The above documents and accompanying 
 papers were ordered to be printed. 
 
 Mr. ROBERTSON, of Louisiana, offered the fol- 
 lowing resolution to the House : 
 
 Resolved, That a committee be appointed to inquire 
 into the expediency of providing, by law, for the ex- 
 ercise of the right of expatriation ; and that they 
 have leave to report by bill or otherwise. 
 
 Mr. ROBERTSON said that, for a very consid- 
 erable length of time, he had wished this ques- 
 tion to be decided by that tribunal to whom the 
 decision of it belonged. He had, some years 
 ago, offered a resolution similar to this, which 
 was then not adopted ; whether on account of 
 the war in which we were then engaged, or for 
 what other considerations, he had never been 
 able to decide. The question which had arisen 
 during the late war made a decision of it neces- 
 sary. It would be well recollected, that among 
 the soldiers of the United States were many in- 
 dividuals, natives of Great Britain, who were 
 taken prisoners of war, and, according to the 
 doctrine of the British Government, an odious 
 doctrine, reprobated, he believed, by every other
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 Pensions to Sufferers in War. 
 
 [DECEMBER, 1817. 
 
 Government, were treated as traitors fighting 
 against their Government ; and that, if this 
 construction had been consummated, our Gov- 
 ernment had menaced severe retaliation. But, 
 with what consistency could the United States 
 take the ground of retaliation, when they them- 
 selves had never recognized, in regard to our 
 own citizens, what we demanded of Great 
 Britain in regard to hers ? So far as proceed- 
 ings have heen had on this point, Mr. R. said 
 he was led to believe this right had been denied 
 to our citizens. lie would not dwell on the 
 particulars of the decision on this subject by 
 Judge Ellsworth, some years ago, but merely 
 state that Isaac Williams, a citizen of the 
 United States, became a citizen of the French 
 Republic, and was thereafter fined and imprison- 
 ed, by the decision of our courts, for making 
 war on Great Britain, on the ground that he 
 could not divest himself of the allegiance he 
 owed to the United States. It was certainly 
 proper, he said, that there should be some de- 
 cision of the Legislature on a question of this 
 nature and magnitude, which, at present, de- 
 pended on the opinions of the Judiciary ; and, 
 as far as acts of Congress can regulate the judi- 
 cial opinions, that such directions should be 
 given on this head as he thought were obviously 
 just and necessary. He had thought proper to 
 make these remarks, because, although he be- 
 lieved the right to be clear, and that the Gov- 
 ernment would maintain it, as they ought to do, 
 if they possessed the respect which is professed 
 for the principles of liberty and for civil rights 
 a decision of the Legislature on the subject 
 was more important at this moment, from con- 
 siderations growing out of the present relations 
 between the United States and foreign nations. 
 By the existing treaty with Spain, a citizen of 
 the United States, holding a commission under 
 any Government at war with Spain, while we 
 are at peace with her, is considered as a pirate. 
 This extraordinary provision of the treaty must 
 have escaped the attention of that power in our 
 Government which makes treaties, or it would 
 have been rejected, as well for its cruelty, as 
 because it is an act of legislation to define and 
 punish piracies, and not a power confided to the 
 treaty-making authority. To say nothing more 
 of that, however, Mr. R. observed, that he 
 deemed it necessary to protect the citizens of 
 the United States from punishment, due only to 
 piracy, when found with commissions in their 
 hands from any Government at war with Spain. 
 He wished to see our citizens at perfect liberty 
 to become citizens of what nation they chose, 
 on such terms as that nation should prescribe. 
 It would appear, from what he had said, Mr. R. 
 remarked, that there was not that neutrality in 
 our conduct towards the two parties, in the war 
 between Spain and her colonies, which we all 
 profess. In this respect, the parties were cer- 
 tainly not on the same footing ; since a citizen 
 of the United States in the employ of Spain 
 against the colonies is not considered as a pirate, 
 but engaged in the service of the colonies 
 
 against Spain, he is. He did not know that 
 this fact would have induced him to have 
 brought the question before the House, but for 
 the deep impression he felt of the justice and 
 propriety of adopting the principle, abstracted 
 from the existing state of things. But it was 
 the more necessary to reduce the principle to 
 legislation, because of the situation in which 
 the want of it has placed us in regard to foreign 
 nations. 
 
 The motion of Mr. ROBERTSON was adopted 
 without opposition, and without a division ; and 
 Messrs. ROBERTSON of Louisiana, MASON of Mas- 
 sachusetts, POINDEXTER, Ross, and FLOYD, were 
 appointed the committee. 
 
 Pensions to Sufferers in War. 
 
 Mr. HARBISON, of Ohio, offered the following 
 resolution : 
 
 Resolved, That the Committee on Military Affairs 
 be, and they are hereby, instructed to inquire into the 
 expediency of continuing the pensions which now are 
 or have been heretofore allowed to the widows and 
 orphans of the officers and soldiers who were killed 
 or who died in the service of the late war, for a term 
 of five years beyond the periods at which they shall 
 respectively cease under the existing laws. 
 
 Mr. H. said, that, as the resolution only con- 
 templated an inquiry, he would detain the 
 House but a few minutes only, with the mo- 
 tives which induced him at this time to bring 
 it forward. Some of the pensions which had 
 been granted, said he, have already expired, 
 and others will expire, probably, before the 
 session of Congress closes. Amongst the latter 
 is that which was granted to the widow and 
 orphan of the late Brigadier-General Pike. In 
 descending the Ohio River, said Mr. H., the eye 
 of the inquisitive stranger is attracted by the 
 humble dwelling which shelters the widow and 
 orphan of that distinguished hero. Should his 
 curiosity carry him further, and he should be 
 induced to visit the abode of this interesting 
 family, he would find, however humble the ex- 
 terior, that neatness, frugal hospitality, and com- 
 fort, were to be found within its walls that the 
 lady had expended a proper portion of her pen- 
 sion in the pious purpose of educating her daugh- 
 ter. . But, said Mr. H., if the visit should be re- 
 peated at the end of a year, and the law which 
 the resolution contemplated should not pass, it 
 would be found that the comforts of which he 
 had spoken had fled, or that the means of pro- 
 curing them were obtained by the personal ex- 
 ertions of the lady herself. From my knowledge 
 of her situation, said Mr. H., I can state, with 
 confidence, that her dependence for a comfort- 
 able support rests on the generosity no, sir, 
 not on the generosity, but on the justice of this 
 nation ; for, can there be, under Heaven, a juster 
 claim than that which is presented by a widow, 
 under such circumstances? In fighting your 
 battles she has lost a husband he has bled that 
 his country might be great, might be free, might 
 be happy. But our advantage has been to her 
 an insuperable misfortune. It has thrown her 

 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 07 
 
 DECEMBER, 1817.] 
 
 Estimate of Appropriations. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 " On the wide world, without that only tie 
 For which she wished to live, or feared to die." 
 
 It is our duty to supply, as far as -we can 
 supply, the loss she has sustained. There are 
 other cases, sir, which form the strongest claims 
 upon the justice and the honor of the nation. 
 Let me not be told, said Mr. H., that the Gov- 
 ernment has performed its contract by giving the 
 five years' pension which was provided at the 
 commencement of the war. Sir, the contract 
 was all on one side, and it would have been 
 immaterial what had been its provisions. The 
 noble spirits of Allen, of Hart, and of Pike, 
 would have met your enemy with as much zeal 
 and devotedness as if the provision for their 
 families had been such as they would have dic- 
 tated; no personal consideration would have 
 withheld them from the field of glory. But, 
 said Mr. H., there are moments when the claims 
 of nature will have their full effect. I have 
 seen, said he, the wounded and expiring war- 
 rior in that awful moment, when the martial 
 ardor which had filled his bosom had been sus- 
 pended by the pain which he felt when the 
 sacrifice being made, naught of public duty re- 
 mained to be performed then it is, sir, that the 
 thoughts of his family would fill him with the 
 greatest solicitude. A beloved wife and chil- 
 dren left friendless and unprotected the latter 
 without the means of education, and both with- 
 out support. In such a situation, said Mr. H., I 
 have heard, amidst the fervent aspirations to 
 Heaven for their happiness, a consoling hope 
 expressed that his country would not forsake 
 them. Shall we, sir, not realize that hope? 
 The country, said Mr. H., may be engaged in 
 another war ; if it should be the case, let us 
 commence it with the benedictions of the widow 
 and the orphan upon our heads. Let not their 
 prayers ascend to Heaven charged with accusa- 
 tions against your justice and humanity. But, 
 said Mr. H., I am anticipating a thing that can- 
 not happen ; the resolution will pass, as will a 
 law that will be reported in obedience to it. 
 
 The motion of Mr. HAEEISON was not opposed, 
 and was adopted. 
 
 Internal Improvements. 
 
 Mr. TUCKER, of Virginia, from the committee 
 appointed on so much of the President's Mes- 
 sage as relates to roads, canals, and seminaries 
 of learning, made a report in part, which was 
 read, and committed to a Committee of the 
 whole House on Friday next. 
 
 TUESDAY, December 16. 
 
 National Flag. 
 
 Mr. WEXDOVER submitted for consideration 
 the following resolution : 
 
 Resolved, That a committee he appointed to inquire 
 into the expediency of altering the flag of the United 
 States, and that they have leave to report hy bill or 
 otherwise. 
 
 Mr. W. said, in submitting this motion, that 
 
 not being a novel one ; a bill relative thereto 
 having been reported at the last session, but laid 
 over from the pressure of business deemed of 
 more importance. Had the flag of the United 
 States never have undergone an alteration, he 
 certainly should not, he said, propose to make 
 a further alteration in it. But, having been al- 
 tered once, he thought it necessary and proper 
 that an alteration should now be made. It was 
 his impression, and he thought it was generally 
 believed, that the flag would be essentially in- 
 jured by an alteration on the same principle as 
 that which had before been made, of increasing 
 the stripes and the stars. Mr. W. stated the in- 
 congruity of the flags in general use, (except 
 those in the Navy,) not agreeing with the law, 
 and greatly varying from each other. He in- 
 stanced the flags flying over the building in 
 which Congress sat, and that at the Navy 
 Yard, one of which contained nine stripes, the 
 other eighteen, and neither of them conform- 
 able to the law. It was of some importance, 
 he conceived, that the flag of the nation should 
 be designated with precision, and that the prac- 
 tice under the law should be conformed to its 
 requisitions. 
 The motion was agreed to without opposition. 
 
 WEDNESDAY, December 17. 
 Another member, to wit, from North Caro- 
 lina, JOSEPH H. BEYAN appeared, produced his 
 credentials, was qualified, and took his seat. 
 
 Estimate of Appropriations. 
 The SPEAKER laid before the House the fol- 
 lowing communication from the Treasury De- 
 partment, which was ordered to be printed, 
 with the accompanying documents : 
 
 TEEASTJBY DEPARTMENT, 
 
 December 17, 1817. 
 
 SIR : I have the honor to transmit herewith for the 
 information of the House of Representatives, an esti- 
 mate of the appropriations for the service of the year 
 1818, amounting to $10,925,191 62, viz: 
 For the Civil List - - - - $1,070,708 02 
 For miscellaneous expenses - - 490,308 51 
 For intercourse with foreign nations 487,666 64 
 For the Military Establishment, in- 
 cluding arrearages, and Indian de- 
 partment - 6,265,132 25 
 For the Naval Establishment, includ- 
 ing the marine corps - - - 2,611,876 20 
 
 $10,925,191 62 
 
 The funds ont of which the appropriations for the 
 year 1818 may be discharged, are the following : 
 
 1. The sum of six hundred thousand dollars an- 
 nually reserved by the act of the 4th of August, 1790, 
 out of the duties and customs, towards the expenses 
 of Government. 
 
 2. The proceeds of the stamp duties, and the duty 
 on sugar refined within the United States. 
 
 8. The surplus which may remain of the customs 
 and internal duties, after satisfying the pledge for 
 which they are pledged and appropriated.
 
 ABRIDGMENT OP THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 Expatriation. 
 
 [DECEMBER, 1817. 
 
 4. Any other unappropriated money which may 
 come into the Treasury during the year 1818. 
 
 I have the honor to be, very respectfully, sir, your 
 most obedient servant, 
 
 WM. H. CRAWFORD. 
 The Honorable the SPEAKER 
 
 of the House of Representatives. 
 
 FBIDAT, December 19. 
 
 Another member, to wit, from Delaware, 
 WILLABD HALL, appeared, produced his creden- 
 tials, was qualified, and took his seat. 
 
 Surviving Revolutionary Soldiers. 
 
 The House having resolved itself into a Com- 
 mittee of the Whole on the bill concerning the 
 surviving soldiers of the Revolutionary war, 
 
 Mr. BLOOMFIELD delivered his impressions in 
 respect to the operation and scope of this bill. 
 He made a statement to show what were his 
 views of the probable number of applicants un- 
 der this bill, if it should pass ; and the annual 
 amount of the expenditure it would occasion. 
 The Jersey brigade, he said, consisted, during 
 the war, of four regiments ; there were forty 
 officers to each regiment, making in the whole 
 one hundred and sixty. On the 4th of July 
 last, as he was enabled from personal knowl- 
 edge to state, there were living but twenty of 
 those officers, being precisely one-eighth of the 
 whole number. Taking this fact for his guide, 
 as the proportion of survivors, he said, there 
 were in the Continental army sixty-eight bat- 
 talions, of whom about seventeen thousand men 
 were killed or died in the service ; and at the 
 close of the war, it was a well-known fact, the 
 battalions did not average more in each than 
 two hundred and fifty ; making in the whole 
 seventeen thousand men of whom, say about 
 one-tenth (being generally not of as regular 
 habits as the officers) were living ; that is, sev- 
 enteen thousand. Estimating the proportion 
 of applicants for the pension at one-sixth, would 
 make three hundred and forty. The full pay 
 of the Revolution, six and two-thirds dollars 
 per month to each, of these, would amount to 
 $2,295 per month. Of the officers, the whole 
 original number he estimated at two thousand 
 seven hundred and twenty ; of whom, suppos- 
 ing one-eighth to have survived, as in the in- 
 stance of the Jersey brigade, there were now 
 living about one thousand three hundred and 
 forty. Of this number, he supposed one-tenth 
 of the whole would become applicants for pen- 
 sions say thirty-four ; at the full subaltern Rev- 
 olutionary pay of seventeen dollars per month, 
 their pensions would amount to $578 per month. 
 The monthly pension for both officers and sol- 
 diers, on this estimate, would be $2,873, and the 
 annual amount only $34,376 an amount which 
 must daily decrease. But, instead of full pay 
 pension, the bilLas it now stood, provided only 
 for half pay. Would this House be satisfied, 
 Mr. B. asked, with giving to these men, borne 
 down with age and service, a pension of three 
 and a third dollars a month during the small re- 
 
 mainder of their lives, whilst they had given 
 the soldiers of the late war (no disparagement 
 to them) eight dollars per month ? He hoped 
 not ; and therefore moved to amend the bill so 
 as that the amount of pension should be for 
 every officer seventeen dollars per month, and 
 for every soldier eight. 
 
 Mr. COLSTON objected to the qualification of 
 indigence, required by the bill, to entitle the 
 surviving Revolutionary officer and soldier to 
 the benefit of its provision. Let not the sol- 
 dier, said he, by whose bravery and sufferings 
 we are entitled to hold seats on this floor, be 
 required to expose his poverty to the world, 
 and exhibit the proof of it, to entitle him to re- 
 lief. The incorporation of such a provision in 
 the bill he considered as degrading to the House. 
 In what light was this bill to be regarded ? Was 
 it to be considered as an act of justice ? It was 
 less than justice, having suffered these meritori- 
 ous men to have remained for years unreward- 
 ed, to offer to the poor remains of them the 
 right to a pension during life, clogged with such 
 conditions. As an act of beneficence, he should 
 be ashamed to hear it supported on this floor. 
 On this subject, Mr. 0. said he hoped a liberal 
 spirit would prevail ; and that, for the short 
 remnant of their lives a pension would be given 
 to all who survived of the soldiers of the Revo- 
 lution. 
 
 Mr. OEB accorded fully in the sentiment of 
 Mr. COLSTON. On the first perusal of the bill, 
 he was struck with the thought, what must be 
 the feelings of the high-minded officer of the 
 Revolution, compelled to produce in open court 
 the proofs of his own indigence ; and he hoped 
 the House would amend that part of the bill. 
 
 Mr. HABBISON, of Ohio, avowed his high re- 
 spect for the survivors of the Revolution, and 
 his sincere desire to contribute to their comfort 
 in old age. But, he said, the amendment now 
 proposed went too far, because it would embrace 
 every one who had shouldered a musket, even 
 for an hour, during the Revolutionary war. As 
 to those who had seen serious service, so far from 
 having claim to the meed of liberality, the 
 amendment would be but a measure of justice, 
 as no bounty had been accorded to them. Per- 
 sons, however, covered with scars and borne 
 down by length of service in those days, ought 
 not be confounded with those who had been 
 called out for an hour or a day. Some of the 
 militia, he thought, were as well entitled to this 
 pension as any regulars, of whom the Jersey 
 militia might be particularly mentioned. But 
 he wished to have the operation of the bill lim- 
 ited to such as should have served six months 
 or more. 
 
 MONDAY, December 22. 
 Another member, to wit, from Pennsylvania, 
 ALEXANDER OGLE, appeared, produced his cre- 
 dentials, was qualified, and took his seat. 
 
 Expatriation. 
 Mr. ROBEBTSON, of Louisiana, from the select
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 69 
 
 DECEMBER, 1817.] 
 
 Surviving Revolutionary Soldiers. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 committee to whom the subject had been re- 
 ferred, reported a bill providing the manner in 
 which the right of citizenship may be relin- 
 quished. 
 
 [The bill proposes to provide that when any 
 citizen, by application in writing to the district 
 court of any district of the United States, in 
 open court, and there to be recorded, shall de- 
 clare that he relinquishes the character of a 
 citizen, and means to depart out of the United 
 States, he shall be thenceforth considered as 
 having exercised the right of expatriation, and 
 as being no longer a citizen of the United States ; 
 that such person shall be held as an alien for- 
 ever after, and shall not resume the rights of 
 citizenship without going through the same 
 process of naturalization as other citizens.] 
 
 Surviving Revolutionary Soldiers. 
 
 The remainder of this day's sitting was spent 
 in Committee of the Whole, on the bill con- 
 cerning the surviving officers and soldiers of the 
 Eevolution. There was much debate, occasion- 
 ally eloquent, but generally desultory, on amend- 
 ments proposed to the bill, but involving also its 
 principles. 
 
 Mr. STEOTHEE said, that he had not intended 
 to trouble the House with any observations upon 
 the passage of this bill ; but he could not remain 
 silent, when, by the proposed amendment, a fea- 
 ture was endeavored to be incorporated into it, 
 which, to him, appeared to narrow the opera- 
 tion of the bill, and to strip it, at least, of one 
 moiety of its merit. Is it just, or is it politic, 
 he asked, to discriminate between the Conti- 
 nental line and the State troops, and the militia ? 
 "What is the professed object of the bill ? To 
 provide for the indigent soldiers of the Revolu- 
 tion. What is the feeling or sentiment from 
 which it springs ? He said he had hailed the 
 introduction of this bill as an auspicious circum- 
 stance as a gratifying evidence of the re-con- 
 nection of public feeling with the principles of 
 the Revolution. If gratitude be the feeling or 
 sentiment from which this bill springs, by what 
 principle would you limit and confine it to the 
 Continental line ? Is the reason to be found in 
 the bright page of your Revolutionary history, 
 or in what celebrated system of ethics will you 
 find its justification? If, said he, you look to 
 the magnitude of the boon conferred, how awful 
 is the debt of gratitude ! Mark this mighty 
 empire arising into existence from peril and 
 from blood, and then sit down, if you can, and, 
 by cool arithmetical calculation, draw a line of 
 discrimination between those who gratuitously 
 bestowed upon you that freedom and that pros- 
 perity you now enjoy. But why, said he, shall 
 the militia be excluded the nation's bounty ? Did 
 they not assist in the conflict? Did they not, 
 half armed and undisciplined, meet the invading 
 foe, and assist in repelling him from your shores? 
 The battle ground of GuUford speaks their eulo- 
 gium ; Bunker's Hill is the imperishable monu- 
 ment of their valor. If motive gives character 
 to action, the indigent militiaman has the high- 
 
 est claim to the interposition of this Govern- 
 men. That love of liberty and country, which 
 elevates man to his highest destiny, was the 
 sole emulating principle which gave courage to 
 their hearts, and strength to their arms, in the 
 hour of battle. Here were motives as pure, and 
 achievements as brilliant, as illustrate the proud- 
 est nations of antiquity. Sir, said Mr. S., it 13 
 with the deepest regret that I am driven to the 
 comparison. I would ask that hand to perish, 
 that would snatch one leaf from that laurel that 
 adorns the brow of the Revolutionary Army ; 
 but it must be admitted that the Continental 
 army had a mixture and compound motive; 
 the holy flame that then electrified the coun- 
 try no doubt burnt bright in their bosoms ; but 
 they were surrounded by all the pride, pomp, 
 and circumstance of glorious war ; ambition had 
 his prize in view, and avarice his reward. But 
 why shall this invidious distinction be drawn 
 in our legislative provisions? Let national 
 pride, let national gratitude, obliterate it forever. 
 Length of service, said he, is a criterion of merit 
 equally fallacious and unjust. With the best 
 possible disposition to render services, unfavor- 
 able circumstances may doom one soldier to 
 waste his energies in inglorious ease, whilst 
 others, favored by more auspicious fortune, may, 
 within a comparatively short period, have fre- 
 quently been led to battle, and, by their personal 
 prowess, have contributed to the emancipation 
 of their country. Within the experience of many 
 members of this committee, these facts have oc- 
 curred, and they are within the observation of 
 all ; shall we, then, he asked, with these facts 
 ringing in our ears, and occurring recently be- 
 fore our eyes, admit a principle so deceptive and 
 so inequitable ? Sir, said Mr. S., I have viewed 
 this bill in a different light ; I have considered 
 it emanating from feelings of mingled respect 
 and sympathy ; as a homage paid to that stoic 
 fortitude and heroic courage that reclaimed a 
 hemisphere from slavery ; as a tribute of respect 
 to sages who conceived and framed a Govern- 
 ment, embracing in its gigantic arms an entire 
 continent, protecting its inhabitants in the 
 enjoyment of freedom and happiness. This 
 House, said he, cannot more appropriately 
 evince these feelings than by rejecting the pro- 
 posed amendment All who contributed to build 
 up our magnificent political fabric, should be 
 embraced in the wide circle of gratitude. Per- 
 mit not him, who, in the pride of vigor and 
 of youth, wasted his health and shed his blood 
 in freedom's cause, with desponding heart and 
 palsied limbs to totter from door to door, bow- 
 ing his yet untamed soul to melt the frozen 
 bosom of reluctant charity! No, sir, he said, 
 the nation should seek out these noble ruins of 
 that splendid period, and spread its charity 
 around to warm and cheer them into a fprget- 
 f ulness of their wrongs and their sorrows, in the 
 evening of their days. Mr. S. concluded by re- 
 marking, that he flattered himself the amend- 
 ment would not obtain. The object of the bill 
 seems to connect gratitude and charity, service
 
 70 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 The Case of Mr. Meade. 
 
 [DECEMBER, 1817. 
 
 and distress. The beams of national charity 
 should not be concentrated on the head of the 
 enlisted soldier ; the beams of national benefi- 
 cence should equally visit the domicil of the 
 militiaman, and convey comfort to his fire- 
 side. 
 
 TUESDAY, December 23. 
 Indemnity for Slaves. 
 
 Mr. WILLIAMS, from the Committee of Claims, 
 to whom was referred the report of the Sec- 
 retary of State on the petitions of Antoine 
 Bienvenu, Peter Lacoste, and Jacques Villerd, 
 citizens of Louisiana, made to the House the 
 following report ; which was concurred in by 
 the House : 
 
 That the petitions and accompanying documents 
 were, by a resolution of the 29th of January last, re- 
 ferred to the Secretary of State ; that the Secretary 
 of State has submitted to the House a report, (hereto 
 annexed,) which the committee beg leave to adopt as 
 a part of their report. 
 
 The Committee of Claims would at any time un- 
 dertake with great diffidence, to discuss principles of 
 national law, or settle questions of conventional right. 
 But at this time it would, in their opinion, be pecu- 
 liarly indelicate, if not premature, for Congress to 
 adopt any measure whatever. It would seem to 
 them more correct that the subject of the petitions 
 should await the result of a negotiation now pending 
 between the Governments of the United States and 
 Great Britain. They therefore recommend to the 
 House, the following resolution : 
 
 Resolved, That the petitioners have leave to with- 
 draw their petitions and documents. 
 
 DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Dec. 12, 1817. 
 
 The Secretary of State, to whom, by a resolution 
 of the House of Representatives of the 29th of Jan- 
 uary last, were referred the petitions of Antoine Bien- 
 venn, Peter Lacoste, and Jacques Vlliere, citizens of 
 Louisiana, has the honor of submitting the following 
 report: 
 
 The petitioners complain that when the British 
 forces retreated from the Island of Orleans, at the 
 close of the late war, they carried away a considera- 
 ble number of slaves belonging to them ; the resto- 
 ration of which was, after the ratification of the 
 treaty of peace, demanded by General Jackson, con- 
 formably to the first article of that treaty, of the 
 British commanding officer, General Lambert, and 
 by him refused ; and they apply to Congress for in- 
 demnity for the loss of their property. 
 
 Subsequently to the reference of these petitions, a 
 Message from the President to the Senate of the 
 United States, was, on the 7th of February last, 
 transmitted to that body, with all the documents then 
 in the possession of this Department, relating to the 
 subject of these petitions ; a printed copy of that 
 Message and of those documents is herewith trans- 
 mitted, which it is respectfully requested may be re- 
 ceived as part of this report. By them it will be 
 seen that a different construction has beeu given by 
 the British Government to that part of the first arti- 
 cle of the Treaty of Ghent, which relates to the res- 
 titution of slaves captured during the war, from that 
 contended for by this Government. That, according 
 
 to their construction, the British Government have 
 not considered themselves bound to make restitution 
 of any of the slaves or other property thus taken and 
 carried away ; and that the difference of opinion be- 
 tween the two Governments remaining, after all the 
 amicable discussion between them of which the sub- 
 ject was susceptible, a proposal was made, on the part 
 of the United States, on the 17th of September, 1816, 
 that the question should bd referred to the arbitration 
 of some friendly power. To this proposal no answer 
 from the British Government has yet been received. 
 Their attention to it was again invited by the late 
 Minister of the United States in England, before he 
 left London, and has been urged anew in the instruc- 
 tions to his successor. 
 
 All which is respectfully submitted, 
 
 JOHN QUINCY ADAMS. 
 
 The Case of Mr. Meade. 
 
 Mr. TRIMBLE, of Kentucky, offered for con- 
 sideration the following resolution : 
 
 Resolved, That the President of the United States 
 be requested to cause to be laid before the House any 
 information he may be able to communicate relative 
 to the impressment and detention of Kichard Cowles 
 Meade, a citizen of the United States. 
 
 Mr. T. said that, having offered the resolu- 
 tion, it might be expected that he would give 
 some explanation of the case to which it alludes. 
 He had a right to presume that every member 
 of the House had heard of the confinement of 
 Mr. Meade. More than three years ago that 
 gentleman had been incarcerated in a Spanish 
 dungeon, where he had ever since remained. It 
 was within his (Mr. T.^s) recollection, that many 
 persons had expected that the last Congress 
 would have caused an inquiry to be made into 
 the subject; but, since that period, the case 
 had assumed a new character, of most extraor- 
 dinary complexion. It was well known, he 
 said, that Mr. Meade is a citizen of the United 
 States, and he believed, was, at one time, an 
 accredited Consul, resident in some part of the 
 Spanish dominions. Either character ought to 
 have protected him from violence and outrage. 
 But, unfortunately for him, they did not. The 
 causes which produced his confinement were 
 unknown to Mr. T. they were probably buried 
 in the vaults of the Inquisition. That, however, 
 was of little consequence, if the facts which he 
 was about to state were true ; and that they 
 are true was evinced, he said, by a document 
 which he held in his hand, and which, he said, 
 struck the mind with as much force as if it was 
 marked with the characters of official certainty. 
 I am prepared, said he, to admit, that if a citi- 
 zen of the United States shall violate the penal 
 or criminal code of any other country, he must 
 submit to the punishment which may be inflict- 
 ed on him ; but such is not the case of Mr. 
 Meade. It was not contended, he said, that 
 the person in question had violated the letter 
 or spirit of any part of the penal or criminal 
 code of Spain and, on the contrary, the docu- 
 ment which he held in his hand afforded the 
 highest evidence that there was no cause of 
 complaint against him. Upon some urgent and
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 71 
 
 DECEMHER, 1817.] 
 
 Revolutionary Survivors. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 vigorous remonstrances being made on'this sub- 
 ject by our Minister, Mr. Erring, & public noto- 
 rious royal order was issued. Mark nie, sir, said 
 he a public notorious royal order, announcing 
 to Spain, to America, and the whole world, 
 that there was no cause for the detention of Mr. 
 Meade, and directing his immediate release- 
 ment. How the aching heart of Mr. Meade 
 must have throbbed and swelled, cheered with 
 the prospect of leaving in a few hours his loath- 
 some, pestilential dungeon, to breathe once 
 more the free and wholesome air! How it 
 must have sunk and died within him, when the 
 doors of his " prison house" were unbarred by 
 a meagre minion, who had come skulking 
 through the vaults of those abodes of death, 
 with another secret order! Mark me again, 
 sir another secret order issued at the same 
 time, under the same royal signature, com- 
 manding his keeper to hold the prisoner at his 
 peril. Yes, sir, one order, public and notorious 
 for his releasement, and another secret order 
 for confinement, of the same date, and under 
 the same royal signature. If these facts be true, 
 the case stands without a parallel in ancient or 
 modern times. Even the case of Czerney 
 George has no similitude ; he was a monster, 
 executed by the Turk, because he had, in cold 
 blood, plunged his sabre through the heart of 
 his own father. Whereas Mr. Meade is ac- 
 knowledged to be an innocent victim, suffering 
 under royal displeasure. I will not attempt, 
 said Mr. T., to paint the horrors of a Spanish 
 dungeon, or the sickenings of hope at protract- 
 ed confinement. It is not my wish to excite 
 public feeling, and I utterly disclaim all inten- 
 tion of connecting this subject with other ques- 
 tions, now under discussion, or which may fall 
 under discussion, between this Government and 
 Spain. Mr. T. averred also that he had entire 
 confidence in the Lite and present Executive 
 heads of the Government, and had no doubt 
 that every thing which could be done, had been 
 done, in behalf of Mr. Meade. But he held it 
 the duty of this House to inquire into this (he 
 would again call it) extraordinary case, and, if 
 the facts and circumstances shall require it, 
 make such expression of its opinion as will add 
 weight and force to future Executive exertions. 
 If the case were as well-founded as rumor told, 
 he for one, was ready to volunteer his arm in 
 defence of Mr. Meade, and breast the storm, 
 unfearing consequences. For, said he, while I 
 have the honor of a seat in this House, no law- 
 less despot shall lay an angry finger on a fellow- 
 citizen of mine, without the hazard of bringing 
 that finger to the block. He was one of those, 
 he said, who were willing to believe that we 
 ought not, at this time, uselessly to embroil our- 
 selves with any foreign power; and he was 
 thoroughly satisfied that it is our best and 
 wisest policy to husband our resources, our 
 men, and our means, to meet the coming con- 
 flict with the only nation that dare strike us 
 upon the land or on the water the only nation 
 that can send us a Hannibal, or whom we shall 
 
 revisit with a Scipio that nation who has al- 
 ready sacked our infant Rome, and whose proud 
 Carthage we shall one day humble in the dust, 
 and sweep with the besom of retributive deso- 
 lation. But, said he, there are no present cir- 
 cumstances, or looked-for events, that ought to 
 incline us to harden our ears, that we may not 
 hear the calls of a suffering citizen, imploring 
 our protection. Solon, I think it was, upon 
 being asked, "What form of government is 
 best? " replied, "That form in which the small- 
 est insult offered to the meanest citizen is con- 
 sidered an injury to the whole community." 
 Could a better maxim be adopted in a Govern- 
 ment like ours ? Is there any thing which so 
 exactly accords with the principles of our con- 
 stitution ? This, it is true, is but a single in- 
 stance of individual oppression; but the out- 
 rage done to the personal rights of the victim ; 
 the infraction of national law ; and the affront, 
 the insult offered to our Government, is exactly 
 the same as if half a million had been incarcer- 
 ated ; for he held that our system of Govern- 
 ment is the true poetic chain, which links us 
 together as a band of brothers and 
 
 "If from that chain a single link you strike, 
 Ten, or ten thousand, break the chain alike." 
 
 We are bound, sir, said Mr. T., under our 
 constitution, to protect the life, liberty, and 
 property, of every citizen of our country. But 
 where may he claim that protection? Or 
 rather, where shall his right to claim it cease? 
 Is it confined to the limits of the Union ? or 
 does it not extend to the remotest region of the 
 globe, which is visited by our people? May 
 the citizen claim it against the savages of the 
 Western wilds, and is he not entitled to it 
 among the still more lawless chieftains of a de- 
 caying, perishing, and ruined monarchy ? It is 
 not in this land of liberty that the citizen need 
 call for protection ; here it comes, as it were, 
 unbidden, to encompass him about ; but when 
 oppression falls upon him in a foreign land, 
 among strangers, friendless, and unprotected, 
 his supplicating voice should not be heard in 
 vain ; for every thing which is obligatory in the 
 social compact, or honorable in humanity, calls 
 for and commands your protection, as if he 
 stood upon the sacred soil that gave him birth. 
 Who of us, said Mr. T., in the condition of 
 Mr. Meade, would not ask this inquiry of this 
 House ? Which of us will refuse it ? For the 
 honor of my country, I hope there is not one. 
 
 The motion of Mr. T. was agreed to without 
 opposition or further debate. 
 
 Revolutionary Survivors. 
 
 The House resolved itself into a Committee 
 of the Whole on the bill concerning the sur- 
 viving officers and soldiers of the Revolutionary 
 
 IT. 
 
 The debate continued on the main subject 
 and on the proposed amendment of Mr. HAB- 
 KISOX. In this debate, Messrs. BLOOMFIELD, S. 
 SMITH, HARRISON, COLSTON, BALDWIN, CLAGETT,
 
 72 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R] 
 
 Commutation Sill. 
 
 [DECEMBER, 1817. 
 
 HOPEINSON, KHEA, Boss, and INGHAM, bore 
 part. 
 
 The amendment proposed by Mr. HARRISON, 
 was ultimately rejected ; as also was a previous 
 question for the rising of the committee, in 
 order to postpone the subject. 
 
 The committee then went on further to 
 amend the bill, on suggestion of various mem- 
 bers. In the proposition and discussion of 
 these amendments, Messrs. PETER, BLOOMFIELD, 
 LIVERMORE, PARRIS, KHEA, BENNETT, BEEOHER, 
 HARRISON, TERRY, FOBSYTH, SMITH of North 
 Carolina, TAYLOR of New York, TALLMADGE, 
 WHITMAN, CLAGETT, PALMER, and STORER, took 
 part. 
 
 Among the successful motions, was one by 
 Mr. PARRIS, to include the " officers and mari- 
 ners who served in the navy of either of the 
 States, or of the United States," thus placing 
 the Eevolutionary officers of the navy on the 
 same footing as those of the army. 
 
 The Committee of the Whole rose, about four 
 o'clock, and reported the bill as amended. 
 
 The House took up the amendments reported 
 by the committee ; when various propositions 
 were successively made and discussed, to disa- 
 gree to or amend many of them. 
 
 The House having at length gone through 
 the amendments, the bill was ordered to be en- 
 grossed, as amended, nem. con., and read a third 
 tune to-morrow. 
 
 WEDNESDAY, December 24. 
 Surviving Revolutionary Patriots. 
 
 The bill providing for certain surviving offi- 
 cers and soldiers of the Kevolutionary Army was 
 read a third time. 
 
 A motion was made by Mr. LOWNDES to re- 
 commit the bill to a Committee of the Whole 
 House, with instructions " to limit the benefit 
 of the act to soldiers who were enlisted for a 
 term of three years, or for the war, and who 
 did not desert ; and to officers who continued 
 in the service of the United States to the con- 
 clusion of the war in 1783, or were left out of 
 the service in consequence of disability, or in 
 consequence of some derangement of the Army." 
 
 The question being stated on thus recommit- 
 ting the bill, Mr. EDWARDS moved to amend the 
 said instructions by striking out the words 
 " three years" and to insert in lieu thereof the 
 words " one year.' 1 '' 
 
 And the question being taken thereon, it was 
 decided in the affirmative. . 
 
 The question was then taken on the final pas- 
 sage of the bill, and decided in the affirmative 
 without a division. 
 
 MONDAY, December 29. 
 Appointment of Members to Office. 
 The following Message was received from the 
 PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES : 
 To the House of Representatives of the United States : 
 
 In compliance with a resolution of the House of 
 Representatives of the 12th of this month, request- 
 
 ing to be informed whether any, and which of the 
 Representatives, in a list thereto annexed, have held 
 offices since the 4th of March last, designating the 
 offices, the times of appointment and acceptance, and 
 whether they were at that time so held, or when 
 they had been resigned, I now transmit a report 
 from the Secretary of State, which contains the in- 
 formation desired. 
 
 JAMES MONROE. 
 DECEMBER 29, 1817. 
 
 DEPARTMENT OP STATE, Dec. 26, 1817. 
 
 The resolution of the House of Representatives of 
 the 12th of this month, requesting the President to 
 communicate to that House whether any, and which 
 of the Representatives named in the list thereto an- 
 nexed, have held offices since the 4th of March last, 
 designating the offices, the times of appointment and 
 acceptance, and whether they were at that time so 
 held, or when they had been resigned, having been 
 referred to this department, the Secretary has the 
 honor respectfully to report to the President as follows: 
 
 John Holmes, of Massachusetts, Commissioner un- 
 der the 4th article of the Treaty of Ghent, appointed 
 16th February, 1816, resigned 24th November, 1817. 
 
 Samuel Herrick, of Ohio, Attorney of the United 
 States, appointed 19th December, 1810, resigned 
 29th November, 1817. 
 
 Daniel Cruger, of New York, postmaster at Bath, 
 appointed 29th June, 1815, resigned 1st December, 
 1817. 
 
 Ulias Eark, of South Carolina, postmaster at Cen- 
 treville, appointed in April, 1815, resigned 12th June, 
 1817. 
 
 Thomas H. Hubbard, of New York, postmaster at 
 Hamilton, appointed llth March, 1813, resigned 23d 
 October, 1817. 
 
 Samuel C. Crafts, of Vermont, principal assessor for 
 the sixth Collection district, appointed 4th January, 
 
 1815, resigned 5th June, 1817. 
 
 George Robertson, of Kentucky, principal assessor 
 for the seventh Collection district, appointed 4th Jan- 
 uary, 1815, resigned 5th June, 1817. 
 
 George Mumford, of North Carolina, principal as- 
 sessor for the tenth Collection district. No resigna- 
 tion has been received from Mr. Mumford. 
 
 Levi Barber, of Ohio, receiver of public moneys 
 at Marietta, appointed 3d March, 1807, resigned 1st 
 December, 1817. 
 
 John F. Parrott, of New Hampshire, naval officer 
 for the district of Portsmouth, appointed 23d April, 
 
 1816, resigned 15th November, 1817. 
 
 JOHN QUINCY ADAMS. 
 
 Referred to the Committee of Elections. 
 Commutation Bill. 
 
 The House, on motion of Mr. JOHNSON, of 
 Kentucky, resumed the consideration of the bill 
 to commute the bounty lands of the soldiers of 
 the late army. The question being on concur- 
 ring in the amendments reported to the House 
 by the Committee of the Whole 
 
 Mr. ROBERTSON, of Louisiana, rose for the 
 purpose of offering an amendment, which would 
 essentially change the features of the bill ; in 
 doing which, he entered somewhat into an ex- 
 amination of the merits of the principle of the 
 commutation, which he decidedly approved. 
 This amendment, in substance, authorizes every 
 soldier, on surrendering his warrant at the land
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 73 
 
 DECEMBER, 1817.] 
 
 Georgia Militia Claims. 
 
 [H. OF P. 
 
 office to be i-mcdled, to receive a certificate of 
 the quantity of land surrendered ; and where 
 patents have issued, the patentee to surrender 
 his patent to the Commissioner of the General 
 Land Office within months after the pas- 
 sage of this act, in order to avail himself of the 
 provisions thereof, and deposit at the same time 
 an affidavit that he has not transferred or sold 
 such patent to any person whatever, and re- 
 ceive a certificate therefor ; and for these certi- 
 ficates such soldier or his agent shall receive 
 certificates of stock bearing an interest of six 
 per cent, per annum, redeemable at the pleas- 
 ure of the Government, or within five years, at 
 the rate of one dollar per acre for the land for 
 which the warrant or patent has been surren- 
 dered, &c. Mr. E. thought the bill important, 
 both as it regarded the soldier and the United 
 States, but infinitely more important to the in- 
 terest of the latter. It was all-important, he 
 argued, that these lands should be taken out of 
 the hands of speculators, and be redeemed by 
 the nation. His amendment offered conditions 
 to the soldier much more liberal, at the same 
 time that it would be more convenient to the 
 Government than the provisions of the present 
 bill. The interest of both parties would be 
 preserved, and the community rescued from 
 that speculation which would, without this bill, 
 certainly take place. Mr. R. dwelt some tune 
 on the policy of this measure the expediency 
 of which he illustrated by several arguments 
 and on the advantages of the change which he 
 proposed in the bill. 
 
 The amendment offered by Mr. K. having 
 been read 
 
 On motion of Mr. JOHNSON, of Kentucky, the 
 proposed amendment was ordered to be printed, 
 and the whole subject to lie on the table. 
 
 Georgia Militia Claims. 
 
 On motion of Mr. COBB, of Georgia, the House 
 resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole 
 on the bill providing for the payment of the 
 claims of certain detachments of the militia of 
 Georgia, for services in defence of that State, in 
 the years 1793 and 1794. 
 
 Mr. COBB observed, that the filling the blank 
 necessarily involved the merits of the bill, for 
 that, before the committee could be required to 
 fill the blank with a certain sum, they should 
 be satisfied whether any thing was due. He 
 hoped he should be able satisfactorily to con- 
 vince the committee of the justice of the claim, 
 and that the sum proposed was the proper 
 amount to be appropriated. 
 
 Mr. C. said, that the pacification of the Indian 
 tribes, which was anticipated by the treaties 
 made with them between the years 1787 and 
 1792, was not accomplished. In the year 1792, 
 the tribes upon the Northwestern frontiers of 
 the United States, from British intrigues, as 
 was then and yet is believed, assumed an atti- 
 tude of widely extended hostility. Nor was it 
 long before their threatenings terminated in a 
 war, so dreadful in its character, that the peo- 
 
 ple of the Northwest yet have cause to remem- 
 ber it with grief and sorrow. The tribes upon 
 the frontiers of the State of Georgia, as savage 
 in their character, and more formidable in 
 point of numbers, were not much less inclined 
 to hostility. They were subject to the same 
 influence which had been exercised upon 
 their Northern brethren, aided by that of 
 Spain, with which power the United States 
 were at that time in warm dispute, about 
 the navigation of the Mississippi River, and for 
 other causes. The intrigues of Spain were at 
 that time well known, and scarcely denied, as 
 the public documents of the day amply testify. 
 Of this, any gentleman could satisfy himself by 
 consulting the volume of secret documents, late- 
 ly published. From these causes, Mr. C. said, 
 in the years 1792 '3, the situation of the inhab- 
 itants upon the Western frontiers of Georgia, 
 was alarming to an indescribable degree. Suf- 
 fice it to say, as had once before been said upon 
 the same subject, that the peaceable citizen 
 knew not, when he retired to repose, that he 
 would ever awake ; or, if he did, that he might 
 not be roused by the horrid yells of the savage 
 warwhoop, and but to behold his helpless fam- 
 ily the bleeding victims of the Indian tomahawk 
 and scalping knife. 
 
 It was not to be expected that the Executive 
 of Georgia would calmly behold the blood-chill- 
 ing scenes of murder and depredation, at that 
 time but commencing upon the frontiers of the 
 State. Had he done so, he would have merited 
 and received the curses of his countrymen and 
 posterity. Fortunately, the Executive chair of 
 the State was then filled by one who was ever 
 feelingly alive to the sufferings of his fellow- 
 citizens. He now reposes in the grave ! But 
 his virtues and his patriotism are yet remem- 
 bered, and his loss deplored. I allude, said Mr. 
 C., to the late Governor Telfair. 
 
 Early in the year 1792, he made the neces- 
 sary communications to the War Department. 
 On the 27th of October of that year, the Sec- 
 retary at War, by letter, gave him a most am- 
 ple discretionary power, as the extract follow- 
 ing will show : "If the information you may 
 receive, shall substantiate clearly any hostile 
 designs of the Creeks against the frontiers of 
 Georgia, you will be pleased to take the most 
 effectual measures for the defence thereof, which 
 may be in your power, and which the occasion 
 may require." It is impossible that words bet- 
 ter suited to conferring an ample discretionary 
 power could have been used. The Governor of 
 Georgia is constituted the judge of the danger 
 and of the amount of the force. The state of 
 the frontiers required that such a power should 
 be conferred, at that particular time, and it 
 was conferred. It was necessary, because of 
 the uncertainty of the extent to which the In- 
 dians would carry their hostility. It was ne- 
 cessary, because of the difficulty, and trouble, 
 and expense, of bringing a militia force into 
 action, none of which should be encountered, if 
 to be avoided without danger.
 
 74 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OP R] 
 
 Georgia Militia Claims. 
 
 [DECEMBER, 1817. 
 
 In acting under this power, the Executive of 
 Georgia acted with caution, and prudence. The 
 power was conferred in October, 1792. From 
 that time, until the month of April, 1793, the 
 dangers increased, and acts of depredation and 
 murder multiplied on the frontiers. Longer de- 
 lay of action would have been criminal. On 
 the 23d of April, 1793, Governor Telfair ad- 
 dressed the following letter to John Habersham, 
 then the agent of the United States for furnish- 
 ing supplies in Georgia : " Sir, the very criti- 
 cal situation to which the frontier settlers are 
 reduced, from the late murders and depreda- 
 tions committed by the Indians, renders it in- 
 dispensable that means be taken to guard 
 against their inroads. I have made the commu- 
 nications to the War Department, and, in the 
 interim, have to request your issuing orders to 
 the contractors to provide rations for such part 
 or parts of the militia of this State as may be 
 called into service, to be furnished at the sev- 
 eral stations and places of rendezvous. In or- 
 der that you may be informed how far such a 
 measure is correspondent with the system 
 adopted by the General Government, I here- 
 with furnish a certified copy of a clause of a 
 letter from the Secretary of "War, dated 27th 
 October, 1892," (the one already read,) "on 
 the subject of Indian affairs." Upon the re- 
 ceipt of this letter, with the extract referred to, 
 the agent, Mr. Habersham, had not a doubt as 
 to the powers of the Governor. He conceived 
 them to be so ample, so unbounded indeed, that 
 he did not hesitate a moment to give to the 
 Governor an assurance, that his requisition for 
 supplies should meet with prompt attention. 
 The reply of Mr. Habersham, dated on the same 
 23d of April, will at once prove this. " Being 
 of opinion," says he, " that I shall be justified by 
 the aforesaid clause in doing so, I shall immedi- 
 ately give directions to the contractor, who is 
 now here, to furnish supplies to such of the mili- 
 tia as may be drawn out under the sanction of 
 your Excellency, and will communicate the 
 same to the Secretary of War, and the com- 
 manding officer of the federal troops in this 
 State without delay." Under this power, and 
 under these arrangements with the officers of 
 the United States, the "Governor of Georgia 
 proceeded to call the militia into service. Need 
 it be again said, how properly? 
 
 Mr. C. said that it was greatly to be regret- 
 ted that the pay-rolls, which only would afford 
 evidence of the precise force called into the 
 field, and their time of service, had been de- 
 stroyed in the conflagration of the public build- 
 ings in this city by the'British in the year 1814. 
 He was happy, however, to have it in his power 
 to assure the committee, that, from information 
 which he had received, and which he was dis- 
 posed to credit, a duplicate of the pay-rolls was 
 yet in existence in the State of Georgia. For 
 all the purposes of correct legislation, there was 
 sufficient evidence to be found in certain esti- 
 mates, which have not been destroyed, and 
 which were calculated from the pay-rolls be- 
 
 fore their destruction. From these the names 
 of most of the officers, with the number (without 
 the names) of their men, and the length of their 
 terms of service, could be ascertained. The es- 
 timates, together with a letter from the Secre- 
 tary at War to the Governor of Georgia, show 
 that, at one period, there were from eight hun- 
 dred to one thousand two hundred mili tia in the 
 field. The estimates also proved the fact, that 
 the militia were mostly detached for short 
 terms of service, and were discharged when the 
 danger of the frontiers no longer required their 
 services. 
 
 Even upon the supposition, that the full num- 
 ber of twelve hundred men had been kept in 
 service from April, 1793, until June, 1794, (at 
 which day they were disbanded,) he thought 
 that he should be able to show to the commit- 
 tee, that the force was not disproportioned to 
 the danger which threatened. The frontiers of 
 the State of Georgia extended along the borders 
 of two nations of Indians, at that time equally 
 hostile. The whole extent of the exposed 
 frontier was upwards of four hundred miles, 
 from the Tugeloo Eiver around the western 
 parts of the State, to the mouth of the St. Mary's 
 Eiver. It is well known, that all that British 
 and Spanish intrigues could do, was done to ex- 
 cite both these nations to a war. North Caro- 
 lina, South Carolina, and the territory which 
 has since been created into the State of Tennes- 
 see, were engaged in an active war, as well 
 of defence as invasion, with the Cherokees and 
 Upper Creeks, to whose ravages the upper parts 
 of the State of Georgia were equally as much 
 or more exposed. On the southern frontier 
 were the Lower Creeks, who had already com- 
 menced the work of death and slaughter. The 
 frontier, in its whole length, was but thinly in- 
 habited. Add to ah 1 these considerations the 
 fact, that the Governor of Georgia was con- 
 fined to defensive operations only, and was re- 
 stricted from prosecuting the war by invading 
 the Creek nation. The fact will be learned 
 from the letter of the Secretary of War to the 
 Governor of Georgia, dated the 30th May, 
 1793. Had the wishes of Governor Telfair 
 been attended to, upon this subject had he 
 been permitted to carry the war into the heart 
 of the enemies' country, as he one time prepared 
 to do, and by which only can an Indian war be 
 effectually terminated, this application for so 
 large a sum would not now be made at the 
 hands of Congress. From this measure he was 
 however turned by the positive orders of the 
 War Department in September, 1793. But, 
 under all these circumstances, Mr. C. thought 
 that the committee would be convinced, that a 
 less force than the one employed, would have 
 been ineffectual even for the purpose of inva- 
 sion ; and he thought that any one, at all 
 acquainted with Indian warfare, would be con- 
 vinced, that it would be less effectual for de- 
 fence. He was also willing to submit to the 
 committee, whether the Governor of Georgia 
 exercised the discretion and the power conferred
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 75 
 
 1817.] 
 
 Georgia Militia Claims. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 upon him in an incautious or imprudent man- 
 ner. 
 
 Soon after the militia -was called into service, 
 the power of the Governor of Georgia was sus- 
 pended, by a letter addressed to him from the 
 Secretary of War, dated on the 30th May, 1793. 
 This letter is of the most extraordinary char- 
 acter. It declared, "that, from considerations 
 of policy, at this critical period, relative to 
 foreign powers, and the pending treaty with 
 the northern Indians, it is deemed advisable to 
 avoid, for the present, offensive expeditions into 
 the Creek country. But, from the circum- 
 stances of the late depreciations on the frontiers 
 of Georgia, it is thought expedient to increase 
 the force in that quarter for defensive purposes. 
 The President, therefore, authorizes your Excel- 
 lency to call into and keep in service in addition 
 to the regular force stationed in Georgia, (which 
 at that time could not have exceeded one hun- 
 dred, and were of no use,) one hundred horse 
 and one hundred foot, to be employed under 
 the orders of Colonel Gaither, in repelling in- 
 roads, as circumstances shall require." One 
 hundred horse and one hundred foot to repel 
 the inroads of two of the most savage and war- 
 like tribes of Indians upon the whole continent, 
 on a frontier extending upwards of four hun- 
 dred miles ! Sir, said Mr. C., the destruction 
 and overthrow of such a force would have been 
 but a pastime with the tribes. But it is not 
 now my design to question the propriety of this 
 policy. Before, however, the order could be 
 executed, and the troops disbanded, on the 10th 
 day of June, 1793, only ten days thereafter, the 
 Executive of the United States seems to have 
 been sensible of its impropriety, and according- 
 ly, in a letter to the Governor of Georgia, he 
 says "The State of Georgia being invaded, 
 or in imminent danger thereof, the measures 
 taken by your Excellency may be considered 
 indispensable. You are the judge of the dan- 
 ger, and will undoubtedly proportion the de- 
 fence to exigencies. The President, however, 
 expresses his confidence, that as soon as the 
 danger which has induced you to call out so 
 large a body of troops, shall have subsided, that 
 you will reduce the troops to the existing state 
 of tilings, indeed to the number mentioned in 
 my letter of the 30th nltimo, duplicates of 
 which have been forwarded, provided the safety 
 of the frontiers will admit the measure." If 
 any doubts could have existed of the power 
 given to the Governor of Georgia, before the 
 receipt of this letter, they were put to rest 
 thereafter. By this, he was expressly made the 
 judge of the degree of danger, and of the num- 
 ber and extent of the force. It contains an ac- 
 knowledgment of the fact, that a large body 
 of troops had been called into service, but con- 
 siders the measure as having been indispensa- 
 ble. It expresses a hope that the force will 
 be reduced, yet leaving the Governor to judge 
 when the safety of the frontiers will admit the 
 reduction to take place. 
 
 Alter the receipt of this letter the Governor 
 
 could not have mistaken his powers. To afford 
 complete evidence, however, of this fact, Mr. 
 0. called the attention of the committee to a 
 letter of the same date, (10th June, 1793,) from 
 the War Department to the Governor of South 
 Carolina, in which he is requested, " that, iu 
 case the frontiers of Georgia should be seriously 
 invaded by large bodies of Indians, he would, 
 upon the request of the Governor of Georgia, 
 direct such parts of the militia of South Caro- 
 lina to march to the assistance of Georgia, as 
 the case might require; for the expenses of 
 which the United States would be responsible." 
 Here again is the Governor of Georgia recog- 
 nized, as being the judge of the necessity of the 
 call, and clothed with power of making the re- 
 quest of the Executive of South Carolina. But, 
 it also contains evidence of another fact, that the 
 detachment of the force by the order, or at the 
 request of the Governor of Georgia, was at the 
 expense of the United States. 
 
 The report of the committee at this session, 
 upon the claim, says, that there is no evidence 
 that this power was conclusively withdrawn 
 from the Governor of Georgia, until February, 
 1794. There is, however, a letter of the 19th 
 July, 1793, which Mr. Dearborn, Secretary at 
 War, in his report, seems to think contained in 
 it enough to amount to an order, withdrawing 
 the power. This letter was sent by Constant 
 Freeman, who had gone to the State of Georgia 
 as agent of the War Department, for the express 
 purpose of superintending all matters in which 
 that department was concerned on that frontier. 
 This letter contains an express order. Al- 
 though the Secretary at "War must have been 
 apprised of the Governor's proceedings to a 
 period as late as June, 18th, of which date he 
 acknowledges to have received letters from the 
 Governor, yet does he bestow no censure for 
 measures already adopted. His power is not 
 Avithdrawn. The judgment and discretion which 
 he had previously been required to exercise, 
 was not questioned. On the contrary, from 
 the month of September, 1793, until February, 
 1794, although the Department must have 
 known the numbers and proceedings of the mili- 
 tia, no order was sent to disband the men. On 
 the 22d February, 1794, a positive order was 
 sent, and before 1st of June thereafter, the 
 whole force called out, except certain specified 
 corps, were dismissed. Even this order con- 
 tains an expression, significant of the belief of 
 the War Department, that the United States 
 were liable for the expenses of the militia in 
 service previous to that tune. For it declares, 
 that the United States would not, thereafter, 
 be pledged for the expenses. This can mean 
 nothing else than that the United States held 
 themselves previously pledged ; especially as, 
 until that period, the issue of supplies of pro- 
 visions had never been prohibited. That the 
 Governor of Georgia did not consider his 
 powers withdrawn is evident. The militia were 
 retained until Governor Telfair went out of 
 office, and for some months after Governor
 
 70 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OP R.] 
 
 Pensions to Wounded Officers. 
 
 [JANUARY, 1818. 
 
 Matthews came into it. Even if the letter of 
 19th July, 1793, should be considered as an order 
 to discharge the force called out, yet another 
 argument in favor of this claim is to be derived 
 from these facts. The claim is made by the in- 
 dividual persons performing the services, and 
 not by the State. The Governor had power 
 from the General Government to call them into 
 service in the first instance. It was the duty 
 of the militiaman to obey it did not belong to 
 him to call for the orders issued to his superiors, 
 that he might judge whether his superiors had 
 pursued them ; nor ought he to be deprived of 
 his pittance of pay, if his superiors have either 
 neglected or exceeded their orders. If the 
 power by which he was called out was, in the 
 first instance, sufficient, his retention in ser- 
 vices is not his fault, nor should he be the loser. 
 
 WEDNESDAY, December 31. 
 Another member, to wit, from South Caro- 
 lina, JAMES EBVIN, appeared, produced his cre- 
 dentials, was qualified, and took his seat. 
 
 Titles of Nobility. 
 
 Mr. EDWAEDS offered the following resolu- 
 tion: 
 
 Resolved, That the President of the United States 
 be requested to cause to be laid before this House in- 
 formation of the number of States which have ratified 
 the 13th article of the amendments to the Constitu- 
 tion of the United States, proposed at the second ses- 
 sion of the llth Congress, [prohibiting any citizen 
 of the United States from accepting or retaining any 
 title of nobility, pension, office, or emolument, with- 
 out the consent of Congress, from any foreign Prince 
 or Power, <fec.] 
 
 Mr. EDWAEDS stated that his motion was in- 
 duced by some doubts whether the article re- 
 ferred to had been ratified by a sufficient num- 
 ber of the States to make it a part of the 
 constitution, although it appeared as such, he 
 perceived, in the copies printed for the use of 
 the members of the House; and it was de- 
 sirable that a fact so important should be placed 
 beyond question. The motion was agreed to 
 without opposition. 
 
 FEIDAT, January 2, 1818. 
 Another member, to wit, from Massachu- 
 setts, TIMOTHY FULLEB, appeared, produced his 
 credentials, was qualified, and took his seat. 
 
 Pensions to Wounded Officers. 
 
 The following resolution, submitted by Mr. 
 COMSTOCK, was read and committed to the 
 Committee of the Whole to which is com- 
 mitted the resolutions submitted by Mr. JOHN- 
 BON, of Kentucky, on the 9th of December last : 
 
 Resolved, That it is expedient to provide, by law, 
 for placing on the pension list the officers of the 
 Army who have been wounded in battle during the 
 late war with Great Britain. 
 
 Mr. COMSTOCK said he did not rise to say 
 much on the resolution he had just had the 
 
 honor to present. He did not think the occa- 
 sion required him to go into the subject at any 
 considerable length. But he deemed some ex- 
 planation of the motives which had induced 
 him to this measure, due to the subject, to the 
 House, and to himself. He hoped, therefore, to 
 be indulged while he proceeded to make a few 
 observations. The House, he said, had not yet 
 to learn that wounded officers of the Army 
 were not placed on the pension list by common 
 usage and design. If a contrary practice had, 
 in a few instances, obtained, as he was inform- 
 ed it had, and some wounded officers of the 
 Army were found on the pension-roll, the fact 
 could be accounted for only in this way : A 
 few wounded officers had availed themselves of 
 the pension laws before the reduction of the 
 Army, shortly after the close of the war. When 
 this reduction was made, a very small number 
 of these were retained in service ; no reference 
 having, he presumed, been had, on this occa- 
 sion, to the list of pensioners. Mr. Speaker, 
 said Mr. C., the services and sufferings of the 
 Revolutionary officers and soldiers have ever 
 been duly appreciated by the people and by 
 their Representatives. It would be casting a 
 dishonorable imputation upon the virtuous and 
 enlightened citizens of the United States, to 
 suppose that they could be unconscious of the 
 exalted merit of those who have endured for 
 them nakedness, starvation, and toil, and braved 
 so many dangers in fighting their battles. Nor 
 did they brave only the dangers of the field ; 
 they subjected themselves to the fate of rebels, 
 had the contest been disastrous. Their conduct 
 must have called down upon them the unmin- 
 gled fury of the regal Government under which 
 they were held. It is true, indeed, said he, 
 that the Revolutionary officers and soldiers 
 have not, in all cases, been sufficiently reward- 
 ed. This has been owing partly to the want 
 of means in the Government, and partly, he 
 feared, to an improper procrastination. But I 
 rejoice, said Mr. C., that the day of retribution 
 has at length arrived. On the recommendation 
 of a President whose blood was freely shed in 
 the arduous contest which established our in- 
 dependence, and inspired with the sentiments 
 and feelings of the venerable reporter and ad- 
 vocate of a bill to reward the few survivors of 
 that contest, we are about to accord to them 
 that assistance which they need, and to which 
 they are entitled by every principle of justice 
 and of gratitude. Mr. 0. said he anxiously im- 
 proved this auspicious period in our history, to 
 invite the House to the subject in question. 
 Mr. Speaker, continued he, it will be recollect- 
 ed that a proposition was made a few sessions 
 since, to bestow a gratuity in land upon the 
 officers of the late army, according to their re- 
 spective grades. 
 
 ^ Some honorable gentlemen were, at that 
 time, unwilling to confer this gratuity, without 
 discrimination, upon those officers who entered 
 the Army just before the termination of hos- 
 tilities, and who had been constantly employed
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 77 
 
 JASUAKT, 1818.] 
 
 Pensions to Wounded Officers. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 in the recruiting service, as well as upon those 
 who had endured the privations and perils of 
 the field, in rendering long and signal service 
 to their country. None were found, I believe, 
 said Mr. C., that felt disposed to withhold the 
 bounty of their Government from the latter 
 class of officers; all were ready to reward ex- 
 alted merit. For myself, said he, it would 
 ever gratify the finest feelings of my heart to 
 aid the passage of any law necessary to do 
 them justice. This, however, said he, may be 
 considered a digression; he merely suggested 
 it to show that no such objection could be sus- 
 tained against the resolution, or against a bill 
 of which it might be the foundation. The 
 wounded officers of your army have manifested 
 the physical and moral qualities necessary in 
 the soldier. They have largely shared the suf- 
 ferings and dangers incident to their profession. 
 They have not wasted their time in the pleas- 
 ures of the ball-room, and in the amusements 
 of fashionable circles, remote from fatigue, 
 alarm, and conflicts. They have relinquished 
 their employments and professions, sacrificed 
 their means of acquiring wealth, and, foregoing 
 the endearments of domestic life, have sought 
 the tented field. They have met your enemy, 
 trodden the bloody arena, sustained your eagles, 
 and achieved victory in the jaws of death. 
 They have borne from the plain of battle the 
 laurels of conquest, but have returned, seamed 
 with scars, disfigured by frightful wounds, or 
 deprived of their limbs. In these consist their 
 pretensions as soldiers. In these they exhibit 
 the mournful, yet proud, monuments of their 
 valor and devotion to their country. When 
 contemplating this subject, said Mr. 0., a num- 
 ber of names are presented to my view, which 
 I will beg leave to pronounce in your hearing. 
 Among the wounded officers of your army, I 
 behold the names of Majors Larabee, Wetmore, 
 and Birdsall, with Lieutenants Shaler and Wil- 
 cox. Major Larabee lost his left arm at the 
 battle of Brownstown, under the command of 
 General Miller. This General, distinguished in 
 so many engagements, I leave, said Mr. C., to 
 the pen of the faithful historian ; suffice it to 
 say that his fame is more imperishable than brass 
 or marble. The sensation which the battle of 
 Brownstown produced throughout the Union 
 can never be forgotten. Our affairs, at that 
 time, wore rather an unfavorable aspect. "When 
 dangers thickened around his Spartan band, 
 their unconquerable spirit rose commensurate 
 with the crisis. They manifested a contempt 
 for danger, and an invincible determination 
 to conquer or to die. They attacked and rout- 
 ed the allied forces of the enemy, drove them 
 from their lodgments, and left the field in tri- 
 umph. Some of our countrymen were slain ; 
 but with the loss of an arm Major Larabee sur- 
 vived, and has ever since continued in the ser- 
 vice. The amputation of his limb has not les- 
 sened his usefulness. The reports of the Army 
 sufficiently evince his active service. Major 
 Wetmore lost his right arm, in a bold and dan- 
 
 gerous enterprise, on the Niagara station, in 
 the first campaign, under the command of an 
 honorable gentleman of this House. Though 
 he has lost a most useful member, he has lost 
 none of that proud sensibility which character- 
 izes the American soldier. He has constantly 
 served, with honorable distinction, in various 
 capacities in the Army. I think, said Mr. 0., 
 that I was introduced to this young man when 
 he could reach to me his right hand in the salu- 
 tation of friendship; but this he can do no 
 more forever. Major Birdsall was dreadfully 
 wounded in the face when the night assault 
 was made on Fort Erie. It had become his 
 duty to dislodge the enemy from the momen- 
 tary possession of that bastion which was af- 
 terwards blown up. A few moments after this 
 awful catastrophe, when he was standing on a 
 twenty-four pounder, very near this fatal spot, 
 dispensing orders to his troops, and cheering 
 them to victory, a ball entered his mouth, car- 
 ried off almost one-half of his lower jaw, and 
 lodged in the lateral and hinder part of the 
 neck. It has, very recently, been extracted. 
 Language cannot express the sufferings he had 
 sustained. Repeated and extensive ulcerations 
 had supervened. The left shoulder, from tho 
 continuity of its parts with those wounded and 
 ulcerated, had fallen below its natural position. 
 The dressings for the wound must be removed 
 and renewed several times a day ; certainly as 
 often as food is taken, and sometimes more fre- 
 quently. The constant oozing of the saliva, 
 through the unclosed wound, soon wets not 
 only the dressings, but also the collar and 
 cravat. But, sir, said Mr. 0., I must not be too 
 technical and minute in description upon this 
 occasion. We see, however, that sufferings, 
 expense, and trouble have not driven Major 
 Birdsall from the service. He continues, with 
 his acknowledged zeal and ability, to discharge 
 its duties with universal approbation. With 
 Lieutenants Shaler and Wilcox, who were 
 wounded in the campaign of 1814, 1 have not 
 said he, the pleasure to be acquainted, nor do I 
 know their particular history. But they are 
 in the Army ; and their wounds clearly indi- 
 cate that they have sought the post of honor, 
 and challenged the esteem and reward of their 
 country. The former has lost his left, and the 
 latter his right arm. 
 
 But, Mr. Speaker, the allowing of an officer 
 pay and pension at the same time, may be con- 
 ceived inadmissible. It may be said, that an 
 officer entitled to a full pension according to his 
 rank, must be totally disabled, and by conse- 
 quence incompetent to afford sufficient service 
 to his country. Mr. 0. said, the words " total 
 disability," used in the pension laws, are indefi- 
 nite in their meaning. The phrase, he said, 
 was obviously relative. If the words were 
 taken in their most extensive and unqualified 
 sense, they would import death itself, or some- 
 thing approaching near that state. For, if a 
 man possessed only a very small share of cor- 
 poreal and mental power, he could exercise it
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 Ohio Contested Election. 
 
 [JANUARY, 1818. 
 
 in some way towards procuring a livelihood. 
 Nevertheless, an officer deprived of an arm, leg, 
 or eye, is totally disabled in the view of the 
 laws, judging from the interpretation they have 
 received in practice, and is therefore entitled to 
 a full pension, in proportion to his grade. But 
 will it be contended that these injuries, essen- 
 tial as they are, disqualify an officer to dis- 
 charge the duties devolved upon him ? I trust 
 not, sir, said Mr. 0. I do not conceive that 
 the being able to shoulder a barrel of cider, or 
 to chop off logs, is an important qualification in 
 an officer. Lord Nelson did not possess the 
 physical ability necessary to accomplish such 
 things when he fought those battles that have 
 ranked him among the most illustrious of 
 naval heroes, and gilded the pages of British 
 history. 
 
 Sir, said Mr. 0., would a pension make the 
 condition of the officers I have named more 
 eligible than if they had never been wounded ? 
 Surely not. What value shall be put on the 
 wounds of these officers ? "What is the amount 
 of the inconvenience, expense, and torture, 
 which they have borne, and continue to sus- 
 tain ? "Would they have bartered their active 
 limbs for a pension ? No, sir ; they risked more 
 than their limbs, when, inspired by nobler mo- 
 tives, they took up arms and fought for their 
 country ! Their talents and good conduct have 
 continued them in the Army. They are able 
 to serve you in peace or in war; and, should 
 you place them on the pension roll, how can it 
 be shown that this act of sheer justice ought to 
 exclude them from a participation in military 
 employment and promotion? 
 
 Mr. Speaker, the war is ended; the din of 
 arms does not continue to salute our ears ; our 
 eyes are no longer pained with beholding gar- 
 ments rolled in blood. "We are prone to forget 
 these things ; but the wounded soldier, and 
 those who depend on him for protection and 
 support, have much reason to remember them. 
 Though our wounded officers of the Army are 
 not disqualified for military service, their habits, 
 and the loss of former business and employ- 
 ments, have disqualified them for other pur- 
 
 Mr. Speaker, let us accord honor and assist- 
 ance to the brave ! 
 
 " All things are common, but the warrior's fame: 
 That glows eternal in the mouths of men," 
 
 In anniversary orations and songs we are 
 called " a band of brothers." Let us evince by 
 our conduct the sincerity of our fraternal affec- 
 tion. I am unwilling to join in these profes- 
 sions, if they are unmeaning. It is not enough 
 to say to a naked and hungry brother, "Be 
 thou clothed and fed." Tears of sympathy 
 . should bedew our cheeks, and streams of muni- 
 ficence should issue from our hands. Sir, said 
 Mr. C., it is not among the least blessings of a 
 republican Government, that its burdens are 
 equally borne, and its advantages equally en- 
 
 joyed. Let us, Mr. Speaker, do equal and ex- 
 act justice to every class of citizens. Then our 
 free institutions, based in the affections of the 
 people, shall manifest to the latest ages the me- 
 morials of Columbian wisdom and valor. I 
 hope, said Mr. C., that the resolution will be 
 referred, and that something may result from 
 it beneficial to the wounded officers of the 
 Army, and honorable to the nation. I hope 
 that Government will at least place them above 
 embarrassment, and enable them to support 
 themselves, and those whom Providence rnay 
 have committed to their care and protection. 
 It mnst gratify every benevolent heart to see 
 the children of the wounded defenders of their 
 country's rights enjoying those social advan- 
 tages which the gallantry of their fathers has 
 nobly contributed to secure and perpetuate. 
 
 MONDAY, January 5. 
 Ohio Contested Election. 
 
 Mr. TATLOE, of New York, from the Com- 
 mittee on Elections, to whom was referred the 
 petition of C. Hammond, contesting the election 
 of Mr. HERBICK, a member of this House from 
 the State of Ohio, on the ground of his having 
 held an office under the United States, subse- 
 quent to the fourth day of March last, made a 
 report; which was read, and referred to a 
 Committee of the Whole. The report is as fol- 
 lows: 
 
 That on the 19th December, 1810, Mr. Herrick 
 was appointed Attorney of the United States for the 
 district of Ohio, which office he accepted, and held 
 until his resignation thereof, on the 29th November, 
 1817. In October, 1816, he was elected one of the 
 Representatives of the State of Ohio for the Fifteenth 
 Congress. The result of the election was publicly 
 announced on the 7th January, 1817, in the presence 
 of the Senate of that State. On the 15th September, 
 1817, the Governor executed a certificate of Mr. 
 Herrick's election, according to the law of Ohio, 
 which was received by him on or about the 30th day 
 of the same month. Mr. Herrick, therefore, con- 
 tinued in office almost nine months after the fourth 
 of March last, and two months after receiving the 
 certificate of his election. It does not appear, on the 
 part of the memorialist, and it is denied, on the part 
 of Mr. Herrick, that he performed any act as Attor- 
 ney of the United States, after the said 30th Septem- 
 ber. He, however, continued in office, was liable to 
 perform its duties, and was entitled to its salary, un- 
 til his resignation. Congress met December 1, 1817, 
 and Mr. Herrick took his seat on that day in the 
 House of Representatives. 
 
 The 6th section of the first article of the constitu- 
 tion provides that " no person holding any office un- 
 der the United States shall be a member of either 
 House, during his continuance in office." The in- 
 compatibility is not limited to exercising an office, 
 and at the same time, being a member of either 
 House of Congress ; but it is equally extended to the 
 case of holding ; that is, having, keeping, possessing, 
 or retaining an office under such circumstances. If 
 the membership of Mr. Herrick commenced either 
 on the 4th of March or the 30th of September, 1817,
 
 DEBATES OF CONGKESS. 
 
 79 
 
 JAXCAKY, 1818.] 
 
 Ohio Contested Election. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 he has vacated that membership hy holding an office 
 incompatible therewith. 
 
 We do not find that the question of incompatibility 
 has been agitated in the Honse of Representatives on 
 more than two occasions. The first case was that of 
 John P. Van Xess, which occurred during the second 
 session of the Seventh Congress. The Committee of 
 Elections were then instructed to inquire whether 
 Mr. Van Xess, one of the Representatives from the 
 State of New York, had not, after his election, and 
 after he had occupied a seat of a member, accepted 
 and exercised the office of a major of militia, under 
 the authority of the United States, within the Terri- 
 tory of Columbia. Mr. Van Ness freely admitted 
 the fact, as alleged, and thereupon the House unani- 
 mously resolved that he had thereby forfeited his 
 right to a seat as a member of the House. 
 
 The other case was that of Philip Barton Key, de- 
 cided at the first session of the Tenth Congress. Mr. 
 Key's seat was impeached, among other grounds, 
 upon this : that, at the tune of his election, and until 
 a few days, either before or after he took his seat, he 
 held, from the British Government, in his own right 
 and name, the half-pay pension of a captain of in- 
 fantry. The facts were briefly these : Mr. Key served 
 as an officer in the British army, without the limits 
 of the United States, from 1778 until 1783, when the 
 corps to which he belonged was disbanded, and the 
 officers placed on half-pay. The pension was paid, 
 either for the benefit of himself or his assignee, until 
 the month of December, 1805, when he received six 
 months' half-pay : in January, 1806, he wrote to his 
 agent in London, directing him to resign his claim to 
 half-pay, and also to rank, if any could be supposed 
 to exist ; but it did not appear that any thing had 
 been done in pursuance of that letter, nor indeed that 
 it ever had been received by his agent. 
 
 On the 6th of October, 1806, Mr. Key was elected 
 a Representative of the State of Maryland, for two 
 
 S;ars, commencing on the fourth of March, 1807. 
 n the 24th of October following, he addressed a let- 
 ter to Mr. Erskine, then His Britannic Majesty's 
 Ambassador at Washington, referring to the letter 
 written to his agent, and repeating his resignation in 
 a formal manner. This letter was not delivered to 
 Mr. Erskinc until the 28th or 29th of October, which 
 was two or three days after the meeting of Congress, 
 and after Mr. Key had taken his seat in the House 
 o c Representatives. Upon these facts the House de- 
 cided that Mr. Key was entitled to his seat. 
 
 In regard to the several cases of Messrs. Turner, 
 Dawson, and others, mentioned in the answer marked 
 C, filed by Mr. Holmes, on the part of Mr. Herrick, 
 we think a single remark sufficient. It does not ap- 
 pear that the House of Representatives was made 
 acquainted with the existence of these cases. It 
 cannot, therefore, be considered to have acquiesced 
 in that of which it was ignorant. 
 
 The decisions of the House of Commons, under the 
 statutes 5 William and Mary, chap. 7; 11 William 
 IIJ., chap. 2 ; and 12 and 13 William III., chap. 10, 
 may serve to shed some light upon the subject under 
 consideration. The first of these statutes enacts that 
 no member of the Honse of Commons shall, at any 
 time, be concerned, directly or indirectly, or any 
 other in trust for him, in the framing, collecting, or 
 managing any of the duties granted by that or any 
 future act of Parliament, except the commissioners of 
 the Treasury, and the officers and commissioners for 
 managing the customs and excise. The second act 
 
 extends the disqualification to officers of the excise, 
 declaring them incapable of sitting, voting, or acting 
 as members ; and the last mentioned act applies the 
 same provisions to all officers of the customs. 
 
 Many members of the House of Commons were, at 
 different times, expelled for violations of these stat- 
 utes ; but the facts are reported in terms so general, 
 that it is impossible in most cases to determine 
 whether the offence was committed before or after 
 the member took his seat in the House. We find, 
 however, two cases where the particulars are stated. 
 The first case was decided on the 13th February, 
 1698, under the act above mentioned of the 5 Wil- 
 liam and Mary. It is the case of Mr. Montagu ; and 
 it is stated as follows by Hatsell, in his precedents of 
 proceedings in the Honse of Commons. The new 
 Parliament was made returnable on the 24th of Au- 
 gust, 1698, and was directed to sit for the despatch 
 of business on the 29th of November. Mr. Montagu 
 had been a commissioner of stamp duties, but, in the 
 commission which passed in September, 1698, he was 
 left out ; it appeared that he had acted under the 
 former commission till the 4th of October, 1698. 
 But, having informed the House that he did not 
 qualify himself as a member till the 29th of Novem- 
 ber, and so conceived himself not to be within the 
 law, he is, upon the question, called in to take his 
 place, and a committee is appointed to draw up and 
 state the matter of fact It does not appear that the 
 committee ever made report. 
 
 The other case is reported as follows : On the 5th 
 of February, 1708, Sir Richard Alien was, on the 
 hearing of his petition, declared to be duly elected for 
 Dunwich. On the 7th of February he surrenders an 
 office in the customs for life, to which he had been 
 appointed in May, 1678. On the 8th of February 
 this surrender is enrolled, and on the 9th of February 
 he desires the sense of the House, before he takes his 
 seat, on the clause of the 12 and 13 of William IH, 
 chap. 10, which relates to the officers of the customs; 
 and, upon reading the letters patent and surrender, 
 he is permitted to take his seat. 
 
 Persons elected to the House of Commons become 
 at one time members for certain purposes, and at an- 
 other time for other purposes. Thus, immediately 
 upon executing the indenture of return by the sheriff 
 or other returning officer, the person elected becomes 
 entitled to the privilege of franking, although the 
 day at which the Parliament is made returnable may 
 not have arrived. Yet he is not a member, for he 
 may thereafter be a candidate for election in another 
 district, at any time before the Parliament is made 
 returnable, and the return actually filed in the 
 Crown Office. From the time last mentioned, he 
 becomes a member so far that he cannot be a can- 
 didate for another district, but yet may thereafter 
 hold an office incompatible with membership, and 
 upon resigning his office, he may immediately qualify 
 and take his seat in the House. It has often been 
 decided by their Committee of Elections, that a per- 
 son holding an office incompatible with membership 
 is, nevertheless, capable of prosecuting his claim to 
 a seat. After examination of all the Parliamentary 
 registers, histories, and journals within our reach, 
 we have found no case where a person elected to the 
 House of Commons was brought in on a call of the 
 House, before he had voluntarily appeared, qualified, 
 and taken his seat, nor do we find any instance of a 
 person having been expelled until after such time. 
 
 A very particular case occurred on the 10th of
 
 SO 
 
 ABKIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 Ohio Contested Election. 
 
 1818. 
 
 February, 1220 : Sir John Leech having been duly 
 elected a member of the House of Commons, and 
 appearing to take the oaths of allegiance and su- 
 premacy, was asked whether he had not already sat 
 in the House of that Parliament in violation of the 
 statute. He confessed that, on the Wednesday morn- 
 ing previous, he did sit in the House a quarter of an 
 hour being unsworn. For this offence Sir John was 
 not expelled, but it was resolved that he was disa- 
 bled to serve in the House ; and a new writ of election 
 was issued to supply the vacancy, in the same man- 
 ner as if no election and return had taken place. 
 The same course of proceeding has been pursued 
 when a person, duly elected and returned, comes into 
 the House and refuses to be sworn. Such was the 
 case of Mr. Archdale, in the year 1698, who, being 
 elected and returned, came into the House of Com- 
 mons and said he was ready to serve, if his affirma- 
 tion of allegiance could be accepted instead of his 
 oath. The House resolved that it could not. Mr. 
 Archdale, still declining to take the oath, was re- 
 fused admittance to a seat, and a new writ was is- 
 sued to supply his place. This case is more pecu- 
 liar, because a person elected to the House of 
 Commons cannot relinquish his right to a seat either 
 before or after qualification, otherwise than by ac- 
 cepting an incompatible office. But by refusing to 
 be sworn, he may do that indirectly which he is not 
 permitted to do directly. We have seen several 
 similar cases which occurred in the Colonial Assem- 
 bly of New York, but not now having access to the 
 journals, we are unable to report the particulars. 
 
 Persons elected and returned to the House of Com- 
 mons may be chosen members of committees before 
 they appear and qualify. But it is allowed for a 
 reason similar to that which, in courts of law, per- 
 mits a declaration to be filed de bene esse before the 
 defendant appears in court. In both cases the act 
 is conditional ; and it is ineffectual, unless the condi- 
 tion of appearance be performed. 
 
 The practice of this House, which does not allow 
 the appointment of persons to be members of com- 
 mittees, until they shall have taken their seats, is 
 obviously more reasonable and convenient than the 
 other. It was decided, as early as the first session of 
 the Second Congress, in the case of John F. Mercer, 
 who was chosen to supply a vacancy in the represen- 
 tation of the State of Maryland, occasioned by the 
 resignation of William Pinkney, that a representative 
 elect might decline his election before taking a seat, 
 and before the first session of the Congress to which 
 he was elected. We do not find that the question 
 has since been agitated, although similar cases have 
 often occurred. Our rule in this particular is differ- 
 ent from that of the House of Commons ; it is also 
 better, for it makes our theory conform to what is 
 fact in both countries, that the act of becoming in 
 reality a member of the House depends wholly upon 
 the person elected and returned. Election does not 
 of itself constitute membership, although the period 
 may have arrived at which the Congressional term 
 commences. This is evident from the consideration 
 that all the votes given at an election may not be 
 received by the returning officer in season to be 
 counted, whereby a person not elected may be re- 
 turned, and take the seat of one who was duly elect- 
 ed. Neither does a return necessarily confer mem- 
 bership, for if he in whose favor it be made should 
 be prevented taking a seat at the organization of a 
 House of Representatives, he might find, upon pre- 
 
 senting himself to qualify, that his return had been 
 superseded by the admission of another person into 
 the seat for which he was returned. 
 
 At an election, held in the State of Georgia, in 
 October, 1804, Thomas Spalding was duly chosen a 
 Representative to the Ninth Congress ; but because 
 the votes of three counties were not returned to the 
 Governor within twenty days after the election, 
 Cowles Mead received a certificate, and took his 
 seat. Mr. Spalding afterwards presented his petition. 
 The House vacated Mr. Mead's seat, and admitted 
 Mr. Spalding. 
 
 In April, 1814, Doctor Willoughby was elected a 
 Representative of the State of New York to the Four- 
 teenth Congress ; but by reason of a clerical error, of 
 certain inspectors, in returning certificates of votes to 
 the office of the county clerk, General Smith was de- 
 clared duly elected, and a certificate of election wag 
 accordingly delivered to him ; but he having omitted 
 to take a seat at the commencement of the session, 
 was, on the ninth day thereafter, declared not enti- 
 tled, and thereupon Doctor Willoughby was admitted 
 in his stead. 
 
 Several other cases might be cited where persons 
 were returned, who never in fact became members, 
 and where others became members who were not re- 
 turned. Neither do election and return create mem- 
 bership. These acts are nothing more than the de- 
 signation of the individual, who, when called upon 
 in the manner prescribed by law, shall be authorized 
 to claim title to a seat. This designation, however, 
 does not confer a perfect right, for a person may be 
 selected by the people destitute of certain qualifica- 
 tions, without which he cannot be admitted to a seat. 
 He is, nevertheless, so far the representative of those 
 who elect him, that no vacancy can exist until his 
 disqualification be adjudged by the House. Yet it 
 would be easy to state cases where he would not be 
 permitted for a moment to occupy a seat, notwith- 
 standing the regularity of his election and return. 
 To no practical purpose could he ever have been a 
 member. So also if a person duly qualified be elected 
 and returned, and die before the organization of a 
 House of Representatives, we do not think he could 
 be said to have been a member of that body, which 
 had no existence until after his death. We say 
 which had no existence ; for we consider that con- 
 ceit altogether fanciful which represents one Congress 
 succeeding to another as members of the same corpo- 
 ration. It has no foundation either in fact or in the 
 theory of our Government. Each House of Repre- 
 sentatives is a distinct legislative body, having no 
 connection with any preceding one. It commences 
 its existence unrestrained by any rules or regulations 
 for the conducting of business, which were estab- 
 lished by former Houses, and which were binding 
 upon them. It prescribes its own course of proceed- 
 ing, elects its officers, and designates their duties. 
 Even joint rules for the government of both Houses 
 of Congress are not binding upon a new House of 
 Representatives, unless expressly established by it. 
 Although the Fourteenth Congress had never assem- 
 bled, the Fifteenth would have met under the consti- 
 tution, clothed with every legislative power, as amply 
 as it was enjoyed by the Thirteenth. The constitu- 
 tion does not define the time for which Representa- 
 tives shall be chosen. It is satisfied, provided the 
 choice take place at any time in every second year. 
 The rest is left to the discretion of each State. Ac- 
 cordingly, in some States Representatives are usually
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 81 
 
 JAXTARY, 1818.] 
 
 National Flag. 
 
 [H. OF R 
 
 chosen for one year and seven months, and in other 
 States for a longer time. 
 
 The privilege of exemption from arrest, granted by 
 the constitution to Representatives before a meeting 
 of the House and after its adjournment, furnishes no 
 argument in favor of their membership at such times. 
 Exemption from arrest is a privilege as old as the 
 Parliament of England. There it is extended not 
 only to members, but to their servants, horses, and 
 carriages. Our constitution adopts the very words 
 of the common law, but restricts the privilege to 
 members. In both countries the object is the same, 
 iiot the benefit of the member, but of the public ser- 
 vice. It is an essential incident to the right of being 
 represented, and a consequence of that right. But 
 that membership is not coextensive with the enjoy- 
 ment of that privilege is manifest, from the consider- 
 ation that such a construction might make the mem- 
 bers of one Congress continue in office, not only after 
 the Congress had expired, but also after the next 
 Congress was actually in session. This construction, 
 therefore, is not only absurd, but it serves to illustrate 
 the fallacy of that suggestion which fancies the Rep- 
 resentatives of one Congress succeeding to the seats 
 of their predecessors as members of the same corpo- 
 rate body. 
 
 The privileges of franking letters and exemption 
 from militia duty are not granted by the constitution. 
 They are established by law, and liable to be changed 
 at the will of the Government. They have been ex- 
 tended, and may be restricted as public convenience 
 shall require. Previous to the last Congress, the privi- 
 lege of franking was not enjoyed until after the com- 
 mencement of each session. But as that does not 
 prove negatively that persons elected to the House of 
 Representatives were not members before that time, 
 so the existing law does not prove affirmatively that 
 they are. It is true that the words, " members of the 
 House of Representatives," are used as descriptive of 
 the persons to whom the privilege is granted, but it 
 certainly was used without intending thereby to ex- 
 press an opinion, much less to decide, when member- 
 ship commences, and probably without in anywise 
 adverting to that inquiry. The late war had created 
 claims in every part of the country, which it was 
 found convenient to send by mail to those who were 
 elected to Congress in the several districts, previous 
 to their leaving home. The law was passed with a 
 view to the convenience of these public claimants, as 
 well as to that of the Representatives elected. We 
 have seen that in England this privilege is enjoyed 
 before the commencement of membership, and proba- 
 bly for a reason similar to that above mentioned. 
 
 It is not now necessary to inquire what construc- 
 tion ought to be given to the act which exempts 
 ' members of both Houses of Congress" from the 
 performance of militia duty. We do not know that 
 it has ever received a judicial exposition, and we pre- 
 sume that the practice under it, by the officers of the 
 militia, furnishes no very high authority on the con- 
 stitutional question before us. 
 
 In ng&rd to the danger apprehended from Execu- 
 tive influence in the concerns of legislation, we might 
 rest satisfied with the remark that the business of 
 forming ;i constitution is not confided to us ; ours is 
 a more humble duty, it is to expound the text by a 
 fair interpretation ; we can neither add nor diminish ; 
 the object of our inquiry is, not what ought to be, but 
 what is. 
 
 Whoever looks into the constitution will find pro- 
 VOL. VI. 6 
 
 visions to guard the entrance of the legislative hall 
 against those whose personal and immediate interest 
 would be advanced, by perpetuating offices and in- 
 creasing salaries ; but he will find none for the pur- 
 pose of excluding the influence of Executive patron- 
 age. The framers of the constitution either did not 
 apprehend danger from that source, or they thought 
 it impracticable to prevent it without hazarding still 
 greater mischief. The great offices of the Union are 
 objects of high and honorable ambition ; they are 
 left as open to the members of this House as to 
 others, and they can only be obtained through Exec- 
 utive favor. Nay, laws may be passed on the last 
 day of a Congress creating offices and fixing their 
 salaries, and on the next day the members, by whose 
 votes they were created, may be appointed to fill 
 them. The only antidote provided against an abuse 
 of this pervading influence is the elective franchise. 
 No dependant on the Executive can take a seat in 
 this House. If any member become such, his seat is 
 vacated, his power returns to the people. By a faith- 
 ful and intelligent exercise of it, they may correct 
 errors and punish delinquency. This is the regener- 
 ating principle of the constitution. If this remedy 
 fail, it will be in vain to look for another. The con- 
 stitution was provided for a brave, wise, and virtuous 
 people. If the citizens of the United States ever 
 cease to deserve this character, our present political 
 institutions will be found unsuited to their condition. 
 This is the only constitutional answer we can give to 
 the suggestion of possible danger from Executive in- 
 fluence. 
 
 In fine, we have examined the memorial of Mr. 
 Hammond with deliberate attention, and are of opin- 
 ion that Mr. Herrick has not rendered himself inca- 
 pable of being a member of this House, by reason 
 of having held the office of Attorney of the United 
 States after the 4th of March and until the 29th of 
 November last, and respectfully submit the following 
 resolution : 
 
 Resolved, That Samuel Herrick is entitled to n 
 seat in this House, 
 
 TUESDAY, January 6. 
 National Flag. 
 
 Mr. WEXDOVEB, from the committee appoint- 
 ed to inquire into the expediency of altering 
 the flag of the United States, made a report, 
 which was read ; when Mr. W. reported a hill 
 to alter the flag of the United States ; which 
 was read twice, and committed to a Committee 
 of the Whole. 
 
 The report is as follows : 
 
 That they have maturely considered the subject 
 referred to them, and have adopted, substantially, 
 the report of the committee to whom was referred 
 the same subject at the hist session of Congress, as 
 forming a part of this report. The committee are 
 fully persuaded that the form selected for the Ameri- 
 can flag was truly emblematical of our origin and 
 existence as an independent nation, and that as such, 
 it having met the approbation and received the sup- 
 port of the citizens of the Union, it ought to under- 
 go no change that would decrease its conspicuity, or 
 tend to deprive it of its representative character. 
 The committee, however, believe that an increase in 
 the number of States in the Union since the flag was 
 altered by law, sufficiently indicates the propriety of
 
 82 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 Contempt of the House. 
 
 [JANUARY, 1818. 
 
 such a change in the arrangement of the flag as 
 shall best accord with the reasons that led to its 
 original adoption, and sufficiently point to important 
 periods of our national history. 
 
 The original flag of the United States was com- 
 posed of thirteen stripes and thirteen stars, and was 
 adopted by a resolution of the Continental Congress 
 on the 14th of June, 1777. On the 13th of January, 
 1794, after two new States had been admitted into 
 the Union, the National Legislature passed an act 
 that the stripes and stars should, on a day fixed, be 
 increased to fifteen each, to comport with the then 
 number of independent States. The accession of 
 new States since that alteration, and the certain 
 prospect that at no distant period the number of 
 States will be considerably multiplied, render it, in 
 the opinion of the committee, highly expedient to in- 
 crease the number of stripes, as every flag must, in 
 some measure, be limited in its size, from the circum- 
 stance of convenience to the place on which it is to 
 be displayed ; while an increase would necessarily 
 decrease their magnitude, and render them propor- 
 tionably less distinct to distant observation ; this 
 consideration has induced many to retain only the 
 general form of the flag, while there actually exists 
 a great want of uniformity in its adjustment, parti- 
 cularly when used on small private vessels. 
 
 The national flag being in general use by vessels 
 of almost every description, it appears to the com- 
 mittee of considerable importance to adopt some ar- 
 rangement calculated to prevent in future great or 
 expensive alterations. Under those impressions, 
 they are led to believe no alteration could be made 
 more emblematical of our origin and present exist- 
 ence, as composed of a number of independent and 
 united States, than to reduce the stripes in the flag 
 to the original number of thirteen, to represent the 
 number of States then contending for and happily 
 achieving their independence, and to increase the 
 stars to correspond with the number of States now 
 in the Union, and hereafter to add one star to the 
 flag whenever a new State shall be fully admitted. 
 
 These slight alterations will, in the opinion of the 
 committee, meet the general approbation, as well of 
 those who may have regretted a former departure 
 from the original flag, as of such as are solicitous to 
 see in it a representation of every State in the Union. 
 
 The committee cannot believe that in retaining 
 only thirteen stripes it necessarily follows they should 
 be distinctly considered in reference to certain indi- 
 vidual States, inasmuch as nearly all the new States 
 were a component part of, and represented in, the 
 original States ; and inasmuch, also, as the flag is 
 intended to signify numbers, and not local and par- 
 ticular sections of the Union ; nor can the committee 
 view the proposed inconsiderable addition to be made 
 on the admission of a new State in the light of a de- 
 parture from that permanency of form which ought 
 to characterize the flag of the nation. The committee 
 respectfully report a bill. 
 
 Compensation to Members, &c. 
 
 On motion of Mr. HOLMES, of Massachusetts, 
 the several orders of the day preceding the bill 
 to fix the compensation of the members of the 
 Senate and House of Representatives, were post- 
 poned, and the House resolved itself into a 
 Committee of the Whole on the said bill. 
 
 [The bill provides that the daily compensa- 
 tion of the members, during their attendance 
 
 on Congress, shall be nine dollars, and the al- 
 lowance for travelling to and from the seat ot 
 Congress, at the rate of nine dollars for every . 
 twenty miles of the distance.] 
 
 Mr. Eoss, of Pennsylvania, by way of trying 
 the sense of the committee on the subject, 
 moved to strike out the word nine and insert the 
 word six, as the amount of daily compensation. 
 
 The question on this motion was loudly called 
 for, indicating a disposition to take the sense of 
 the House without debate. 
 
 Mr. DESHA said he should support the mo- 
 tion made by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, 
 however unfashionable it might be, which was 
 to strike out the word nine and insert six, and, 
 he suspected, should be found in a small minor- 
 ity ; but that should not prevent him from dis- 
 charging his duty. It is a little mortifying, 
 said he, to see such extreme anxiety manifested 
 on the occasion. Does it look dignified in this 
 body, because they are immediately interested 
 in this measure, to see them urge it forward to 
 the exclusion of all other business that is en- 
 titled to precedence under the rules of the 
 House ? I sincerely wish that we may not have 
 the same scene acted over again, that Vas acted 
 the first session of last Congress, when the com- 
 pensation bill, of famous memory, was on the 
 carpet. This bill contemplates giving the mem- 
 bers nine dollars per day, and nine dollars for 
 every twenty miles in travelling to and return- 
 ing from the Seat of Government. Do the 
 gentlemen seriously believe that the people will 
 submit to this without a murmur ? If they do, 
 I suspect they will be most egregiously mistaken. 
 
 Xine dollars per day ! We commence our 
 sessions at twelve o'clock, and have generally 
 terminated them this session at about three, 
 amounting to about three dollars per hour. 
 Would not the honest and industrious farmer 
 or mechanic, who rises early and works late, 
 and, by his greatest exertions from one end of 
 the year to the other, considers he is doing a 
 good business, if, not getting rich, he con save at 
 the end of the year, clear of all expenses, be- 
 tween fifty and a hundred dollars ; I say, would 
 not such men think three dollars per hour high 
 pay, and ought not the opinions of such men to 
 be respected ? They certainly ought. 
 
 Mr. LITTLE, of Maryland, then moved to strike 
 out " nine" and insert in lieu thereof " eight" 
 dollars as the daily pay. 
 
 The question on reducing the daily pay from 
 nine to eight dollars, was decided in the affirm- 
 ative yeas 99, nays 79. 
 
 So the daily pay was fixed at eight dollars. 
 
 WEDNESDAY, January 7. 
 Contempt of the House. 
 Mr. WILLIAMS, of North Carolina, rose, and 
 addressed the House in the following words : 
 
 Mr. Speaker, I lay before the House a letter 
 addressed and delivered to me by a person call- 
 ed Colonel John Anderson. That man has mis- 
 taken me much. Wherever I am known, at
 
 DEBATES OF CONGKESS. 
 
 JANUARY, 1818.] 
 
 Contempt of the House. 
 
 [H. OP R. 
 
 this place and in the country from whence I 
 came, no attempt of the kind would have been 
 made. I feel it a duty to lay the letter and the 
 statement thereon, made by myself, before the 
 House. My feelings are too much excited, nor 
 would it be my duty, to make any remarks on 
 the subject. It is for the House to determine 
 what shall be done. 
 
 The papers handed by Mr. WILLIAMS to the 
 clerk were then read, as follows : 
 
 WASHINGTON, Jan. 6, 1818. 
 
 HONORED Sra : I return you thanks for the atten- 
 tion I received on my claims to pass so soon. Mr. 
 Lee will hand you some claims from the River Raisin, 
 which will pass through your honorable committee ; 
 and I have a wish that the conduct of the British in 
 that country may be related in full on the floor of 
 Congress ; which will give you some trouble in mak- 
 ing out the report and supporting the same. I have 
 now to request that you will accept of the small sum 
 of five hundred dollars, as part pay, for the extra 
 trouble I give you ; I will present it to you so soon 
 as I receive some from Government. This is confi- 
 dential, that only you and me may know any thing 
 about it ; or, in other words, I give it to you as a man 
 and a mason, and hope you belong to that society. 
 Sir, should it happen that you will not accept of this 
 small sum, I request you will excuse me ; if you do 
 not accept, I wish yon to drop me a few lines ; if you 
 accept, I wish no answer. I hope you will see my 
 view on this subject that it is for extra trouble. 
 
 I will make out a statement, and present the same 
 to the committee, which will be supported by Gen- 
 eral Harrison, Colonel Johnson, Mr. Hulbard, Mr. 
 Meigs, Postmaster General, Governor Cass's report 
 as commissioner, and others. Relying on your honor 
 as to keeping this a secret, and your exertions in 
 passing those claims as soon as possible, I need not 
 inform you that we are as poor unfortunate orphan 
 children, having no representation in Congress so 
 must look on your honorable body as our guardians. 
 Pardon this liberty from a stranger. 
 
 I am, with high esteem, your most obedient and 
 humble servant, 
 
 JOHN ANDERSON. 
 
 The Hon. LEWIS WILLIAMS. 
 
 After breakfast this morning, George, a servant, 
 came into tbe dining room, and told me that a gen- 
 tleman was in my room waiting to see me. I stepped 
 into my room, and Colonel John Anderson was there. 
 He handed me a letter, observing at the same time, 
 that be had prepared that letter for me, and that, 
 perhaps, it would require some explanation. I read 
 over tbe letter with attention ; and, having done so, 
 observed to Colonel Anderson it was a very surpris- 
 ing communication. I then started, to Mr. Wilson's 
 room, immediately adjoining my own. When in the 
 act of opening my own door, he begged I would not 
 show the letter. I made no reply to this, but step- 
 ped into Mr Wilson's room, and asked him to do me 
 the favor to walk into my room. This Mr. Wilson 
 did, following on immediately behind me. After we 
 had got into my room, in the presence of Colonel 
 Anderson, I handed the letter to Mr. Wilson, and, ob- 
 serving that it was a very extraordinary communica- 
 tion, requested him to read it. When Mr. Wilson had 
 read, or was nearly done reading the letter, I told 
 Colonel Anderson that I repelled with indignation and 
 contempt the offer he had made to me in the letter. 
 
 Colonel Anderson said he asked my pardon ; that 
 it was designed only as a small compensation for 
 the extra trouble he expected to give the Commit- 
 tee of Claims in examining the claims from the 
 Michigan territory, and exposing the conduct of 
 the British during the war; that it was foreign 
 to his intention to attempt any thing like a bribe, 
 and requested me to burn the letter, or to give 
 it to him. I told him I should do neither; that his 
 offence was unpardonable, such as I could not forgive, 
 and ordered him to leave the room instantly. CoL 
 Anderson then begged pardon, and asked forgiveness 
 with excessive earnestness. I told him I would lis- 
 ten to none of his apologies ; that his offence was an 
 attack upon the integrity of Congress generally, and 
 upon mine personally and particularly ; that no one 
 should ever have my pardon, or expect my forgive- 
 ness, who should suppose me capable of such an influ- 
 ence as he had attempted to practise upon me. Again 
 I told Colonel Anderson to leave my room. He ad- 
 vanced to the door, where he stood for some time, 
 endeavoring to obtain my pardon, as he said. I told 
 him it was in vain to ask it ; that, as a member of 
 Congress and of tbe Committee of Claims, it was my 
 duty to examine his claims, and, if just, support 
 tljem ; if unjust, oppose them ; that his offer was an 
 attempt to influence my mind in opposition to my 
 duty, and, as such, could not be forgiven. He then 
 desired me either to burn the letter or give it to him. 
 I replied that I should do neither, and again ordered 
 hini to leave my room. Whereupon, he did leave the 
 room. Mr. Wilson, after talking on the subject of 
 the letter for some tune, suggested to me the propri- 
 ety of calling hi Mr. William P. Maclay. I stepped 
 to his room ; bub, as Mr. William P. Maclay was not 
 in, I asked Mr. William Maclay, a room-mate of Mr. 
 William P. Maclay, to come to my room. He com- 
 plied with my request ; and, shortly after he arrived 
 in my room, Mr. William P. Maclay also stepped in, 
 These gentlemen, Messrs. Wilson, William Maclay, 
 and William P. Maclay, were in my room at the time 
 the servant called to Mr. Wilson, and said a gentle- 
 man was below wishing to see him. Mr. Wilson 
 walked out of the room, and was gone a few minutes. 
 After he returned, he observed that Colonel Anderson 
 was the person who had sent for Mm ; that Colonel 
 Anderson's business was to obtain his interference to 
 put a stop to further proceedings on the subject of his 
 letter to me. The precise conversation between ]\Ir. 
 Wilson and Colonel Anderson can be related by the 
 former with minuteness. 
 
 LEWIS WILLIAMS. 
 
 JANUABY 7, 1818. 
 
 The papers having been read through, Mr. W. 
 WILSON, of Pennsylvania, referred to in the 
 above narrative, handed in a statement of the 
 facts which fell under his observation, entirely 
 corroborating those stated by Mr. WILLIAHS, as 
 far as they came under the observation of the 
 former. 
 
 Mr. FOESTTH, of Georgia, moved that the 
 House do come to the following resolution : 
 
 Resolved, That the Speaker do issue his warrant, 
 directed to the Sergeant-at-Arms attending the 
 House, commanding him to take into custody, wher- 
 ever to be found, the body of John Anderson, and 
 the same in his custody to keep, subject to the further 
 order and direction of this House. 
 
 Mr. HABEISOX, of Ohio, rose in consequence
 
 84 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 Case of John Anderson. 
 
 [JANUARY, 1818. 
 
 of his name having been referred to in Colonel 
 Anderson's letter. He had met with Colonel 
 Anderson, he said, in the coarse of his military 
 service, and had always heard him regarded as 
 a highly respectable man ; and well knowing 
 his services, and the sufferings of his family, 
 during the war, he had felt a warm interest in 
 his favor. In the course of this morning, Col. 
 Anderson had sent for him and his friend, 
 Colonel Johnson, out of the House, and, with 
 all the agitation belonging to terror or to con- 
 scious guilt, had informed them of his having 
 done an act which he feared would be regarded, 
 as Mr. H. was sure it would by every member, 
 as calling for the severest animadversion. They 
 had informed him, Mr. H. said, that they would 
 not justify his conduct; nor, were it brought 
 before the House, could they say any thing in 
 extenuation of it. 
 
 Mr. JOHNSON, of Kentucky, expressed his sin- 
 cere regret on account of the occurrence which 
 had just taken place, not on account of the indi- 
 vidual implicated though, surely, he was to be 
 pitied but on account of the gentleman from 
 North Carolina, who, on this occasion, had taken 
 that course dictated by a just sense of his own 
 honor and the dignity of his official station ; and 
 on account of the suffering inhabitants of De- 
 troit and Michigan, generally, that they should 
 have misplaced their confidence in one whom, 
 until this day, Mr. J. said, he had himself held 
 in the highest estimation. It must have been 
 infamy of motive, or the grossest ignorance of 
 the nature of the Representative character, that 
 could have produced this unwarrantable con- 
 duct. 
 
 Mr. TKEET, of Connecticut, inquired whether, 
 according to our forms of proceedings, and to 
 our constitutional provisions, a general warrant, 
 as proposed, could be issued ? Was it not op- 
 posed, in itself, in its nature, to the principles 
 of civil liberty? 
 
 The SPEAKEE observed that, in the practice 
 of the House, happily, instances were extremely 
 rare where such a warrant became necessary ; 
 no such case had occurred within his observa- 
 tion. But there could be no doubt, when an 
 offence was committed against the privileges or 
 dignity of the House, it was perfectly in its 
 power to issue a warrant to apprehend the par- 
 ty offending. 
 
 Mr. FOESYTH turned to a case on record and 
 he was sorry there was such a case on record 
 where this proceeding had taken place, in the 
 year 1795, in which a bribe in land had been of- 
 fered to one or more members. Mr. F. then 
 conformed his motion to the terms of that pre- 
 cedent, as above stated, from which it had before 
 a little A-aried. 
 
 Mr. LIVERMOBE, of Few Hampshire, asked, for 
 information merely, whether the facts on which 
 the warrant was to be issued, should not first be 
 substantiated by oath. The statement came, he 
 knew, from a most respectable source ; but was 
 not an oath necessary to justify such a war- 
 rant? 
 
 The SPBAKEB said Certainly not. 
 
 The question on Mr. FOESTTH'S motion was 
 then taken, decided in the affirmative, and or- 
 dered to be entered unanimously. 
 
 The warrant was forthwith issued. 
 
 Compensation to Members. 
 The question on the passage of the bill was 
 decided in the affirmative yeas 109, nays 60 ; 
 so the bill was passed, (at eight dollars per 
 day, and eight dollars mileage,) and sent to the 
 Senate for concurrence. 
 
 THURSDAY, January 8. 
 
 Another member, to wit, from New York, 
 DAVID A. OGDEN, appeared, produced his cre- 
 dentials, was qualified, and took his seat. 
 
 Case of John Anderson. 
 The SPEAKER having apprised the House that 
 the Sergeant-at-Arms had taken the body of 
 John Anderson, pursuant to the warrant to him 
 directed, and held him in custody, Mr. FOESTTIJ, 
 of Georgia, submitted for consideration the fol- 
 lowing resolution : 
 
 Resolved, That a Committee of Privileges, to con- 
 sist of seven members, be appointed, and that the said 
 committee be instructed to report a mode of proceed- 
 ing in the case of John Anderson, who was taken into 
 custody yesterday by order of the House ; and that 
 the same committee have leave to sit immediately. 
 
 Mr. BEEOHEE, of Ohio, rose in opposition to 
 this proceeding. The offence of this man, in 
 every sense but a legal one, he was not dispose 
 to deny. But it was another question, whether 
 the House was justified in the course it was 
 about to pursue. "Was any authority therefor 
 given in the constitution? None. Was any 
 law to be found on the statute-book giving it ? 
 None. The mode of punishing bribery was, to 
 resort to a court of justice, and there only 
 could it be punished. In this House, he said it 
 was impossible to proceed correctly in a trial 
 for an offence of this character ; and the trouble 
 proceedings of this kind would impose on the 
 House, and the evil of delay they would cause 
 in their ordinary legislative business, afforded 
 strong reasons, if others were wanting, to con- 
 sult their authority, and see whether in fact the 
 House possessed any authority to act on the 
 case. The fifth section of the first article of the 
 constitution, he said, provided that each House 
 might determine the rules of its own proceed- 
 ings; but no part of the constitution gave to 
 the House authority to arrest and bring forward 
 any individual for improper conduct to any 
 member of this House. The courts of the coun- 
 try had made, in their practice, what is called 
 a common law ; but Mr. B. said, if there existed 
 any common law to justify these proceedings of 
 the House, it was unknown to him. The great 
 powers assumed by the Parliament of Great 
 Britain in this respect, had been a matter of 
 great complaint in that country ; and he pre- 
 sumed it would not be contended that the prac-
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 85 
 
 JANUARY, 1818.] 
 
 Case of John Anderson. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 tice of that body was to form a rule of conduct 
 for this House. Neither, Mr. B. said, did he 
 think it essential that this House should pos- 
 sess the power of arresting and bringing indi- 
 viduals to trial before us ; the courts of justice 
 being open to prosecution and redress for any 
 injury of this sort. The House, as any other 
 legislative body, possessed inherently the power 
 to protect itself from indecorum and insult ; but 
 it had no power to confine and commit individ- 
 uals for acts done elsewhere. He did not be- 
 lieve the House possessed authority to arrest an 
 individual in this case, any more than for an 
 assault and battery on a member at any distance 
 from the Seat of Government a power which, 
 he contended, the House did not possess. In 
 another part of the constitution, he said, par- 
 ticular privileges were accorded to members; 
 and the enumeration of particular powers, in 
 any instrument of that character, was an exclu- 
 sion of all others. For other injuries received, 
 than those in violation of that clause of the con- 
 stitution, Mr. B. said, members have the same 
 redress as any other individuals. Mr. B. said 
 he did not believe the House ought to have the 
 power it was about to exercise ; the constitu- 
 tion had not given the House any such power, 
 nor had it been conferred upon them by any 
 law. 
 
 Mr. FORSYTE said, if the position of the gen- 
 tleman was correct, the House had already vio- 
 lated the constitution. The object of the pro- 
 posed appointment of a committee was to in- 
 quire how the House ought now to proceed. If 
 the committee concur with the gentleman from 
 Ohio, they would report that the individual 
 now in custody ought to be discharged; if 
 otherwise, they would report what further 
 course the House ought to pursue. But, Mr. F. 
 said, admitting that all the gentleman had said 
 was true, it was no reason why this committee 
 should not be appointed. Mr. F. did not wish 
 to be understood as doubting the power of the 
 House, because he believed it had full power to 
 proceed ; and he knew that this House and the 
 other branch of the Legislature had, in other 
 cases, exercised similar powers. Until he was 
 convinced, by solemn investigation, that the 
 House did not possess the power, he would not, 
 for one, consent to refrain from its exercise in 
 the present case. 
 
 Mr. LIVEEMOBE, of New Hampshire, hoped, 
 he said, that but one resolution would pass the 
 House on this occasion, and that this one should 
 be, that John Anderson be discharged. First, 
 he said, on account of the irregularity of the 
 proceeding in the first instance. Our ideas, 
 said he, of Congressional privileges, appear to 
 rest on our knowledge of British Parliamentary 
 privileges, which, he conceived, were widely 
 distinct in their natures. In Great Britain the 
 Legislature possesses all power; and almost 
 every act of the Parliament becomes a part of 
 the constitution of the land. That is an un- 
 limited Legislature. The Congress of the United 
 States, he said, was differently constituted. In 
 
 a case of this kind occurring in Great Britain, 
 an oath would not be required ; but, said Mr. 
 L., we are, in this respect, restricted in our 
 power, by the express declaration in the consti- 
 tution, that no warrant shall issue except sus- 
 tained by oath. This provision, he said, being 
 contained in the fourth article of the amend- 
 ments to the constitution, had more weight 
 with him than if contained in the original instru- 
 ment, having been the result of the after-thought 
 and mature deliberation of the nation. Far be 
 it from him, Mr. L. said, to suggest that full 
 faith should not be given to any thing advanced 
 by the honorable member from North Carolina ; 
 as a man he believed him implicitly, but as a 
 member not at all no more than, as a judge, 
 he would believe a man in court without an 
 oath. The word of the Chief Justice of the 
 United States himself would not be taken in 
 court except on oath. Mr. L. said he greatly 
 respected the gentleman he had referred to, 
 but he did not consider the House at liberty to 
 take a step which would compromit the meanest 
 man in the United States, except on the oath of 
 Kis accuser. Besides, said Mr. L., we have no 
 authority over John Anderson, admitting the 
 charge against him to be substantiated. There 
 is no statute of the United States, though there 
 are in most of the individual States, declaring 
 bribery an offence. Far be it from me to con- 
 tend that this body cannot protect itself ; that 
 we can do by our own rules and regulations, 
 but we cannot extend them beyond the verge 
 of this House. The Sergeant-at-Arms might 
 command the whole military force of the United 
 States, could it possibly become necessary, to 
 put out of this House a man disturbing its peace. 
 Mr. L. said he knew very well there was a 
 precedent on record of a course similar to that 
 new proposed ; and he also knew that the most 
 eminent men of the United States deprecated 
 that decision when it took place. When the 
 subject was before the Congress, in 1800, he 
 believed those who favored the proceeding sus- 
 tained themselves on the authority of the prac- 
 tice of the British Parliament; they were a 
 high-handed party majority, full of British no- 
 tions and fond of British precedents. Those 
 who were opposed to that course were the 
 whole body of the Republican members, with 
 the great Jefferson at their head. Mr. L. hoped, 
 he repeated, that but one resolution would pass 
 on this occasion ; and that it should be, that the 
 warrant for the apprehension of John Ander- 
 son had been irregularly and improperly issued, 
 and that he be therefore forthwith discharged. 
 Mr. TUCKER, of Virginia, said he should not 
 do his duty, if he did not, on the present ques- 
 tion, give the gentleman from Georgia his 
 hearty support; not that he was certain he 
 should give him the same support in all hia 
 views of this subject. The proper course, in 
 the opinion of Mr. T. would be, to provide by 
 a general law for the punishment of contempts 
 against either House of Congress; but, he asked, 
 was it not the duty of the House on this, and
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OP R.] 
 
 Case of John Anderson. 
 
 [JANUARY, 1818 
 
 on every other occasion, to deliberate in that 
 manner which afforded the best lights on any 
 subject, and which it became the dignity of the 
 House to pursue ? No matter how light the 
 subject might be that was proposed to the con- 
 sideration of the House, he should not choose 
 to act on it, without calling on some committee 
 of the House to take it into their particular con- 
 sideration, and to produce a clear and connected 
 view of it. And was this an occasion on which, 
 by a hasty procedure, to depart from that 
 course? Would the House at once declare 
 that its members might be approached by the 
 vilest miscreants on the face of the globe, and 
 that it could take no steps to protect their 
 rights? Is any member prepared to say, that 
 there exists in this House no power to repel 
 the approaches of bribery and corruption ? The 
 constitution creating this body is a dead letter 
 is mere waste paper said Mr. T., if we have 
 no power to protect ourselves from violence of 
 this description in the exercise of our duties. 
 That part of the constitution giving to Congress 
 all power necessary to carry into effect the 
 delegated powers, has no value if it does not 
 apply to the present case. For his part, Mr. T. 
 said, he had no manner of doubt as to the 
 power of this House to protect itself, and none 
 of the expediency of the course now proposed. 
 But, at the same time, he doubted the propriety 
 of suffering the laws to remain in their present 
 situation, so as to compel the House to act in 
 this way. Until a general law should pass, Mr. 
 T. said, he had no doubt the House had the 
 power within itself to punish any person who 
 should attempt to bribe one of its members. 
 The proper course, he conceived, would be, 
 warned by this incident, to appoint a committee 
 to report a bill to punish such offences, &c. He 
 should not commit himself at present as to the 
 final course for the House ; but it appeared to 
 him, that every member, from the necessity the 
 House was under of protecting itself, would 
 wish to see that course pursued which would 
 best promote a due consideration of the subject 
 which was the usual process of referring the 
 subject to a committee. 
 
 Mr. HOPKINSON, of Pennsylvania, rose in sup- 
 port of the proposition before the House. This 
 question, he said, was not a new one ; it had 
 been heretofore solemnly debated and adjudged ; 
 and all the objections now expressed had been 
 brought forward in their greatest force, without 
 effect ; and the precedent then established was 
 entitled to respect. In that case to which he 
 referred, it was well known a full opportunity 
 was given for the freest discussion ; the parties 
 arraigned at the bar having been heard by their 
 counsel on this question. But, Mr. H. said, the 
 weight of that precedent was attempted to be 
 destroyed in a most extraordinary manner by 
 the honorable gentleman from New Hampshire, 
 who had intimated that the House at that day 
 did not decide the question on a knowledge of 
 the provisions of the constitution, but on party 
 principles. Mr. H. begged the gentleman from 
 
 New Hampshire to tell the House how he 
 knew the motives of the members of that Con- 
 gress ; how he acquired the power to enter 
 their hearts, and see that they did not decide 
 this question on our own laws, but on those of 
 a foreign country ? Why did he seek to con- 
 demn them and their decision, by a sort of allu- 
 sion, which, Mr. H. said, as an argument, would 
 not be listend to on this floor? That respectable 
 and enlightened Congress, Mr. H. said, had de- 
 cided the question before them on the principles 
 of our own constitution and law ; if their deci- 
 sion was corroborated by the practice of the Leg- 
 islature of any other country, there was nothing 
 in that circumstance to weaken the force of the 
 precedent. But the Republican members opposed 
 that decision ! Are questions of this sort, Mr. H. 
 asked, to be decided by the particular political 
 denominations of those who voted pro or con? 
 Is that to be the rule by which decisions on 
 such questions are to be received or regarded as 
 precedents ? If so, as gentlemen took the liberty 
 sometimes of exchanging sides in politics, that 
 which was law to-day might not be to-morrow ; 
 and the question would be forever unsettled. 
 The question now raised, Mr. H. considered as 
 having been decided by an authority which, 
 though not decisive, was yet entitled to the 
 highest respect, and ought to be respected. The 
 observations of the gentleman from New Hamp- 
 shire having been disposed of, which ought never 
 to have been made, Mr. H. proceeded to notice 
 some other views which had been thrown out. 
 It had been objected to the legality of the pro- 
 cedure, that the statement on which the war- 
 rant was founded, was not on oath. Was not 
 the representation of a member of this House, 
 he asked, a sufficient ground of proceeding? 
 The character of this House must be sunk to a 
 low ebb, if the representations of its members 
 were not to be received as true. In the case of 
 Randall and Whitney, the proceedings of the 
 House had been similar to those of this day ; in- 
 formation of the facts was given by members 
 in their places, and the House proceeded, as in 
 the present case, without calling on the mem- 
 bers to take the book and testify that what 
 they had stated was true. In such cases, said 
 Mr. H., we have ever been guided by precedent, 
 and we have done right. But, it was said by 
 the gentleman from Ohio, that there was noth- 
 ing to be found in the constitution to justify 
 this proceeding. When, Mr. H. said, the con- 
 stitution gave being to this body, it gave to it. 
 every attribute necessary to its security and to its 
 purity. The courts of justice, which had been 
 mentioned, do exercise similar power ; any at- 
 tempt to obstruct the due course of justice, or 
 to corrupt its source, is an offence punishable 
 in a summary manner. It was equally neces- 
 sary such a power should reside in this House ; 
 because, if persons hanging about this hall, with 
 their private claims, and besetting the paths of 
 the members, offering them bribes for their 
 votes and influence, were to be referred to the 
 courts of justice for their punishment, there was
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 87 
 
 JAXCARY, 1818.] 
 
 Case of John Anderson. 
 
 [H. OF B. 
 
 no protection for the independence, none for 
 the feelings, none for the character of this House. 
 If we are careful that the laws be purely admin- 
 istered, ought we not to be equally so that they 
 are purely made ? Is the juror who administers 
 the law to have protection, and the legislator 
 who makes the law to have none ? That the 
 courts, have the power to punish contempts, is 
 a matter, said Mr. H., which could not be doubted 
 here ; and that the Legislature possesses the 
 same power was to him clear, and for the same 
 reason. Adverting to the provision of the con- 
 stitution, which privileged members of Con- 
 gress from arrest during their attendance at the 
 session of their respective Houses, and on going 
 to and returning from the same ; if the gentle- 
 man will tie us down to the letter of the consti- 
 tution, said Mr. H., how would he punish a 
 man who should arrest a member contrary to 
 this provision ? Would he sue him at law ? 
 and where do you find in the constitution any 
 thing by which you shall know Tww to proceed 
 to punish him ? Would not the gentleman do 
 it in the way in which we are going on ? And 
 why ? Because, said he, we possess the power 
 to protect ourselves in the exercise of our duties. 
 How would the gentleman proceed in the case 
 of the arrest of himself and half a dozen of 
 members, whose votes would turn the scale on 
 a pending question of the highest moment? 
 Discharge the members, and they might be ar- 
 rested again, if there was no summary process 
 against the offender. If there was no redress 
 in such a case, but to turn the person offending 
 over to suit or indictment in the courts, the 
 constitutional provision was a mere illusion. 
 But gentlemen themselves did not agree. One, 
 said he, refers the House for redress of their 
 complaint, in the present case, to the courts of 
 justice ; the other says that bribery is no offence, 
 there being no law to punish it ; of course the 
 courts are not open to the complainant So 
 that, between them, Congress is in a strange 
 predicament. We are, without remedy, at the 
 mercy of every infamous man, who is disposed, 
 either for the purpose of private malice or per- 
 sonal emolument, to play off his arts against 
 the Representatives of the people. Mr. H. con- 
 cluded by saying, that he hoped the House 
 would decide that it had the power, not only to 
 protect its existence, but to preserve its char- 
 acter so pure and unsullied as to be exempted 
 even from suspicion. 
 
 Mr. FOKSTTH rose to correct an extraordinary 
 mistake which the gentleman from New Hamp- 
 shire had fallen into in regard to the precedent 
 to which he had referred. That precedent was 
 found in the Journal of the year 1795, before 
 the division of parties, which has since existed, 
 had taken place. It was not, therefore, a party 
 question, but a great constitutional point, which 
 was then decided. On referring to the Journal 
 for the final vote, it appeared that seventy-eight 
 members had voted in the affirmative, and but 
 seventeen against it. For another fact he was 
 indebted to the information of a gentleman 
 
 who was in a situation to have known it, that, 
 of those seventy-eight, thirty-nine were subse- 
 quently on the Republican side of the question, 
 and known as Republicans in the great parties 
 into which the country soon after divided. 
 Among these were some of the names most dear 
 to the Republican party, and by this he meant 
 no reflection on those who differed from them 
 on that question. He need only refer to the 
 names of Gallatin, Giles, Baldwin, Findlay, and 
 many others of the same grade and were not 
 these Republicans? They were; and each 
 would bear a comparison with any man who 
 had ever since called himself a Republican. 
 They were the master spirits who headed the 
 Republican party when it became one, and 
 guided it in all its movements. But, Mr. F. 
 said, he should be glad to find out how the 
 gentleman discovered the great name of Jeffer- 
 son to support him in his doctrine ? That great 
 man was not then a member of Congress ; nor, 
 Mr. F. said, did he know that he had expressed 
 any opinion on.the question. He did not find 
 in the Manual composed by him any expression 
 of an opinion that the constitution had been 
 violated by that decision. There was a state- 
 ment of the arguments on both sides of that 
 question ; but so far from expressing the opinion 
 that the constitution had been violated, the 
 Manual considered the question as unsettled. It 
 was settled, then, on the ground that this body, 
 and all others, corporate as well as individual, 
 had the right to protect themselves from insult 
 and violence. How, Mr. F. asked, would gen- 
 tlemen proceed to punish an individual in the 
 gallery of this House, who should consider it a 
 great theatre, and exercise the privilege which 
 insolent persons use in the gallery of a theatre, 
 of disturbing the audience and annoying the 
 performers? Suppose some person who was 
 unfriendly to a member speaking, or who did 
 not like the monotonous tone of his voice, should 
 amuse himself by throwing nuts or apples at 
 his head ; by hissing on the one hand, or applaud- 
 ing on the other; by what authority would 
 the House exercise the power of driving him 
 away, or taking him into custody ? Could any 
 one doubt the power ? But was it to be found, 
 in so many words, in the constitution ? Gen- 
 tlemen might say, this would be within our own 
 walls, and therefore a different case from that 
 now under consideration. Mr. F. regarded them 
 as standing on the same footing; within and 
 without, here or in any part of the city, if a 
 member was insulted in the discharge of his 
 duty, this House had, in his opinion, the right 
 and the power to punish the offender. He 
 hoped, at all events, the House would make the 
 inquiry, and not stay its proceedings in this 
 case, until something stronger had been alleged 
 against them than any thing he had heard. 
 
 Mr. PITKIN, of Connecticut, said he did not 
 rise to debate the power of this House ; for, he 
 said, unless the House had some power to pro- 
 tect itself and its members in their persons and 
 integrity, from violence or insult, they might as
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 Case of John Anderson. 
 
 [JANUARY, 1818. 
 
 well adjourn and go home. But he rose to 
 refer to one or two cases which had occurred 
 subsequently to that which had been particu- 
 larly referred to, to see how far the House had 
 proceeded. A case had occurred, in 1810, of 
 an assault and battery on a member of this 
 House, not within the walls of the House, not 
 during its sitting, and originating in circum- 
 stances having no relation to his duty as a mem- 
 ber of the House ; but, while here attending his 
 public duty, that gentleman had been considered 
 as under the protection of the authority of the 
 House, and the House had accordingly taken 
 cognizance of the assault; and justly for, if 
 the House had not power to protect its mem- 
 bers while going and coming therefrom, it was 
 in vain for them to attend here. In another 
 case, a committee had been appointed to in- 
 quire into the promulgation of certain secret 
 proceedings of the House. The individual 
 promulgating them was brought to the bar of 
 the House, and compelled to answer the ques- 
 tions propounded to him. If he had refused to 
 answer the questions put to him, undoubtedly 
 he would have been committed to prison for 
 that contempt. Having no doubt of the power 
 of the House in this respect, he hoped the 
 House would act as proposed. 
 
 Mr. LIVERMOEK again rose. He said he should 
 suppose that no one had understood him to say 
 that the Kcpublicans were right or wrong, or 
 that the Federalists were right or wrong, or to 
 draw any distinction between the parties into 
 which the country had been divided. He re- 
 spected good men of all parties, and none other 
 but good men of any party. He had said that 
 an oath was necessary to support a warrant, and 
 produced the constitutional provision, " that no 
 warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, 
 supported by oath or affirmation. 1 ' How am I 
 answered? Why, that every member of this 
 House is entitled to such high credit, that his 
 word is as good as any other man's oath. The 
 Chief Justice of the United States is sworn to 
 support the constitution, and to administer jus- 
 tice ; but, he is not therefore sworn to every 
 thing, and his mere word would not be taken in 
 this matter in controversy in any court. But, it 
 seemed, that the rights of individuals Were to be 
 uprooted, and an express provision of the con- 
 stitution disregarded, on the word of a mem- 
 ber, because he was sworn to support the con- 
 stitution. Mr. L. said he had as high an opin- 
 ion of the credit to which members of this 
 House were entitled, as any man could have, 
 but he could not, in such a case as this, believe 
 them, except on oath, considering himself bound 
 to protect the rights of every individual in the 
 United States, &c. The gentleman from Penn- 
 sylvania, Mr. L. continued, had found fault with 
 some of his expressions. A man cannot take 
 his words out of his mouth, look at them, put 
 them in again, and speak as he could wish ; and 
 Mr. L. said he might have gone further than he 
 intended. "Whether those who established the 
 precedent of 1795 were Republicans, or be they 
 
 whom they might, they had acted on prece- 
 dents drawn from the British Parliament, a 
 body whose powers in this respect were not 
 analogous to those of the Congress of the Unit- 
 ed States. The Parliament of Great Britain is 
 a perpetual convention, of which every law and 
 practice becomes apart of the constitution. But 
 we are a limited Legislature, and the constitu- 
 tion controls us. And when such a question as 
 this is presented, how shall we get over it? 
 Mr. L. disclaimed any intention to accuse those 
 who established the precedent in the case of 
 Whitney and Randall of having acted wrongly, 
 against conviction. God forbid he should have 
 said so ; but, if he had been a little warm on 
 the subject when up before, perhaps the gentle- 
 man from Pennsylvania (whom no man re- 
 spected more than he) had warmed himself as 
 well as the gentleman from New Hampshire. 
 Let that gentleman, however, reconcile the 
 proceedings of Congress to that provision which 
 he had referred to. It was no way to put a 
 man down to say, that one man's word is as 
 good as another man's oath. It was saying 
 what the constitution had not left the House at 
 liberty to say. But, it was asked, could Con- 
 gress do nothing to protect themselves ? Must 
 they be trampled on, and spit upon, without 
 remedy ? Mr. L. said he had admitted before, 
 and he now repeated, that the Sergeant-at-Arms, 
 within the House, might command the whole 
 force of the country, the Army and Militia, and, 
 supposing such a case possible, might bring a 
 seventy-four up the Eastern Branch to fire upon 
 the Capitol ; but the House had not the exten- 
 sive power for which gentlemen now contended. 
 Suppose he were to rise and say, that, as he 
 was coming here, the Governor or Chief Justice 
 of New Hampshire had offered him a bribe ; 
 would this House send out its warrant and 
 bring him here ? Would this be constitutional ? 
 He hoped not. If the procedure would not be 
 warrantable as to such men, neither would it to 
 the meanest man in the State, for no man there 
 was a slave ; and Mr. L. would not stretch the 
 power of the Government to oppress the meanest 
 or the greatest. 
 
 Mr. SERGEANT, of Pennsylvania, said, as the 
 motion now before the House, was merely for 
 the appointment of a committee of inquiry, he 
 could see no reasonable objection to it. The 
 matter proposed to be inquired into was not, he 
 said, a question merely between the individual 
 accused and the House ; but it was one in 
 which the nation was interested ; and the House 
 would commit as great an error if they neglect- 
 ed to inflict a proper punishment on the offender 
 in such a case, as if they were to inflict punish- 
 ment where no offence had been committed. 
 The immediate question was not, whether the 
 members of the House were assailable by bribes ; 
 whether their feelings were to be wounded with 
 impunity ; whether they were liable to the arts 
 of seduction ; but it was a general question 
 whether the House would or would not inquire 
 what authority it had to punish those offend-
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 JANUARY, 1818.] 
 
 Case of John Anderson. 
 
 [H. OP R. 
 
 ing in this respect. If we have the authority, 
 said Mr. S., we are bound to inflict punishment 
 in the case before us ; for if the offence sup- 
 posed to Lave been committed shall be proved, 
 can any case occur hereafter more requiring 
 the exercise of the powers of this House. If 
 you will not exercise what power you possess 
 now, there is no species of attempt which may 
 not be made with impunity on the honor or on 
 the feelings of this House; there is no practice, 
 however corrupt, which may not be attempted. 
 For upon whom was this attempt made ? Upon 
 a member who is at the head of the Committee 
 of Claims, that committee whose business it is 
 to determine between the claims of individuals 
 and the interest of the United States, coming 
 in conflict before them; in doing which the 
 chairman of that committee has to contend, on 
 the part of the United States, against the in- 
 terest, urged in every possible shape, of the in- 
 dividuals whose claims are preferred to this 
 House. And would the House allow the mem- 
 ber who occupies that station of sentinel at the 
 door of the Treasury, to be placed in a situation 
 to be exposed to all the gross and corrupt at- 
 tempts which may be made on him, if they are 
 permitted to be made with impunity ? Surely 
 not. If, then, Mr. S. repeated, the House would 
 not, in the present case, exercise the power of 
 punishing for contempt, there never would oc- 
 cur one in which it would. 
 
 There were, Mr. S. said, in the present, as 
 there must be in all similar cases, two offences 
 committed ; the one, a crime for which the in- 
 dividual might be handed over to the courts of 
 justice for the punishment ; the other an offence 
 against this House, for which the individual 
 might be proceeded against and punished in a 
 summary manner. He did not say that both 
 these courses might not be pursued. But he did 
 admit that the question whether the House 
 should or should not interfere, was at all times 
 a question on which a sound discretion must 
 be exercised when the case arises. In this way 
 he would answer the gentleman from New 
 Hampshire, who had supposed extreme cases. 
 This House, said Mr. S., may certainly in such 
 cases rely on its own discretion, that it will not 
 be impelled into a course which is unjust. The 
 case now before the House was not such a case, 
 however, but one of a totally different character. 
 If the House proceeded no further now, the 
 privilege's of the House were surrendered in 
 every case, unless for what should be done hi 
 the face of the House. If the doctrine of the 
 gentlemen from Ohio and New Hampshire pre- 
 vail, said Mr. S., we shall be assailable at our 
 door, on the staircase, everywhere until we 
 come into this House, and this House is organ- 
 ized. Was this possible? And yet, he said, 
 he did not suppose cases as extreme as those 
 put on the other side. 
 
 Mr. BALL, of Virginia said, if this proposi- 
 tion to appoint a committee had been made in 
 the first instance, he should have had no objec- 
 tion to the proposed inquiry. But ho was 
 
 under the impression that this inquiry into 
 their power ought to have been had before the 
 warrant was issued. Suppose this person had 
 been in a distant part of this country, in the 
 District of Maine, for example: would this 
 House arrest him, bring him here, and then in- 
 quire whether they had power to do so or not? 
 AVould not this be a grievance of the highest 
 character against the laws of the land, and 
 against the constitution itself? Supposing, after 
 putting a person, accused of contempt, to all 
 this inconvenience, and holding him in durance, 
 it should appear that he was not amenable to 
 the authority of this House ; would not this 
 proceeding have been manifestly wrong, and 
 an oppression of the citizen? Had we not 
 better, said Mr. B., suffer a thousand insults, 
 than trample on the personal liberty of the 
 citizen? The liberty of the citizen was guard- 
 ed by the express provisions of the constitu- 
 tion ; and he would not, he said, exercise any 
 authority restraining it, unless unsupported by 
 the constitution. That was his guide ; he had 
 taken an oath to support it, and that instru- 
 ment provided that no warrant shall issue, un- 
 less supported by oath. The warrant against 
 John Anderson had, therefore, issued in con- 
 tradiction to the constitution. The proper 
 course would be to discharge him from the 
 warrant Avhich had been illegally issued ; to 
 investigate the subject; and, if it should be 
 decided that he was amenable to the House, 
 then to arrest him and punish him, but not, 
 otherwise, to proceed further in the busiia-ss. 
 
 Mr. TEEET said that, on this occasion, it ap- 
 peared to him, to use a vulgar adage, gentlemen 
 leapt before they came to the stile. With re- 
 spect to the constitutional provision for the 
 protection of individuals, if a warrant contrary 
 to law was before a court of justice, where 
 strict law prevails, the court would not ex 
 ojficio quash it, if the party concerned sub- 
 mitted to it. It was proper, Mr. T. said, that 
 Colonel Anderson should have the opportunity 
 of objecting to it. If he did so. Mr. T. reserved 
 to himself the right to decide whether the war- 
 rant had been issued constitutionally or not. 
 In the present state of the proceedings, he said, 
 the House ought not to decide : if conscious of 
 his offence, the individual might not think it 
 advisable to object to the authority of the 
 House. 
 
 Mr. COMSTOCK, of New York, said he did not 
 rise to detain the House, but to say that he 
 thought, unless this or a similar resolution pass- 
 ed, (for appointing a committee,) the patience 
 of the House would be put to a severer test 
 than it had yet been, by the protraction of a 
 debate arising from the want of a definite pro- 
 position before the House, which it would be 
 the business of a committee to present. Many 
 observations, it appeared to Mr. C., had escaped 
 gentlemen in the course of the debate that had 
 already taken place, which might have been 
 offered with more propriety when this man 
 should be brought before the House, and ex-
 
 90 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 Case of John Anderson. 
 
 [JANCABY, 1818. 
 
 hibit the evidence, if he has any, to extenuate 
 his guilt. It would then be more proper than 
 it was now to comment on his character and on 
 all the circumstances of the transaction. At 
 present, Mr. 0. said, he would forbear any re- 
 marks on that head ; he thought that enough 
 had been disclosed to justify what had been al- 
 ready done. 
 
 The resolution was finally agreed to, and 
 Messrs. FORSYTE, HOPKINSON, TUCKER, SER- 
 GEANT, JOHNSON, of Kentucky, PITKIN, and 
 TAYLOR, were appointed a committee accord- 
 ingly- 
 
 John Anderson's Case. 
 
 Mr. FORSYTH, from the committee appointed 
 to-day, made a report recommending that the 
 House do come to the following resolution: 
 
 Resolved, That John Anderson be brought to the 
 bar of the House, and interrogated by the Speaker, 
 on written interrogatories, touching the charge of 
 writing and delivering a letter to a member of the 
 House, offering Mm a bribe, which, with his an- 
 swers thereto, shall be entered on the minutes of the 
 House. And that every question proposed by a 
 member be reduced to writing, and a motion made 
 that the same be put by the Speaker, and the ques- 
 tion and answer shall be entered on the minutes of 
 the House. That after such interrogatories are an- 
 swered, if the House deem it necessary to mako fur- 
 ther inquiry on the subject, the same be conducted 
 by a committee to be appointed for that purpose. 
 
 Mr. TTJCKKE read a resolution that the Speak- 
 er be authorized to inform the accused that 
 that he might ask counsel. &c. 
 
 "Which was superseded by an intimation from 
 the Speaker, that he should consider it a duty, 
 if no objection was made, to give the accused 
 information on this head. 
 
 The Sergeant-at-Arms was then directed to 
 bring his prisoner to the bar of the House. 
 
 On his appearance, the SPEAKER directed a 
 chair to be given to him, and addressed him to 
 this eftect : 
 
 " John Anderson, you are no doubt aware that 
 you are brought before this House in consequence 
 of having written and delivered to a gentleman, who is 
 a member and chairman of a committee of this House, 
 a letter, of the contents of which you are apprised. 
 Before I proceed to propound to you any interroga- 
 tories on this subject, I will apprise you that, if you 
 have any request to make of the House ; if you wish 
 for counsel, for reasonable time, for witnesses, for 
 any of those privileges belonging to persons in simi- 
 lar situations, the House is disposed to grant it If 
 you do not wish for time, for counsel, or for wit- 
 nesses, the Speaker will proceed to put to you such 
 interrogatories as may seem proper." 
 
 To this the prisoner at the bar replied in 
 substance, although indistinctly, that, in his 
 peculiar situation, he desired the assistance of 
 counsel ; he desired time until to-morrow, and 
 the opportunity of summoning witnesses to testi- 
 fy to the character he had sustained through 
 life. 
 
 Whereupon the Sergeant-at-Arms was di- 
 rected to take the prisoner from the bar. 
 
 Some conversation took place as to the pre- 
 cise mode of proceeding, which resulted in 
 drawing up a resolution that the Speaker be 
 authorized to inform the accused that the House 
 comply with his requests. 
 
 Aiid then the Sergeant-at-Arms withdrew 
 from the bar with his prisoner. 
 
 The House adjourned at a late hour. 
 
 FRIDAY, January 9. 
 
 Another member, to wit. from Rhode Island, 
 JAMES B. MASON, appeared, produced his cre- 
 dentials, was qualified, and took his seat. 
 
 Case of John Anderson. 
 
 Mr. SPENCER offered for consideration the fol- 
 lowing preamble and resolutions : 
 
 The House of Representatives, entertaining great 
 doubts of its possessing the competent power to punish 
 John Anderson for his contempt of the House, and 
 his outrage upon one of its members : 
 
 Resolved, That all further proceedings in this 
 House against the said John Anderson do cease, and 
 that he be discharged from the custody of the Ser- 
 geant-at-Arms. 
 
 Resolved, That the Attorney-General of the United 
 States be directed to institute such proceedings against 
 the said John Anderson for his said offence as may 
 be agreeable to the laws of the United States and of 
 the District of Columbia. 
 
 Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary be 
 instructed to inquire into the expediency of providing 
 by law for the punishment of any contempt of the 
 Senate or House of Representatives of the United 
 States, and of any breach of th privileges of either 
 House. 
 
 Mr. SPENCER, of New York, observed, that 
 in submitting the resolutions which had been 
 read, his object was to procure a decision of the 
 House on the abstract question of its right to 
 proceed in the case of Colonel Anderson. He 
 had offered them in this stage of the proceed- 
 ings, because no opportunity had yet been given 
 to take the sense of the House, and with a view 
 also of preventing the influence of those feel- 
 ings, which the demerits of the case might ex- 
 cite, in producing a decision that calm and de- 
 liberate reason might not sanction. It was 
 more consistent, also, with the dignity of the 
 House, that we should retrace its proceedings, 
 if they were wrong, from our own impulse, 
 rather than be compelled to do so on the motion 
 of the accused or his counsel. 
 
 Mr. S. unequivocally condemned the conduct 
 of the accused ; and his indignation at the enor- 
 mity of the offence had, he confessed, carried 
 him too far, in endeavoring to punish it. The 
 only apology I have to offer, said Mr. S., is to 
 be found in that universal burst of feeling which 
 spread through the House on the disclosure of 
 the base transaction. But time for reflection 
 has succeeded to the impetuosity of feeling; 
 and, being perfectly convinced that we were 
 wrong, I take the first opportunity to acknowl-
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 91 
 
 JAJTCARY, 1818.] 
 
 Case of John Anderson. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 edge my error, and to expiate it, by submitting 
 the resolutions on your table. 
 
 In deciding tbis question, we act as judges, 
 and we must demand tbe very letter of the law 
 to authorize our decision. With the propriety, 
 or expediency, or necessity of having some law 
 on the subject, we, as judges, have nothing to 
 do. We act not as legislators, but in a judicial 
 capacity, in a cause between us and the accus- 
 ed ; and we are as strictly bound by the law of 
 the land as any court of justice can be. Let us, 
 then, search for that law. If it is to be found 
 at all, it is either in the constitution, in the 
 laws of the United States, or in the law of Par- 
 liament. The friends of the procedure have 
 been in vain called upon to point out the ex- 
 press power given by the constitution. So far 
 from doing so, they have not, as yet, answered 
 the objections which the constitution itself in- 
 terposes. The 4th article of the amendments 
 provides, " that no warrant shall issue but upon 
 probable cause, supported by oat h or affirma- 
 tion,' 1 '' and that it shall describe the person to 
 be seized. In the present case, a warrant has 
 been issued, directing a person to be seized, 
 without being supported by oath or affirma- 
 tion. But we have been told, that the clause 
 is only intended to regulate courts of justice. 
 There is no such limitation in the amendment ; 
 but, admit it, and what is gained ? The is- 
 suing of process to bring in a party to answer 
 is in itself a judicial act ; all our proceedings in 
 the case are founded upon the idea of our being 
 a court for this purpose. By the 5th amend- 
 ment it is provided that no person shall be held 
 to answer for an infamous crime unless on in- 
 dictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising 
 in the land or naval forces, or in the militia 
 when in service. If any doubt should exist as 
 to the universality of the prohibition, the ex- 
 cepted cases which it mentions shows conclu- 
 sively that it was intended to apply to all 
 others. Here there is no presentment, and no 
 one will contend that it is one of the excepted 
 cases. The same amendment provides that no 
 person shall be compelled to be a witness 
 against himself in a criminal case. We are 
 about to propound interrogatories to this man ; 
 if he refuse to answer them, what are you next 
 to do ? Will you treat the refusal as" another 
 contempt, and punish him for it ; and thus com- 
 pel him to bear witness against himself? Or 
 will you persist in making a vain effort at pow- 
 er, when you know you must retire discomfited 
 and disgraced? The 6th amendment provides 
 for the trial by jury. In no sense of the word 
 can this House be deemed a jury ; we are not 
 returned by an Executive officer; we possess 
 not the qualifications of jurors, and the right of 
 challenge of course could not be allowed. 
 
 From this examination, it results, then, that 
 if we proceed against this man for a crime, as 
 some have contended, our measures are wholly 
 unconstitutional, illegal, and void. If we pro- 
 ceed against him at all, it must be for a con- 
 tempt amounting to a breach of the privileges of 
 
 the House. The most diligent research has not 
 enabled me to discover either the word or the 
 idea of a contempt as applied to Congress, in 
 either the constitution or laws of the United 
 States, and I venture to affirm that neither of 
 them is to be found there. 
 
 Mr. AKDEBSOX, of Kentucky, declared that he 
 should support the resolutions offered to the 
 House. His only objection was to the expres- 
 sion of doubt contained in the preamble; he 
 felt no doubt, and thought the prisoner should 
 be instantly discharged. It might indeed pro- 
 duce some mortification for the House now to 
 retrace its steps, and to make a pubh'c acknowl- 
 edgment of its imbecility, but he thought this 
 course much preferable to an assumption of the 
 constitutional powers now contended for. He 
 himself participated in the mortification, but 
 felt the necessity of giving the most prompt 
 correction to the error which had been com- 
 mitted in issuing the warrant. It was much 
 better now to arrest the proceedings, than to 
 conduct the case through an examination, and 
 be compelled to adopt that course ; an idea then 
 might justifiably arise, that the discharge was 
 produced by a belief that the man was inno- 
 cent, or that the case did not merit punish- 
 ment. It should be placed on its true ground ; 
 the prisoner should be immediately discharged 
 from a want of power in this House to punish. 
 If this power be possessed, it is indeed most 
 novel and extraordinary. In every other case, 
 an act which is punishable, must, by a previous 
 law, have been declared an offence. In this, 
 the guilt of the individual does not rest on any 
 statute previously passed and promulgated, but 
 on the feelings and passions of this House. In 
 vain do we demand the law, which has declared 
 the act an offence at the tune of its commission. 
 In vain may the citizen look for the rule of his 
 conduct in the statute book of his country. 
 There is no law declaring the act we are about 
 to punish, a contempt or an offence of any kind; 
 our opinion of its criminality has been locked 
 within our own breasts, and never can be con- 
 stitutionally declared except by a law of Con- 
 gress. No other tribunal has ever yet dared to 
 assume such a power, and if it be exercised, no 
 citizen in this country can be safe. But if the 
 doctrine is recognized that we can declare an 
 act after it is committed an offence, according 
 to our views of the privileges of the House, or 
 the nature of contempts, we are at once plung- 
 ed into a sea of perplexity. There is no subject 
 on which the varying minds of men can differ 
 more. That act which one will declare the 
 grossest contempt, will, by another, be thought 
 perfectly harmless. We shall have no previous 
 standard by which we can measure the act ; 
 the fact of its being an offence will depend on 
 the wide and differing views of members of this 
 House. If we reserve to ourselves the power 
 of declaring every paragraph in the newspa- 
 pers defamatory or libellous, as our feelings may 
 direct, and which no law has forbidden, we are 
 indeed possessed of powers of which the people
 
 92 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 of this country have little thought, and which, 
 by reading the constitution, they can never 
 find. 
 
 If, however, it should be conceded that this 
 was an offence, unless there has been a punish- 
 ment previously affixed by law, we are still 
 powerless, and must arrest these proceedings. 
 By what authority can we award any punish- 
 ment, or imprisonment, in preference to any 
 other? There is none in the constitution, and 
 there is no law on the subject. What necessa- 
 ry connection is there between contempt and 
 imprisonment ? They seem to be spoken of as 
 if one was a necessary consequence of the other. 
 It arises, Mr. Speaker, from the provisions of 
 the common law, and the usages of the British 
 Parliament, which are fastened about our re- 
 collections, and are difficult to be shaken off. 
 We forget that the powers of the House of Com- 
 mons depend on precedents formed by their 
 own decisions, and ours only on special grants 
 in the constitution. This House alone cannot 
 create a punishment which has not been affixed 
 by law; by both branches of the legislature. 
 An apt illustration of the idea is found in the 
 provisions of the constitution, which define 
 treason, and empower Congress to prescribe the 
 punishment. If this power had never been ex- 
 ercised, and no statute had been enacted to de- 
 clare the punishment, no court in this country 
 could have created one. No judge would have 
 dared to pass a sentence of death, or imprison 
 for a day. The vilest traitor that ever lived, 
 can be punished only according to law in this 
 land. The same observations apply to piracy, 
 and felonies, committed on the high seas. Until 
 Congress shall exercise the powers given by the 
 constitution, and define the crimes and declare 
 the punishment, no tribunal in this country can 
 supply the defect, and dare to punish according 
 to the common law, or in any other way. If 
 we can impose a penalty, which has not been 
 assigned to a specific crime, there is then no 
 boundary to our powers. When we determine 
 that this House possess the power of punish- 
 ment, then the species or degree is only matter 
 of selection. Who can prescribe the limit? 
 We have no standard to regulate or bind our 
 power, but our own feeling. We can range 
 through every gradation of punishment, from a 
 simple reprimand to death. And when the 
 principle of punishment is decided, we may to- 
 morrow be boldly debating whether we shall 
 reprimand, imprison, brand, or gibbet this man. 
 If this resolution be rejected, we shall, in effect, 
 decide that the House of Kepresentatives pos- 
 sess the power not only of declaring any act an 
 offence, but of selecting and inflicting a punish- 
 ment heretofore unknown to the laws, and even 
 to ourselves. These are indeed tremendous 
 powers, and such as I believe have never been 
 granted. 
 
 Mr. FOKSTTH, of Georgia, said, it is admit- 
 ted that we have power to suppress disorder in 
 the gallery, to remove the ofi'ender from the 
 hall. Is not this removal of a citizen of the 
 
 Case of John Anderson. 
 
 [JANUARY, 1818. 
 
 United States, of a freeman, from your gallery, 
 in which, while it continues open, he has as 
 much right to sit there as we have to sit here, 
 a punishment for a crime or contempt which he 
 has committed ? Is it not, if not justified by 
 law, an assault, and false imprisonment, for 
 which the officer acting under your orders is 
 answerable, by suit and by indictment ? Whence 
 arises the power ? Will gentlemen point to the 
 clause of the constitution which confers it? 
 Here then is a case in which, from the necessity 
 of the case, no gentleman will venture to deny 
 the existence of the authority to punish, and the 
 propriety of its exercise. But does it stop here ? 
 
 beyond the walls of this room. Extends it no 
 farther ? Cannot our deliberations be interrupt- 
 ed at the door, and on the staircase ? The same 
 reasoning will apply to all portions of the House 
 and to the street. Does it stop here ? Will you 
 permit the beating of drums and the firing of 
 cannon under your windows, in the street, in 
 front of this hall ? Can we not remove such 
 nuisances, and prevent their recurrence, by the 
 punishment of those who caused them, for their 
 contempt to this body ? Certainly no one can 
 deny it. We have, therefore, by admission, the 
 power within and without these walls. Where 
 is the limit, Mr. F. said? It was limited only 
 by the jurisdiction of the United States, because 
 to the extent of the jurisdiction was the necessity 
 of the legitimate exercise of the power. 
 
 Mr. F. did not conceive those clauses of the 
 constitution, quoted by the gentleman from New 
 York, applicable to the present case. The per- 
 son in custody is charged with a contempt, pun- 
 ished summarily in all cases not for an offence 
 indictable and punishable by the ordinary course 
 of judicial proceedings. Every gentleman, whe- 
 ther of the profession of the law or not, will 
 know the distinction, and that these clauses of 
 the constitution were framed without any view 
 to the exercise of this power to punish con- 
 tempts, and without any intention to prevent its 
 exercise. 
 
 But we are told, that this miserable man is 
 called here to answer to some unknown law. 
 He was somewhat at loss to understand the force 
 of the remark ; if it was meant to convey the 
 idea, that there is no law of Congress defining 
 the bribery of a member of Congress as a crime, 
 and affixing an appropriate punishment, it was 
 true. But if it meant, what it can only mean, if 
 used with an application to this case, that we 
 propose to make an action, in itself innocent, 
 criminal, and punishable, Mr. T. said, he must 
 express his astonishment at the declaration. 
 Ignorant indeed must be that man, who does not 
 know that this action was not criminal in the 
 highest degree. Every man carries in his own 
 bosom a faithful monitor, instructing him how 
 enormous is such an offence. He has committed 
 an offence against a law known to him and to 
 all mankind, for which, Mr. F. trusted, he would 
 be punished as far as the power of the House 
 would permit.
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 93 
 
 JANUARY, 1818.] 
 
 Case of John Anderson. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 Mr. F. said, the gentleman from New York 
 acknowledged the force of percedents in judicial 
 proceedings ; there they are highly useful land- 
 marks, not to he departed from without danger ; 
 hut in legislative proceedings they are danger- 
 ous things. Mr. F. could not perceive the pro- 
 priety of the distinction. A precedent in one 
 place is omnipotent; in another a succession of 
 precedents are to bo disregarded. The judg- 
 ments pronounced in similar cases, by the House 
 of Representatives, were assailed, on the ground 
 that they were established under the influence 
 of passion. The gentleman, Mr. F. apprehended, 
 had not examined the history of the cases to 
 which he referred ; he would find that they 
 were established on due deliberation. If he would 
 compare the conduct of this House, and that of 
 the House of Representatives in '96, in the case 
 of Randall and Whitney, he would find that suf- 
 ficient cooling time had been furnished the House 
 of Representatives before the commission of the 
 fact. This House, yesterday, under the influ- 
 ence of violent indignation, adopted unanimously 
 the proposition to arrest the offender. To-day 
 we are cool enough to examine with critical ac- 
 curacy and scrutinizing care, into the extent of 
 our constitutional authority to protect ourselves 
 from the approaches of corruption, or the as- 
 saults of violence, while in the performance of 
 our public duties. In the case of Randall, the 
 offender was brought day after day before the 
 House ; he had counsel who defended his cause, 
 and urged all the suggestions in his favor which 
 his case would justify. He was, by a majority of 
 four to one, deliberately condemned and delib- 
 erately punished, by a confinement of three 
 weeks, for the contempt he had committed. 
 
 Mr. BAEBOUB, of Virginia, said, that he was 
 induced to ask the indulgence of the House 
 whilst he submitted his view of this subject, not 
 only because there was a great constitutional 
 question involved, but because he had acquies- 
 ced in the issue of the warrant, upon which he 
 was now decidedly of opinion that the House 
 ought no further to proceed. 
 
 We are called upon, said he, to decide this 
 question : whether the House of Representatives 
 have the power to punish the person at its bar, 
 for an attempt to bribe the chairman of one of 
 its committees. After the most mature delibera- 
 tion which he had been able to bestow upon the 
 subject, he said he was satisfied that the House 
 had not that power ; that he would endeavor to 
 state, as succinctly as he could, the reasons upon 
 which that opinion was founded. 
 
 The attempt imputed to the person at the bar 
 of the House, and about which there was no 
 doubt, in point of fact, seemed to him to present 
 itself in these two points of view : First, as a 
 crime, to be punished because of its own enor- 
 mity ; secondly, as a breach of the privileges of 
 a member of this House. As to the first propo- 
 sition there could be but one opinion. The act 
 complained of is one of the most abhorrent kind ; 
 but the word crime, ex vi termini, imported a 
 violation of some law, either in the omission of 
 
 some act enjoined by it, or in the commission of 
 some act forbidden by it. That law must have 
 been enacted by the legislative power that is, 
 by the consent of the two Houses of Congress. 
 Now, as it was conceded on all hands that no 
 such law had passed, as it was clear that no such 
 law could now pass, so as by an ex post facto 
 operation to relate back, and embrace this case ; 
 as, too, the execution of a law, by the infliction 
 of punishment, belonged to judicial cognizance, 
 the conclusion followed, too clearly to require 
 further comment, that the act committed, or at- 
 tempted to be committed, could not be punish- 
 ed by this House as a crime within itself. He 
 spoke not here of the common law, which pun- 
 ishes crimes against the laws of morality that 
 law did not exist in relation to the United 
 States ; and if it did, this was not the tribunal 
 to enforce it. "We come now, said Mr. B., to 
 the great question in this case, it is this : Was 
 the attempt complained of a breach of the priv- 
 ileges of a member of this House? He said he 
 would attempt to show that it was not. 
 
 If, indeed, this question was to be decided 
 by the Lex Parliamentaria of Great Britain, 
 he would not undertake to say what might be 
 the decision ; but, said he, we have a much bet- 
 ter and surer guide we have the Constitution 
 of the United States to point out the course 
 which we ought to pursue. It was that instru- 
 ment, he said, which called into existence every 
 department of the Federal Government, and 
 which created this House as a branch of one of 
 those departments ; it was that which marked 
 out the powers of the Legislature as a whole, 
 and the powers of this House as a constituent 
 part, as well as the privileges of its members. 
 
 By reference to the constitution, it would be 
 found that the matter of privilege was not left 
 to construction. The framers of that instrument 
 were deeply versed in the nature and history 
 of Parliamentary privileges. They knew that, 
 though they were undefined, because they had 
 been said to be undefinable, they were marked 
 with one strong characteristic feature that 
 they had perpetually advanced, that they had 
 never retrograded. They, therefore, in the sixth 
 section of the first article of the constitution, 
 had accurately defined the privileges of mem- 
 bers ; they made them to consist, first, in a 
 qualified exemption "from arrest during their 
 attendance at the session of their respective 
 Houses, and in going to, and returning from, 
 the same ; " and, secondly, " that for any speech 
 or debate in either House, they shall not be 
 questioned in any other place." Here, then, 
 
 He thought that, according to this universal 
 principle of construction, that the mention of 
 one thing was the exclusion of another, it was 
 obvious that the constitution had intended to 
 restrain privilege, and tie it down to the par- 
 ticular cases stated in the section which he had 
 just cited. But to put this subject in a point 
 of view, if possible, still stronger, he begged 
 leave to refer the House to the third section of
 
 04 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 Case of John Anderson. 
 
 [JANUARY, 1818. 
 
 Jefferson's Manual, in which will be found an 
 enumeration of the privileges claimed by the 
 British Parliament. That enumeration em- 
 braced, besides many others, the two cases 
 mentioned in the constitution. Hence it must 
 be most obvious, that the constitution did not 
 intend to adopt the Parliamentary law upon 
 the subject of privilege ; because, as that cov- 
 ered a much larger ground, if it had been in- 
 tended to have given the whole, it is difficult, 
 if not impossible, to assign a reason why it 
 should have been thought necessary, by special 
 enumeration, to have given a part. 
 
 There was no man in the House, he said, who 
 could hold the attempt which had been made 
 in greater abhorrence than himself; but whilst 
 he considered it a daring attempt at wickedness, 
 an outrageous insult to the feelings of the mem- 
 ber, and as calculated to excite the detestation 
 of all good men, yet it was not, as he thought 
 he had proven, a breach of privilege. If it 
 were not, then there could be no principle on 
 which the House could pretend to take cogni- 
 zance of it. There were many insults which 
 might be offered to the members of this House, 
 for which they had no remedy but those which 
 were open to every other citizen. And, indeed, 
 he referred the House to the same section of 
 the parliamentary manual, to which he had 
 before called their attention, to show, that, in 
 a case of acknowledged breach of privilege, as, 
 for example, the arrest of a member, the effect 
 of such unauthorized ai'rest is, that the member 
 is entitled to be discharged, and the persons 
 concerned in the arrest, are liable to action or 
 indictment for their injurious violation of the 
 member's privilege ; but he did not believe that 
 even in that case, the House could inflict any 
 punishment on the persons concerned for a con- 
 tempt itself. But gentlemen had taken another 
 ground in debating this subject ; they had said 
 that the mere creation of a legislative body, 
 ipso facto, imparted to that body certain rights, 
 and, amongst others, the right of self-defence ; 
 that as they had the power, so it was their duty 
 to keep themselves pure ; and for that purpose, 
 to punish any attempt upon the integrity of its 
 members. This reasoning, said Mr. B., is too 
 broad. Congress is the creature of the consti- 
 tution ; it has, therefore, as he had observed in 
 a former part of his argument, just those pow- 
 ers, and those only, which the constitution had 
 given it ; and whatever powers are not given, 
 we must be content to think were not thought 
 necessary. To Congress, composed of the two 
 Houses, it had given the legislative power 
 which it granted. But this was clearly no act 
 of legislation ; first, because it was a proceeding 
 proposed to be carried on by one branch of 
 Congress; and, secondly, because it did not 
 propose to provide a punishment for future 
 cases, but to inflict it upon one which had al- 
 ready occurred. But, besides the legislative 
 power granted to Congress, as composed of the 
 two Houses, there were certain powers granted 
 to each of the Houses respectively. Let us 
 
 then see what are given to the House of Rep- 
 resentatives. They are all to be found in the 
 second and fifth sections of the first article. 
 He said there was no power given the House 
 affirmatively to inflict punishment upon persons 
 not members for any offence either against the 
 House or its members. Was it to be inferred from 
 the powers which were given? So far from 
 it, he said, that he thought the inference dedu- 
 cible from the nature of the powers given al- 
 most irresistible, that such power was not in- 
 tended. The great argument had been that the 
 creation of the Legislature imparted to it certain 
 inherent powers as a part of its nature and exist- 
 ence. Now, sir, said he, let me ask, what power 
 could be more inherent, in a legislative body, than 
 that of appointing their own Speaker ? And 
 yet this power is expressly given. What could 
 t>e more inherent than the power to determine 
 their own rules of proceeding ? And yet this 
 was expressly given. What could be more in- 
 herent than the right of punishing one of its 
 own members for disorderly behavior ? And 
 yet this was expressly given. He asked whether 
 the giving powers like these, which, if there be 
 any such thing as inherent powers, would have 
 been so considered, did not incontestable' prove 
 that the constitution meant not to leave this 
 subject to doubtful construction, but, on the 
 contrary, to give to the whole of the legislative 
 body which it created, as well as to its several 
 parts, the laws of its and their existence, and 
 to impart to them, by grant, the powers neces- 
 sary to the performance of their several func- 
 tiona Sir, the framers of the constitution 
 meant to guard as carefully against the latitn- 
 dinous construction which might be given to 
 indefinite powers, as they did against indefinite 
 privileges ; they therefore determined to bring 
 down both power and privilege to a constitu- 
 tional standard, so that they might be easily 
 measured. It would have been a vain thing to 
 have circumscribed Congress in its legislative 
 power, if the two Houses which compose it had 
 been left, like the British Parliament, to range 
 at large, in the wide field of inherent powers, 
 and indefinite privileges. If, said Mr. B., the 
 House had power to take cognizance of this 
 case, and to punish it, where would they stop ? 
 This insult or this attempt upon one of the 
 members was committed, not in this House, but 
 in the District of Columbia. Suppose it had 
 been committed in an extreme part of the 
 United States, would our jurisdiction have 
 reached the offender there, and should our 
 Sergeant-at-Arms have been sent to arrest him ? 
 The consequences to which this doctrine would 
 lead, seemed to him to show that it could not 
 be sustained. Nor, said he, is there so much 
 danger to be apprehended from the contrary 
 doctrine, as gentlemen seem to suppose ; he 
 thanked God the attempts which had been 
 made were but few, and in each instance had 
 failed ; if they should hereafter be repeated, he 
 hoped and believed there was a long, very 
 long, tract of future time between us and that
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 95 
 
 JAXTART, 1818.] 
 
 Case of John Anderson. 
 
 [H. OP R. 
 
 period when they should prevail; if any at- 
 tempt of this kind fail, the man who makes it 
 is foiled in his wicked effort, and covered with 
 disgrace ; if unhappily it should ever succeed, 
 we have a constitutional remedy at hand : by 
 expulsion, we may drive from us the unworthy 
 member, and, having cut off the gangrenous 
 limb, the rest of the political body will be re- 
 stored to health. True, sir, the expulsion of a 
 member requires the concurrence of two-thirds ; 
 but does any gentleman doubt for a moment, 
 but that if the acceptance of a bribe were 
 proven, two-thirds, aye, three-thirds, would in- 
 stantly unite in a vote for the expulsion of him 
 who should have accepted? 
 
 Mr. TrcKER, of Virginia, said there was one 
 thing, at least, in which he would most heartily 
 concur with the gentleman from New York, 
 who had offered these resolutions to the House ; 
 that, the exercise of the power of committing 
 for a contempt of this body, was of so embar- 
 rassing a character ; and was, in some respects, 
 so little consonant with the general principles 
 to which we yield our assent, that it was desira- 
 ble another mode should be adopted of punish- 
 ing offences of so deep a dye, without bringing 
 the offender for his trial and punishment before 
 the body whose privileges had been infringed, 
 and whose dignity had been insulted. It was 
 for this reason, that, on a former day, he had 
 intimated an intention of submitting to the con- 
 sideration of the House a resolution similar to 
 one of those now under consideration, directing 
 a bill to be reported for the punishment of the 
 offence of bribing, or attempting to corrupt a 
 member of Congress. It was for this reason 
 also, that, however heinous the offence of the 
 party whose case was now before the House, 
 he was, on the present occasion, disposed to 
 manifest towards him the greatest moderation 
 and forbearance. He was so averse to the ex- 
 ercise of a power to punish, where the offence 
 and the punishment are so undefined, and where 
 the tribunal which judges cannot fail to be ani- 
 mated with indignation against the offender, 
 that he was inclined, on the present occasion, 
 to dismiss the party, after the offence had been 
 inquired into, without farther punishment than 
 the reprimand of the Speaker ; and to provide 
 for any future case by the enaction of a law 
 imposing penalties adequate to the offence. 
 
 But, while he was disposed to this course, he 
 could not assent to the proposition of the gen- 
 tleman from New York, which disavows any 
 authority in this House to punish the offence, 
 as a contempt. It appeared to him essential 
 that this power should exist in the House of 
 Representatives, though it might be wise in 
 them to relieve themselves for the future from 
 the embarrassment of exercising the privilege 
 themselves, by providing for its punishment by 
 law. While he could not doubt of the consti- 
 tutional powers of the House on this occasion, 
 he would ask gentlemen what would be our 
 situation, if we were without such powers? 
 What would be the effect of promulgating to 
 
 the world that the House of Representatives 
 was, at all times, to be approached with im- 
 punity by the vilest corruption ? That bribes 
 might be offered, without hazard, by the most 
 infamous of mankind, and that the constitution 
 had left this body without the means of pre- 
 serving pure the fountains of legislation, and 
 of protecting itself from so vile a contamination ! 
 He should hesitate much before he should adopt 
 a proposition which might lead to such dan- 
 gerous results; and he should be diligent in ex- 
 amining the principles of the constitution before 
 he could give his assent to a doctrine which 
 would sap the purity of this body, for the pres- 
 ervation of which that constitution was so so- 
 licitous. 
 
 Nor was he disposed to coincide in the opin- 
 ion of the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. BAE- 
 BOTJE,) that, as it is at least doubtful whether 
 we possess the power asserted, we should de- 
 cline the exercise of it. He was not satisfied 
 that there was a reasonable doubt of our pow- 
 ers. Ingenuity may throw obscurity and dif- 
 ficulty around every proposition. Nor did he 
 perceive what part of the constitution prescrib- 
 ed to us as a rule, to reject the exercise of every 
 power where doubt could be thrown around it. 
 On the contrary, in taking the solemn oath to 
 support the constitution, to which another gen- 
 tleman had so emphatically alluded, he felt him- 
 self equally bound to preserve to the Federal 
 Government, and to this body, their just pow- 
 ers, as to guard against encroachment on the 
 rights of the State, or an extension of the pow- 
 ers of the Union. It was equally the duty of 
 every member of this body to prevent the most 
 vigorous and useful branches from being lopped 
 off, as to array himself in opposition to every 
 assertion of unconstitutional powers. Upon all 
 occasions of this kind, however doubtful and 
 embarrassed might be the question, it was the 
 solemn duty of every member to examine it ac- 
 cording to the best lights which Heaven has 
 given him, and to pronounce fearlessly the re- 
 sult. It was this course he should endeavor to 
 pursue in presenting a very few remarks on tho 
 constitutional powers of this House. 
 
 There were, he observed, two kinds of pow- 
 ers granted by this constitution: enumerated 
 powers, and incidental or accessory powers; 
 the first expressly specified in the constitution, 
 the latter falling under the general grant of all 
 " necessary and proper powers ; " which ter- 
 minates the enumeration of the powers con- 
 ferred on the General Government. The latter, 
 indeed, would have existed independent of that 
 clause, since, according to the principles of com- 
 mon reason, when a power is given to do an 
 act, a power of employing the means necessary 
 to its execution is also given, by implication. 
 
 While, therefore, it is readily admitted, in re- 
 lation to these two classes of powers, that the 
 power now asserted is not expressly given, it is 
 confidently alleged to be fairly incidental to th 
 power of legislation ; and it will be contended 
 That the power to punish bribery of a mem
 
 96 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R] 
 
 Case of John Anderson. 
 
 [JANUARY, 1818. 
 
 ber of this House, is vested somewhere in the 
 Federal Government ; and, that this power of 
 punishing belongs to the House of Representa- 
 tives, independent of the other branches of 
 Government. 
 
 That a legislative body should exist without 
 any power to punish the offence of bribing its 
 members, is a proposition -which seems too mon- 
 strous to be alleged. Hence it is that gentlemen 
 seem disposed to acknowledge a power in the 
 Legislature to pass a law which shall prescribe a 
 punishment for the offence, though they deny 
 the power of this House to proceed to consider 
 and treat it as a contempt. And where, let me 
 ask, can gentlemen who are so technically accu- 
 rate in the construction of the constitution, dis- 
 cover that clause of the instrument which ex- 
 pressly grants the power to enact such a law ? 
 There is none. The boundaries of the consti- 
 tution cannot be laid down with mathematical 
 precision, by the square and compass. They 
 must be ascertained by the principles of sound 
 reason and common sense, and by the exercise of 
 a just discretion. While, therefore, we cannot 
 discover the power even to legislate on this sub- 
 ject, in the express provision of the instrument, 
 it is doubtless fairly incidental to the power of 
 legislation. It is inconceivable that the conven- 
 tion which framed the constitution should have 
 intended the creation of a legislative body, which 
 should be without the power of self-protection ; 
 without the right to assume to itself freedom 
 from disturbance ; without the means of secur- 
 ing order in its deliberations ; and without the 
 privilege of preserving itself entirely free from 
 the influence of fear, or the corruptions of gold. 
 Some of these incidents to legislation, gentlemen 
 have been compelled to admit. In what a situa- 
 tion should we be, if our deliberations were to 
 be affected by the hisses or the applause of the 
 gallery; if an obnoxious member were to be 
 put down by the threats or tumult of the audi- 
 ence, and a favorite speaker cheered on a favor- 
 ite subject by shouts of approbation ? Can gen- 
 tlemen deny that we have power to prevent 
 these things? The gentleman from Virginia 
 appears to confine us, even under these circum- 
 stances, to the remedy of excluding those who 
 are riotous. Within the walls alone have we 
 power to act, and then only power to exclude 
 not to punish. Suppose, then, the rioter re- 
 turns, or betakes .himself to the street, and 
 throws stones at your windows. He is without 
 your doors. Have you no power over him? 
 Have you not accessarily even those powers 
 which every court of justice possesses, without 
 the express provisions of law ? If you have not, 
 the situation of this body is deplorable indeed. 
 If you have, where will you draw the line of 
 distinction ? What is more important, even in 
 the order and decorum of the House, than the 
 preserving the mind of every member free from 
 the suggestions of fear the seductions of profit 
 the grovelling desire of gain the influence of 
 corruption ? What shall we say if an attempt 
 be made to control, by threats or by a challenge, 
 
 the free and deliberate exercise of his judgment, 
 by the representative of the people ? Though 
 the challenge be given without the walls, is not 
 its effect to be felt within ; and is it not this (and 
 not the place where the act is done) which must 
 be considered as determining the powers of Con- 
 gress? The principle on which it can interfere 
 in any case, is the right to prevent its delibera- 
 tions from being disturbed ; and whether this 
 disturbance be produced by an act in the gallery, 
 in the street, in the highway, or in the closet, 
 the body must equally have the power to secure 
 to itself the exercise of free will in the discharge 
 of its legislative functions. And if these prin- 
 ciples be correct if they justify a right to pun- 
 ish occasional disorder, how much more im- 
 portant the privilege of preventing the inroads 
 of corruption, at the same time so insidious and 
 so fatal ? 
 
 Mr. MEBCEE rose immediately after Mr. 
 TUCKER, and addressed the House in substance 
 as follows : 
 
 The resolutions on your table, Mr. Speaker, 
 involve the decision of three distinct proposi- 
 tions. Has this House the power to punish 
 contempt ? Is the act charged upon the pris- 
 oner a contempt ? Have the proceedings of the 
 House been such as to warrant his further 
 prosecution ? 
 
 Does this house derive from the constitution 
 the power of punishing a contempt ? My hon- 
 orable colleague, who just preceded me, in a 
 spirit of accommodation, I have no doubt, has 
 proposed to introduce a bill to punish by law an 
 attempt to bribe a member of Congress. If the 
 power of punishing such an act is comprehended 
 among the privileges of this House, the wisdom 
 of any such law may well be questioned. Were 
 the contemplated law restricted to a description 
 of that particular species of contempt to which 
 our consideration is now turned, it would not 
 lead to the inference that this House recognized 
 no other. And if, to obviate this difficulty, a 
 complete enumeration were attempted of every 
 possible insult to the privileges, rights, and dig- 
 nity of this House, the proposed law would be 
 swelled to the size of the largest volume on 
 your table. It may also be doubted whether a 
 right which this House does not derive from 
 the constitution can be created or protected by 
 an act of ordinary legislation. Those gentle- 
 men who are desirous for a law to define the 
 privileges of this House, and to provide for pun- 
 ishing the contempt of them, admit their exist- 
 ence, as well as the power of this House to 
 punish their violation, by the mode of reasoning 
 which they have adopted. 
 
 Before I inquire into the origin of this power, 
 me to disavow every feeling which could 
 
 allow 
 
 militate against the most deliberate and impar- 
 tial exercise of my judgment. I cannot but de- 
 plore the unhappy situation of the prisoner, 
 whose head is bleached by the snows of many 
 winters, and who, if really guilty of the atro- 
 cious act imputed to him, is an object of sti-D 
 greater commiseration, as his turpitude is
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 97 
 
 JANUARY, 1818.] 
 
 Case of John Anderson. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 without the extenuation of youth or inexperi- 
 ence. 
 
 Sir, said Mr. M., I never beheld a criminal ar- 
 raigned at the bar of justice without this feel- 
 ing, nor have I found it difficult to obey the le- 
 gal injunction to believe the innocence of the 
 accused until he has been heard in his defence 
 and judicially convicted. This maxim of Chris- 
 tian charity it comprehended in that admirable 
 system of practical wisdom which has been re- 
 p'eatedly referred to in this discussion ; a sys- 
 tem matured by the experience of ages, adopt- 
 ed by the universal assent of the people of the 
 United States, and denominated the common 
 law. 
 
 It is to this system that I resort for the au- 
 thority of this House to punish a contempt ; to 
 define the act to be punished ; to determine the 
 mode of proceeding against the accused ; and, 
 if guilty, to ascertain the quality, and measure 
 the extent of his punishment. 
 
 And I do so, not because the common law 
 confers these powers on this House, but because 
 it defines that written constitution from which 
 we derive them. 
 
 Sir, there is not an entire article, not a soli- 
 tary section, scarcely a line of that instrument, 
 which can be correctly understood or practi- 
 cally enforced, without a recurrence to this 
 law. 
 
 If you desire to know the import of an English 
 word, you turn to the lexicographer of England ; 
 for a phrase of statutory law you consult the 
 statute which contains it, and the precedents by 
 which it has been expounded. The terms of the 
 common law must be also defined by a recur- 
 rence to the law itself, comprised in the treatises 
 and illustrated by the history of the nation from 
 whom we derive it. 
 
 The constitution not only uses the terms and 
 phrases of this law, but expressly recognizes its 
 existence. The seventh article of the amend- 
 ments provides, that " in suits at common law, 
 when the value of the controversy shall exceed 
 twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall 
 be preserved : and no fact tried by a jury shall 
 be otherwise re-examined in any court of the 
 United States than according to the rules of the 
 common law ;" of that law which gentlemen 
 have asserted to have no existence under this 
 Government, and against which the honorable 
 member from New York would inspire us with 
 apprehension and alarm. 
 
 I appeal to my colleagues, if this constitution 
 had been formed contemporaneously with that 
 of Virginia, would not the same power to pun- 
 ish contempts attach to the House of Repre- 
 sentatives and Senate of the United States, as 
 unquestionably belongs to the corresponding 
 brandies oT the General Assembly, the House 
 of Delegates and Senate of Virginia? From 
 the form of the Speaker's chair to the power of 
 expelling a member, the character and author- 
 ity of the House of Delegates is derived, with- 
 out any express constitutional provision, from 
 the House of Commons, the archetype of the 
 VOL. VL 7 
 
 popular branch of every State Legislature, as it 
 is of this House. 
 
 The force of the argument which this analogy 
 furnishes, is not impaired by the consideration 
 that the Federal Constitution is of more recent 
 structure. It is the act of the people of the 
 United States, as itself proclaims; and, refer- 
 ring expressly to the common law, in one of its 
 articles, unintelligible throughout, except by 
 the aid of that law, we have a right to resort to 
 its maxims in the present inquiry. If this pow- 
 er is essential to the House of Commons, so it 
 must be presumed that the people of these States 
 regarded it to be, and so must we consider it in 
 relation to the two Houses of this Legislature. 
 
 It has been urged that many extravagant doc- 
 trines would arise from this source of construct- 
 ive authority. Where, it is asked, shall this 
 House stop in its use ? The Revolution of 1776 
 answers this question. It necessarily lopped off 
 the regal and aristocratical branches of this law. 
 This limitation of the common law relieves the 
 rule of construction, for which I contend, from 
 all that could alarm pur fears. It is founded, I 
 am inclined to believe, in judicial decisions 
 throughout the United States. By the unani- 
 mous judgment of the General Court, the highest 
 criminal tribunal of Virginia, the principle has 
 been extended so far as to authorize a defend- 
 ant, indicted for a libel at common law, to give 
 the truth in evidence. This House derives, 
 therefore, from the common law, no privileges 
 which it ought not to possess. 
 
 One of my colleagues has contended that all 
 the privileges of this House are expressly enu- 
 merated by the sixth section of the first article 
 of the constitution, and restricted to exemption 
 from arrest, in certain specified cases ; and from 
 responsibility elsewhere for any speech or de- 
 bate in the House. And hence, with great ap- 
 parent plausibility, he infers that the House pos- 
 sesses no other privilege, and has authority to 
 punish no other contempts, except such as are 
 committed in violation of these. I answer to this 
 argument, it has already been contended by the 
 honorable member who last addressed the House, 
 that this clause of the constitution may be justly 
 regarded as the result of that extreme caution 
 which induced the convention to insert hi it 
 what might otherwise have been inferred; a 
 caution which is discernible in other parts of 
 this instrument. To the illustration which he 
 has furnished, many others may be added ; as, 
 for example, the very first article of the amend- 
 ments. The greater part of these are designed 
 to serve the purpose of a bill of rights, for which 
 so many opponents of the constitution had most 
 zealously contended. It cannot be presumed 
 that if this amendment had not been made a 
 part of the constitution, Congress would have 
 prohibited the free exercise of religion, have 
 abridged the freedom of speech, or obstructed 
 the right of the people peaceably to assemble 
 and to petition for a redress of grievances. I 
 am, however, led involuntarily to another ex- 
 planation of the expediency of expressly incor-
 
 98 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 Case of John Anderson. 
 
 [JANUARY. 1818. 
 
 porating in the constitution the two privileges 
 to which my colleague has referred ; an expla- 
 nation, which is in strict harmony with all the 
 views that I have taken of the general power 
 of this House to punish contempts of its privi- 
 leges. Every other privilege of this House, ex- 
 cept those which are enumerated, will be found 
 to be consistent with the obvious and equal 
 rights of the people. The enumerated privi- 
 leges are limitations of those rights, and, but for 
 the express grant of them by the people, it 
 might have been doubted whether the charac- 
 ter of our republican institutions did not forbid 
 their exercise. In fine these enumerated priv- 
 ileges protect the members of this House, 
 against the common and dearest rights of the 
 citizen the rights of property and reputation. 
 The privileges for which I contend would pro- 
 tect the House from their injuries, from fraud, 
 violence, and injustice. 
 
 Mr. KOBBRTSON supported the resolutions. 
 
 Mr. EBVIN, of South Carolina, next rose, and 
 said, 
 
 I beg leave now, sir, to call your attention 
 to what I conceive to be the privileges of the 
 House, and the powers of the House to punish 
 for a breach of those privileges. The first great 
 power which it possesses is an inherent power of 
 self-defence, analogous to the fundamental nat- 
 ural right which every man possesses of defend- 
 ing himself. It is in both cases merely defen- 
 sive. The natural right results from man's 
 relative situation in this state of existence. The 
 duties which he owes to his God, his neighbor, 
 and himself, beget, rather let me say, impose on 
 him this power ; nay, the obligation of self- 
 defence is necessary to a complete discharge of 
 those great duties. In like manner, every ar- 
 ticle in your constitution which confides a trust 
 or imposes an obligation to perform for the 
 good of the people acts of legislation, creates 
 and gives this power to enable you to perform 
 those acts, and discharge, with due faith, the 
 high trust which has been confided to you ; and 
 as, in the exercise of the natural right, a man is 
 justified to make use of any force necessary to 
 repel a personal injury, so, likewise, in the ex- 
 ercise of your inherent power, this House is jus- 
 tified to prevent or remove any annoyance with- 
 in or without the walls of this House, which 
 would tend to disturb its deliberations, or pre- 
 vent it from the due performance of any of its 
 duties. But, sir, you would not in either case 
 be justified to make use of any force or restraint 
 by way of punishment ; for, in the case of the 
 natural right, the use of any force, other than 
 that which is necessary to overcome the offend- 
 ing force, would constitute an act of aggression. 
 So, the exercise of force by the House, in the 
 way of punishment, would not be justified by 
 the inherent power, it being merely defensive. 
 The exemption from arrest, and the privilege of 
 not being questioned in any other place for any 
 speech or debate in either House, constitute 
 more of your privileges; for, although they 
 tend to promote the immediate benefit of mem- 
 
 bers in their individual capacity, they are yet 
 the privileges of the House ; and the House can, 
 in both cases, punish any member who should 
 waive his privilege without their consent. 
 
 These, sir, are, in my estimation, the legiti- 
 mate and constitutional privileges of Congress ; 
 and yet, sir, for the want of legal provision, 
 they may with impunity be trampled on and 
 set at defiance, not only by the defendant at 
 your bar, but by any man in this great com- 
 munity. Is it correct, sir, to say that this in- 
 herent right extends beyond the limits which I 
 have assigned it? That, by virtue of our elec- 
 tion, we are politically amalgamated, and that 
 the reception of an insult on the shores of the 
 Atlantic would tremble along the sympathetic 
 line, and agonize your feelings beyond the 
 mountains? No, sir; I contend that out of 
 the boundaries of this District we have no pro- 
 tection, no privilege, except those granted by 
 the first article of the sixth section of the con- 
 stitution, other than the protection of other great 
 and good men that of virtue, and the privi- 
 lege of convicting falsehood with truth, and 
 confounding guilt by innocence. Mr. Speaker, 
 behold the delicacy of our situation ! A man 
 arraigned at your bar for a most atrocious in- 
 sult, and yet we have not the power to punish 
 him. Although armed with plenary sover- 
 eignty, and the exclusive powers of legislation 
 in all cases whatever in this District ; although 
 invested with authority to make all laws which 
 may be necessary and proper to carry into ex- 
 ecution all our powers, and to punish the breach 
 of any of our privileges, yet we suffer these 
 powers to slumber hi criminal repose. As we 
 pass along the streets, scorn may point the 
 finger of contempt at us, defamations may teem 
 from the press, arraigning the correctness of 
 our conduct, and impeaching the purity of our 
 intentions ; nay, impudence and insolence may 
 beard us at the very threshold of the great 
 council of the nation, and without the provi- 
 sions of law we cannot punish. Much has been 
 said, sir, about State Legislatures, the judges of 
 the United States, and State judges, possessing 
 the power of punishing for contempt. I can 
 speak with confidence in relation to this power 
 in the State which I have the honor of repre- 
 senting. There, the Legislature, the judges, and 
 even the justices of the peace, possess this pow- 
 er, not by arbitrary assumption, but by the pro- 
 visions of the constitution and the principles 
 of the common law, made of force in that State 
 by an act of the colonial government, and which 
 act is recognized and continued in force by a 
 provision in the constitution of that State. In 
 relation to the judges of the courts of the Unit- 
 ed States, we all know that they derive their 
 power from an act of Congress which recognizes 
 the principles of the common law. And I think, 
 upon inquiry, it will be ascertained that the 
 Legislatures and judges of the several States 
 possess this power by some provision in their 
 laws or constitutions. Numerous precedents 
 have been appealed to. I shall not suffer my
 
 DEBATES OF CONGKESS. 
 
 99 
 
 JANUARY, 1818.] 
 
 Case of John Anderson. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 mind, sir, to be governed, nay, influenced, by 
 any precedents which, in my judgment, sanc- 
 tion error. It is, moreover, contended that, 
 admitting there is no express provision in .the 
 constitution which gives, without the aid of le- 
 gislation, a power to punish in case of a breach 
 of privilege, yet that this House, on account of 
 the difficulty of annexing a punishment ade- 
 quate to every breach of privilege, does possess 
 a discretionary power ex necessitate rei. Mr. 
 Speaker, it is no compliment to say that I 
 would as lief trust this dangerous power in the 
 possession of this honorable body as in any 
 other known to our institutions ; for in every 
 case in which corruption has dared to approach 
 you with its impurity, or raise its detestable 
 glance to the elevation of your virtues, you have 
 uniformly repelled it with indignant contempt. 
 But, sir, I am unwilling to trust this power 
 with any man or body of men. The time may 
 come when our political virtue may have pass- 
 ed away; when corruption may have sapped 
 the foundation of our boasted institutions; 
 when the independence of this House may be 
 lost, and seen bowing, with sycophantic smiles, 
 at the shrine of Executive favor ; nay, sir, when 
 the very exertion of the physical force of the 
 people will but operate to their own destruc- 
 tion. It is on these accounts that I wish all our 
 proceedings may be sanctioned by law and con- 
 stitution. I feel a desire that gentlemen who 
 advocate this power would pause a moment, 
 and analyze its character. It is plenary sover- 
 eignty, armed with powers, legislative, judicial, 
 and executive. It is a power capable of passing 
 laws ex post facto ; of declaring that act crimi- 
 nal, ex re nata, which before was innocent. It 
 is a power unknown and undefined, which lies 
 dormant until, in a moment of angry feeling, it 
 proclaims its laws, which are carried into exe- 
 cution by infuriated justice. Odious tyranny I 
 Most frightful despotism ! More terrible than 
 the laws of Caligula, or the rescript of the Ro- 
 man Emperors. 
 
 SATURDAY, January 10. 
 John Anderson's Case. 
 The SPEAKEE laid before the House the follow- 
 ing letter and enclosure, yesterday received by 
 him from John Anderson : 
 
 JANUARY 9, 1818. 
 
 SIR : Unwilling to be deprived, by any circum- 
 stances whatever, of an opportunity to explain to the 
 honorable House of Representatives the motives which 
 have actuated my recent conduct, I beg leave to an- 
 nounce my wish to waive, with that object, any con- 
 stitutional or other question which may have arisen. 
 
 I enclose a letter which I had the honor this mom- 
 ing to prepare for the consideration of the House. 
 I am, sir, with profound respect, 
 
 JOHN ANDERSON. 
 Hon. HENRY CLAY, 
 
 Speaker of the House of Reps. 
 
 WASHINGTON, Jan. 9, 1818. 
 SIR : Considering the honorable body before whose 
 
 bar I am shortly to appear as the guardian of those 
 rights which, as a citizen, I possess, and relying 
 upon the generous feelings of its members, I have 
 been induced to forego the privilege extended to me 
 of employing counsel, lest it might be supposed that 
 I was inclined to shelter myself by legal exceptions. 
 As the novelty of my situation may, however, tend 
 to surround me with embarrassment, it is my wish, 
 should the rule of proceeding adopted by the House 
 not oppose the course, that such questions as I have 
 reduced to writing, be propounded to the respective 
 witnesses by the Clerk, and that he should read the 
 explanation and apology which I have to make. 
 
 JOHN ANDERSON. 
 
 Hon. HENRY CLAY, 
 
 Speaker of the House of Reps. 
 
 The letter having been read 
 
 Mr. FOESYTH rose to move that these resolu- 
 tions be laid on the table. "We owe it, said Mr. 
 F., to our own dignity, to the dignity of the mem- 
 bers of this House, that the investigation of 
 the offence of John Anderson should proceed. 
 The inquiry which has arisen into the extent of 
 the privileges and powers of the House may 
 be resumed afterwards, and decided. But let 
 us see, said he, what will be the consequence of 
 our proceeding in the present course, and being 
 diverted by this inquiry from the examination 
 of the accused. A person offers a bribe to a 
 member of this House, the House orders the 
 offender into custody the letter of the accused, 
 which is the foundation and the evidence of the 
 charge, refers to certain officers of the Govern- 
 ment, and members of this House, as prepared 
 to support the claims to which he alludes. In- 
 stead of calling this person before us, and seeing 
 how far we can substantiate the charge, the pro- 
 ceeding is stopped, by the resolutions before 
 us, and the protracted debate which follows. 
 May not this course, said Mr. F., put a strange 
 construction on the matter ? Malicious persons 
 may say, and there are many such, it is the 
 intention of the House to stifle a dangerous 
 inquiry, not to settle an important constitutional 
 question. To avoid any possibility of such an 
 imputation, let us, said Mr. F., suspend the con- 
 sideration of these resolutions, and proceed in 
 the examination of the accused. 
 
 Mr. PITKIN observed, that the object of the 
 resolutions was, to turn the accused over to the 
 Executive officers; if they pass, the United 
 States Attorney would be directed to prose- 
 cute him. But why not, before this, said Mr. 
 P., bring the accused before us, and hear his 
 explanation on the subject? An additional 
 reason for this course, Mr. P. thought, was the 
 request of the accused to come before the House. 
 After examining and hearing him, Mr. P. said, 
 the House could decide whether they ought to 
 pass the resolutions, and turn him over to an- 
 other tribunal. 
 
 Mr. SPENCER said, the remarks of Mr. PrrmN 
 applied only to the second resolution, and not 
 to the first ; and he hoped the motion would 
 not be agreed to. He did not, he said, possess 
 such a feeling of dignity as to do, or persevere 
 in any thing which he thought improper ; and
 
 100 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 Case of John Anderson. 
 
 [JANUARY, 1818. 
 
 in the conscientious discharge of his duty he 
 should never look beyond the walls of the House 
 for his motives. In this case, however, said he, 
 malice itself could not impeach the motives oJ 
 the House ; for a proposition to direct the offi- 
 cers of the United States to proceed against the 
 accused, could not, by any ingenuity, be con- 
 strued into a disposition to stifle the inquiry. 
 He therefore hoped the House would proceed 
 and determine the abstract principle, without 
 any reference to the merits of the case, and 
 without considering whether John Anderson 
 can make an acceptable apology or not. 
 
 Mr. HABRISON was in favor of laying the res- 
 olutions on the table, and proceeding immedi- 
 ately to the examination of the accused. It 
 was not to be supposed that, because he was one 
 of those referred to by John Anderson, as willing 
 to support his claims, that he felt the slightest 
 wish to avoid an examination of that individual. 
 Mr. H. said, so far from disclaiming a readiness 
 to support the claims of which Anderson is 
 the agent, he felt bound in the strongest manner 
 to aid them. Independently of a conviction 
 of their justice, Mr. H. said, those claims came 
 from a people and a Territory for which he 
 felt a peculiar interest. He was therefore un- 
 conscious of any appearance of impropriety in 
 being included among those whom the accused 
 named as disposed to aid in his suit before the 
 
 Mr. FOESTTH replied to Mr. SPENCER, that 
 all must know the extent of human malignity. 
 Every one acquainted with our political history 
 must, he said, be sensible how far the motives 
 and the conduct of this House may be question- 
 ed and misrepresented ; and he knew that the 
 ingenuity of malice was such that it could, 
 and probably would, impute false and impure 
 motives to the course which the House was pur- 
 suing ; and his object was, by going at once 
 into an investigation of the matter, to leave no 
 pretext whatever for a misconstruction of the 
 conduct of the House. The gentleman admit- 
 ted there was no law under which the person 
 accused could be indicted ; to refer him to the 
 Attorney-General or District Attorney then 
 was idle; we know no investigation can take 
 place. 
 
 Mr. HOPKINSON was unfriendly to the motion 
 to lay the resolutions on the table. After all, 
 it was a mere question of order in the proceed- 
 ing; but, he said, as the question had already 
 been discussed much at large, and as it must be 
 decided in the end, he thought it was better to 
 do so now, after having gone so far into it, than 
 afterwards to have all that has been done to go 
 over again. At any rate, Mr. H. hoped the 
 House would not abandon the question without 
 bringing it to a decision. A strong reason for 
 prosecuting the inquiry now before the House 
 was, Mr. H. said, that a majority of the gentle- 
 men who delivered their sentiments were on 
 one side ; and those on the other side, he said, 
 ought to have an opportunity of submitting 
 also their views of it He had no idea that 
 
 the House wished to shrink from an investiga- 
 tion of the latter, whatever appearance it might 
 have, or might be given to it. 
 
 Mr. POINDEXTEH said, that although he denied 
 the power of the House to punish the individual 
 who had been arrested under the warrant of 
 the Speaker, and whose case was under con- 
 sideration, he should vote to lay the resolutions 
 offered by Mr. SPEKOEE on the table. The let- 
 ter addressed by the accused to the Speaker, 
 which had- been read for the information of the 
 House, proposes, on his part, submission to the 
 authority of the House, with a view to explana- 
 tions and apologies, which he says he is prepared 
 to make. I am willing, said Mr. P., to afford 
 him this opportunity. If the House should bo 
 satisfied, after hearing the excuse which may bo 
 made by the accused, for his extraordinary con- 
 duct, or the apology which he may offer in 
 mitigation of the offence, we shall be enabled 
 to waive for the present a decision of the great 
 constitutional question which has been raised 
 on this occasion, and which is calculated to em- 
 barrass the proceedings, and occupy much of 
 the time of this body. "With a hope that this 
 might be the result of the proposed explanation, 
 and that suitable provision may be made by law 
 for similar cases, should they hereafter occur, 
 and thereby remove the embarrassment which 
 we experience in the case now under considera- 
 tion, Mr. P. said he should support the motion 
 to lay the resolutions on the table. 
 
 Mr. DESHA was in favor of laying the resolu- 
 tions on the table. John Anderson prayed to 
 be heard; and if we find, said Mr. D., that he 
 can exonerate himself from the offence, I wish 
 it to be done ; because this debate may continue 
 yet many days, all which time the accused must 
 remain in custody, if not heard before. After 
 his examination the discussion can be resumed, 
 and the question settled. 
 
 Mr. EICH inquired whether the accused had 
 expressed a wish to be heard at once. If so, Mr. 
 E. was willing to lay the resolutions <9ti the 
 table, and hear him ; but, if not, he was opposed 
 to the motion. 
 
 Mr. BEEOHEE remarked, that one reason with 
 him for not wishing to lay the resolutions on the 
 table was, that ho had no idea of receiving a 
 petition from a man who was held in custody. 
 Mr. B. was not disposed to hold the accused in 
 custody a moment longer than he had the right ; 
 but he was in favor of first trying if the House 
 possess that right or not. I am not willing, said 
 Mr. B., to get rid of this question by permitting 
 the party to come in here, and give evidence 
 igainst himself, or by allowing him to come 
 forward and admit our jurisdiction in the case. 
 
 Mr. PINDALL made a few remarks in coinci- 
 dence with those of Mr. POIXDEXTEB, of which 
 le expressed his approbation. 
 
 The motion to lay the resolutions on the table 
 was decided in the negative ayes about 30.
 
 DEBATES OF CONGKESS. 
 
 101 
 
 JANTJABY, 1818.] 
 
 Case of John Anderson. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 MONDAY, January 12. 
 Case of John Anderson. 
 
 The following resolutions moved by Mr. RHEA, 
 by way of amendment, being yet under consid- 
 eration : 
 
 " Resolved, That this House possesseth competent 
 power to punish for contempts of its authority. 
 
 " Therefore, Resolved, That the Sergeant-at-Arms 
 be directed to conduct John Anderson to the bar of 
 the House." 
 
 Mr. RHEA, with a view to put his amendment 
 in a shape more acceptable to gentlemen, modi- 
 fied his motion for amendment, so as to make 
 the first resolution read as follows : 
 
 " Resolved, That this House possess adequate power 
 to punish for contempts against it." 
 
 Mr. PITKIX assigned the reasons why he 
 wished to avoid placing on the Journal any 
 thing affirming the authority of the House on 
 the one hand, or denying it on the other : and, 
 to escape the alternative presented to the House 
 by the proposed resolution and amendment, he 
 moved to postpone indefinitely the consideration 
 of the main question and the amendment pro- 
 posed thereto. 
 
 After some questions to the Chair and expla- 
 nations therefrom, respecting the effect of such a 
 postponement, that effect was pronounced from 
 the Chair to be, to place the question in the 
 state in' which it was when the motion of Mr. 
 SPEXCEB was first made ; and, if this course was 
 pursued, that the House would be at full liberty 
 to take any course in respect to John Anderson, 
 which, in its opinion, was within the scope of 
 its constitutional powers. 
 
 Mr. RICH, of Vermont, said he hoped that 
 the motion of the gentleman from Connecticut 
 would not prevail ; for, after the very able and 
 long discussion which this subject had under- 
 gone, it was due to this House and the nation 
 that the sense of the House should be taken on 
 some proposition distinct from the case of John 
 Anderson, in order (if he might be allowed the 
 expression) that the law may be settled in rela- 
 tion to the principle, so far as it could be done, 
 by a solemn decision of the House. "With a 
 view to that object, said he, it was my intention, 
 could I have obtained the floor, to have moved 
 an amendment to the amendment offered yes- 
 terday by the gentleman from Tennessee. I 
 therefore hope the motion for a postponement 
 will be rejected, that I may still have an oppor- 
 tunity to submit an amendment, having for its 
 object a disavowal of the right to try and punish 
 for offences, and a declaration that the House 
 will abstain from no measures which may be 
 necessary to preserve its deliberations free from 
 interruption, and its members and officers from 
 insult or injury. In order, then, that the House 
 may be informed of the amendment I propose 
 to offer, should an opportunity be afforded me, 
 I will read in my place the one I had prepared. 
 
 [Here Mr. R. read the proposed amendment, 
 and concluded by saying] 
 
 I hope, sir, the subject will not be passed by 
 
 without a distinct decision of the House upon 
 the principle, aside from all considerations of 
 the guilt or innocence of John Anderson. 
 
 After explai'atpry.remarks frpm various mem- 
 bers, among ^.saa'Wsr'e Messrs: BHEA, TAIX- 
 
 postponement 117 ; against it, 42. 
 
 The propositions before the House were in- 
 definitely postponed. 
 
 Whereupon, Mr. TAIXMADGE offered the fol- 
 lowing resolution for consideration : 
 
 " Resolved, That John Anderson be forthwith 
 brought to the bar of this House." 
 
 The question was then taken on the motion 
 that " John Anderson be forthwith brought to 
 the bar of tnis House," and decided in the af- 
 firmative, by yeas and nays 118 to 45. 
 
 Whereupon the Sergeant-at-Arms brought the 
 prisoner to the bar, and the SPEAKER propounded 
 to him the following interrogatories, to which he 
 made the replies thereto : 
 
 1. Do you acknowledge yourself to be John Ander- 
 son? Answer. Yes. 
 
 2. Did you write and deliver to Lewis Williams, a 
 member of this House, the letter of which a copy has 
 been furnished to you by the Clerk ? Ans. I did. 
 
 3. From what part of the city did you write the 
 letter? Ans. I wrote it at Mr. Bestor's, where I 
 board. 
 
 4. What is the amount of your own claims, which 
 you are attempting to liquidate ? Ans. About $9,000. 
 
 5. What is the amount of others which you are so- 
 liciting? Ans. About $21,000. 
 
 6. Have you any interest in the latter? Ans. 
 None of a pecuniary kind, but am influenced in their 
 pursuit by motives of charity. 
 
 7. Had you any authority from the persons yon 
 represent to make the offer contained in your letter ? 
 Ans. I have a general power-of-attorney to do for 
 them as I would do for myself, but had no instruc- 
 tions to make that or any other offer. 
 
 8. Are you acquainted with any persons now in the 
 city soliciting the claims of others? If so, name 
 them. Ans. I am. There is a Mr. Pomeroy, who la 
 soliciting his own claim, and CoL Watson, who is a 
 general agent. 
 
 9. Have you made any other offer to any person ? 
 Ans. No. 
 
 10. Did you consult or advise with any person be- 
 fore you wrote and delivered the letter. Ans. I did 
 not. 
 
 11. Who is the Mr. Halbard you mention in the 
 letter ? Ans. He is a gentleman I became partially 
 acquainted with during the troubles at the River Rai- 
 sin. I have not seen him since that time till I arrived 
 
 n this city at the commencement of the session of 
 Congress, and did not recognize him until he made 
 himself known to me. 
 
 12. Has he any claim to solicit ? Ans. None to 
 my knowledge. 
 
 13. Have you any witnesses to examine, or defence 
 to make, in justification or explanation of your con- 
 duct ? If you have, the House is now ready to hear 
 you. 
 
 The prisoner at the bar then called upon his 
 witnesses, viz: Gen. Harrison, Col. Johnson,
 
 102 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.j 
 
 Case of John Anderson. 
 
 [JANUARY, 1818. 
 
 members of the House ; Mr. R. J. Meigs, Post- 
 master General; Oapt. Gray, Mr. Cyrus Hal- 
 bard, Capt. Larrabee, Col. Joseph Watson, Mr. 
 John H. Piatt, Capt. S. D. Eichardson, Mr. 
 Pomeroy, XfenuComvar ; : who,.ali being pre- 
 viously swoi'nj delivered in their -testimony. 
 
 The testimony, was .uniform, as far as the 
 knowle4e-o;f the; -witnesses extenjied, jn giving 
 the accused a high character 'for probity, correct 
 deportment, and patriotic conduct. It is too 
 diffuse for publication. 
 
 SATUBDAY, January 17. 
 John Anderson's Case. 
 
 John Anderson was then remanded to the 
 bar of the House, and proceeded in the further 
 examination of his witnesses. 
 
 General P. B. Porter, William O'Neale, and 
 W. P. Bathbone, were then examined as wit- 
 nesses in behalf of the accused, whose testimony 
 was to the same effect as that given yesterday. 
 
 Mr. WILLIAMS, of North Carolina, was then 
 called upon by the accused, who put to him 
 this question : 
 
 Question. Did I ever directly or indirectly, by any 
 verbal communication, offer you any reward or in- 
 ducement, to influence your good opinion in favor of 
 my claim, or of any other claims ? 
 
 Answer. You never made me any verbal offer of 
 the kind. 
 
 John Anderson. That is all I wished the House to 
 know from your testimony. 
 
 Mr. Williams. I presume, if you had made me 
 any such offer, the House would have known it, with- 
 out your asking it. 
 
 On further questions by the SPEAKER to 
 John Anderson, it appears that the accused is a 
 native of Scotland, came to this country at 
 three years old, and is a naturalized citizen. 
 
 The SPEAKER then said, he had been instruct- 
 ed to propound to the prisoner the following 
 interrogatory, to which John Anderson made 
 the reply subjoined : 
 
 Question. In writing the letter to Lewis Williams, 
 a member of this House from North Carolina, in 
 which you offer to him the sum of five hundred dol- 
 lars, for services to be performed by him in relation 
 to claims for losses sustained during the late war, 
 had yon or had you not any intention to induce him 
 to support your claims against his own convictions of 
 their justice, or to interfere with the discharge of 
 his legislative duties, or to offer any contempt or in- 
 dignity to the House of Representatives ? 
 
 Answer. No, sir I call God to witness to that, 
 which is the most sacred appeal I can make. I re- 
 peatedly assured Mm, that the offer was made with- 
 out any wish to influence his opinion in any degree. 
 
 The accused was then questioned whether he 
 had other witnesses to examine ; he replied in 
 the negative. The SPEAKER then called upon 
 him for the defence which he had intimated it 
 was his intention to offer. 
 
 The prisoner, then addressing the Chair, with 
 much earnestness, in a brief manner, stated the 
 same palliations of the offence with which he 
 stood charged, as are explained more at large 
 
 in the following address, which he concluded 
 by delivering to the Clerk, by whom it was read : 
 
 " Arraigned at the bar of the highest tribunal of 
 the nation, for an alleged infringement of its privi- 
 leges, an attack upon its dignity, and the honorable 
 feelings of one of its members, to express the sincere 
 regret I experience, and to apologize for the error I 
 have committed, ought not to suffice. To that body 
 and to myself, I owe an explanation of the motives 
 which governed my conduct. That I have been 
 found in the ranks of our country's defenders, is 
 known to many ; and that I have sustained a charac- 
 ter unblemished by any act which should crimson 
 my withered cheeks, has been amply proven to you, 
 by men, whose good opinions are the greatest boon 
 of merit. The commencement of the late war found 
 me environed by all the comforts of life ; blessed 
 with a sufficiency of property to enable me to wipe 
 from the face of distress the falling tear, and to flatter 
 myself that want was not to salute me before the 
 return of peace. The fallacy of my hopes has been 
 too clearly demonstrated, by the ravages of the war 
 on the borders of Raisin, (my residence,) and the 
 destruction of all the property which my industry 
 had amassed. After having seen the streets of 
 Frenchtown overgrown with grass ; sighed unavail- 
 ingly over the ashes of my own and my neighbors' 
 houses, and witnessed their necessities ; reduced to 
 sustain life by means of wild animals, (muskrats,) 
 whose very smell is repulsive to the stomach ; I 
 gladly hailed the beneficence of my Government in 
 the enactment of the law, usually called the property 
 act, and, in the month of January, 1817, I took 
 leave of my friends and fellow-sufferers, and repaired 
 to this city to manage their claims ; on my arrival, 
 I found that the act under which they expected re- 
 lief had been suspended, and I was forced to return 
 with this unwelcome information ; tears of disap- 
 pointment suffused the countenances of every one 
 my heart sympathized with theirs, and I then deter- 
 mined to prosecute their claims to a result. With 
 this view, I had been in this city more than a month ; 
 over-anxious to accomplish my object, exalted witt 
 the success which had attended some of the claims, 
 and convinced that the Committee of Claims was 
 overwhelmed with business, my inexperience in re- 
 ference to legislative proceedings induced me to sup- 
 pose that, to insure despatch, I might without im- 
 propriety approach the chairman of the committee 
 with a proposal to compensate him for extra trouble. 
 That I have erred, grossly erred, I am convinced, 
 and my only consolation is, that error is no crime, 
 when it is of the head, not of the heart. Had I 
 acted with less precipitation, and consulted the views 
 of others, I should not at this time find myself in 
 the disagreeable dilemma that I am. I should have 
 acted more consistent with myself. Whatever sem- 
 blance my request of secrecy may assume, I can 
 with truth aver that its basis in my mind was a desire 
 that those for whom I act should have to acknowl- 
 edge their increased gratitude for the promptitude 
 with which their claims should have been acted upon. 
 
 It cannot be denied, that, after being assured that 
 my own claims would be allowed, I had less cause to 
 think of obtaining by corruption the payment of 
 claims which I almost knew the justice of Congress 
 could not refuse in the sequel. Despatch, then, was 
 all I wished for all I could gam ; and I think that 
 the world and this honorable body will admit that 
 the benefit of the relief would be in proportion to the
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 103 
 
 JAXTARY, 1818.] 
 
 General Kosciusko. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 time which should elapse in affording it ; at least, 
 that in this view it would be appreciated by those 
 who have yet i'resh in their recollection that a hus- 
 band, a wife, a father, a child, a brother, or sister, 
 was tomahawked, shot, or burned alive, by the savage 
 enemy, their hearts inhumanly torn from their bodies, 
 and whilst yet smoking with the vital heat, were tri- 
 umphantly exhibited to their weeping eyes. Let it be 
 recollected that they have witnessed, whilst wander- 
 ing without shelter, and almost unclothed, the heart- 
 rending scene dead bodies exposed to the voracious 
 appetites of the swine, and these animals eagerly 
 contending for a leg or an arm ! Lest this picture 
 may be supposed to be exaggerated, I annex the cor- 
 respondence which took place between the Hon. A. 
 B. Woodward and General Proctor, in the year 1813, 
 and shortly after the event occurred. Let it be known 
 that most "if not all the articles they could collect 
 from the ruins of their houses were generously 
 most generously appropriated in the purchase of 
 prisoners of war, for the purpose of screening them 
 from the bloody tomahawk ; that these purchases 
 were made under such circumstances as not to entitle 
 them to reimbursement under the " Act relating to 
 the ransom of American captives of the late war." 
 And let it also be known that such are the sufferings, 
 such the merits of the claimants I represent. And I 
 feel confident that the clouds of indignation which 
 for a -moment threatened to burst over my frosty head 
 will be dispelled by the benign influence of philan- 
 thropyan influence which has ever, and I trust ever 
 will, characterize my conduct. 
 
 "That I should be anxious to afford a prompt 
 solace to the sufferings of my fellow-citizens will not 
 be wondered at, when it is known that they extended 
 every kindness and protection to my family, (from 
 whom I was separated during the most of the war,) 
 and at a time when the Indians were accustomed to 
 dance before the door of my house, calling upon my 
 wife to come out and select her husband's scalp. 
 
 ' Relying upon the maxim, that ' To err is hu- 
 man, to forgive divine,' I throw myself upon the in- 
 dulgence of this honorable body, and the magnanim- 
 ity of the honorable gentleman whose feelings I have 
 had the misfortune to wound. If my services form 
 no claim to indulgence, perhaps my sufferings and 
 those of my family may. I stand here to meet all 
 the consequences of an error committed without any 
 sinister intention. 
 
 " In conclusion, I must be permitted to remark, 
 that, during my confinement, from which I have for- 
 borne to adopt any legal measures to extricate my- 
 self, the qnly feelings of pain which have had access 
 to my breast were those produced by the knowledge 
 that an opinion was prevalent, that, presuming on 
 the misfortunes of my fellow-sufferers, I had bought 
 op their claims at a very reduced price. If this hon- 
 orable body would permit, I would, under the solem- 
 nity of an oath, call upon God to bear testimony 
 that this opinion is without basis. 
 
 "JOHN ANDERSON. 
 
 " JANUARY, 1818." 
 
 The prisoner being asked if he had anything 
 farther to say, and answering in the negative, 
 was taken from the bar, and the House pro- 
 ceeded to deliberate on the course now proper 
 to be pursued. 
 
 One motion, on which the yeas and nays 
 were taken, is worthy of particular notice. It 
 was made by Mr. POIXDEXTEE, to strike out of 
 
 that passage which charged John Anderson 
 with being guilty of a contempt against the 
 privileges of the House, the words the privileges 
 of; thus denying the House to have any privi- 
 leges not conferred on them by the constitution. 
 This motion was negatived 108 to 54. 
 
 The will of the House was ultimately consum- 
 mated by the passage of a resolution, in the 
 following words : 
 
 ' Resolved, That John Anderson has been guilty 
 of a contempt and a violation of the privileges of the 
 House, and that he bo brought to the bar of the 
 House this day, and be there reprimanded by the 
 Speaker for the outrage he has committed, and then 
 discharged from the custody of the Sergeant-at- 
 Arms." 
 
 "Whereupon, John Anderson was brought to 
 the bar of the House, and addressed by the 
 SPEAKER, as follows : 
 
 " John Anderson : Yon have been brought before 
 this House upon a charge of having committed a 
 breach of its privileges, in attempting to bribe one 
 of its members, filling a high and responsible situa- 
 tion. The House has patiently heard you in your 
 defence, and, in proportion to the pleasure which it 
 has derived from the concurrent testimonies in sup- 
 port of your character and good conduct heretofore, 
 is its deep regret that you have deliberately attempt- 
 ed to commit a crime so entirely incompatible with 
 the high standing yon have heretofore maintained. 
 You have the less apology for the attempt which you 
 made, because you had yourself experienced the jus- 
 tice of this House but a few days before, by the pas- 
 sage of two bills in your favor, founded on petitions 
 presented to the House. Your attempt to corrupt 
 the fountain of legislation to undermine the integ- 
 rity of a branch of the National Legislature is a 
 crime of so deep a dye that even you must acknowl- 
 edge and be sensible of it And if, John Anderson, 
 you could have been successful in such an attempt 
 if it were possible that Representatives of the people 
 could have been found so lost to their duty as to ac- 
 cept your offer you must yourself see the dreadful 
 consequences of such a deplorable state of things: 
 In your turn you might fall a victim ; for your 
 rights, your liberty, and your property, might in the 
 end equally suffer with those of others. The House 
 has seen with pleasure, that, at a very early period 
 after making your base offer, yon disclaimed, with 
 symptoms of apparent repentance and contrition, any 
 intention to corrupt the integrity of a member ; and, 
 in directing me to pronounce your discharge, the 
 House indulges the hope that, on your return home, 
 you will be more fully convinced of the magnitude 
 of your offence, and by the future tenor of your life 
 endeavor to obliterate, as far as it may be possible, 
 the stain your conduct on this occasion has impressed 
 on the high and honorable character yon appear to 
 have previously sustained. You are discharged from 
 the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms." 
 
 "Whereupon, John Anderson -was discharged 
 from custody, and the House adjourned to 
 
 Monday. 
 
 TUESDAY, January 20. 
 
 General Kosciusko. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON submitted the following reso- 
 lution ; which was read, and ordered to lie on 
 the table :
 
 104 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 General Koscimko. 
 
 [JANUARY, 1818. 
 
 Resolved, That a committee be appointed, jointly 
 with such committee as may be appointed on the part 
 of the Senate, to consider and report what measures 
 it may be proper to adopt to manifest the public re- 
 spect for the memory of General Thaddeus Koscius- 
 ko, formerly on officer in the service of the United 
 States, and the uniform and distinguished friend of 
 liberty and the rights of man. 
 
 Mr. HARBISON accompanied his motion with 
 the following observations : 
 
 The public papers have announced an event 
 which is well calculated to excite the sympathy 
 of every American bosom ! Kosciusko, the mar- 
 tyr of liberty, is no more ! We are informed that 
 he died at Soleure, in France, some time in Oc- 
 tober last. 
 
 In tracing the events of this great man's life, 
 we find in him that consistency of conduct which 
 is the more to be admired as* it is so rarely to be 
 met with. He was not at one time the friend of 
 mankind, and at another the instrument of their 
 oppression ; but he preserved throughout his 
 whole career those noble principles which dis- 
 tinguished him in its commencement which 
 influenced him at an early period of his life to 
 leave his country and his friends, and in an- 
 other hemisphere to fight for the rights of hu- 
 manity. 
 
 Kosciusko was born and educated in Poland, 
 of a noble and distinguished family a country 
 where the distinctions in society are perhaps 
 carried to greater lengths than in any other. 
 His Creator had, however, endowed him with 
 a soul capable of rising above the narrow pre- 
 judices of a caste, and breaking the shackles 
 which a vicious education had imposed on his 
 mind. 
 
 "When very young, he was informed by the 
 voice of fame that the standard of liberty had 
 been erected in America that an insulted and 
 oppressed people had determined to be free, or 
 perish in the attempt. His ardent and generous 
 mind caught, with enthusiasm, the holy flame, 
 and from that moment he became the devoted 
 soldier of liberty. 
 
 His rank in the American army afforded him 
 no opportunity greatly to distinguish himself. 
 But he was remarked, throughout his service, 
 for all the qualities which adorn the human 
 character. His heroic valor in the field could 
 only be equalled by his moderation and affa- 
 bility in the walks of private life. He was 
 idolized by the soldiers for his bravery, and be- 
 loved and respected by the officers for the good- 
 ness of his heart, and the great qualities of his 
 mind. 
 
 Contributing greatly, by his exertions, to 
 the establishment of the independence of Amer- 
 ica, he might have remained, and shared the 
 blessings it dispensed, under the protection 
 of a chief who loved and honored him, and 
 in the bosom of a grateful and affectionate peo- 
 ple. 
 
 Kosciusko had, however, other views. It is 
 not known that, until the period I am speaking 
 of, he had formed any distinct idea of what 
 
 could, or indeed what ought, to be done for his 
 own. But in the Revolutionary war he drank 
 deeply of the principles which produced it. In 
 his conversations with the intelligent men of 
 our country, he acquired new views of the sci- 
 ence of government and the rights of man. He 
 had seen, too, that to be free it was only neces- 
 sary that a nation should will it, and to be hap- 
 py it was only necessary that a nation should be 
 free. And was it not possible to procure these 
 blessings for Poland ? For Poland, the country 
 of his birth, which had a claim to all his efforts, 
 to all his services ? That unhappy nation groan- 
 ed under a complication of evils which has 
 scarcely a parallel in history. The mass of the 
 people were the abject slaves of the nobles ; the 
 nobles, torn into factions, were alternately the 
 instruments and the victims of their powerful 
 and ambitious neighbors. By intrigue, corrup- 
 tion, and force, some of its fairest provinces had 
 been separated from the Republic, and the peo- 
 ple, like beasts, transferred to foreign despots, 
 who were again watching for a favorable mo- 
 ment for a second dismemberment. To regen- 
 erate a people thus debased to obtain for a 
 country thus circumstanced the blessings of 
 liberty and independence, was a work of as 
 much difficulty as danger. But, to a mind 
 like Kosciusko's, the difficulty and danger of 
 an enterprise served as stimulants to under- 
 take it. 
 
 The annals of these times give us no detailed 
 account of the progress of Kosciusko in accom- 
 plishing his great work, from the period of his 
 return from America to the adoption of the new 
 constitution of Poland, in 1791. This interval, 
 however, of apparent inaction, was most useful- 
 ly employed to illumine the mental darkness 
 which enveloped his countrymen. To stimulate 
 th,e ignorant and bigoted peasantry with the 
 hope of future emancipation to teach a proud 
 but gallant nobility that true glory is only to be 
 found in the paths of duty and patriotism in- 
 terests the most opposed, prejudices the most 
 stubborn, and habits the most inveterate, were 
 reconciled, dissipated, and broken, by the as- 
 cendency of his virtues and example. The storm 
 which he had foreseen, and for which he had 
 been preparing, at length burst upon Poland. 
 A feeble and unpopular Government bent before 
 its fury, and submitted itself to the Russian yoke 
 of the invader. But the nation disdained to fol- 
 low its example ; in their extremity every eye 
 was turned on the hero who had already fought 
 their battles the sage who had enlightened 
 them, and the patriot who had set the example 
 of personal sacrifices to accomplish the emanci- 
 pation of the people. 
 
 Kosciusko was unanimously appointed Gen- 
 eralissimo of Poland, with unlimited powers, 
 until the enemy should be driven from the coun- 
 try. On his virtue the nation reposed with the 
 utmost confidence ; and it is some consolation 
 to reflect, amidst the general depravity of man- 
 kind, that two instances, in the same age, have 
 occurred where powers of this kind were em-
 
 DEBATES OF CONGKESS. 
 
 105 
 
 JANUARY, 1818.] 
 
 General Kosciusko. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 ployed solely for the purposes for which thej 
 were given. 
 
 It is not my intention, sir, to follow the Polish 
 chief throughout the career of victory which 
 for a considerable time, crowned his efforts 
 Guided hy his talents, and led by his valor 
 his undisciplined, illy-armed militia chargec 
 with effect the veteran Russian and Prussian 
 the mailed cuirassiers of the great Frederick, fo 
 the first time, broke and fled before the lighter 
 and appropriate cavalry of Poland. Hope fille< 
 the breasts of the patriots. After a long night 
 the dawn of an apparently glorious day brok< 
 upon Poland. But, to the discerning eye o 
 Kosciusko, the light which it shed was of thai 
 sickly and portentous appearance, indicating 
 storm more dreadful than that which he had re- 
 sisted. 
 
 He prepared to meet it with firmness, but with 
 means entirely inadequate. To the advantages 
 of numbers, of tactics, of discipline, and inex- 
 haustible resources, the combined despots had 
 secured a faction in the heart of Poland. And, 
 if that country can boast of a WASHINGTON, it 
 is disgraced also by giving birth to a second 
 Arnold. The day at length came which was 
 to decide the fate of a nation and a hero. 
 Heaven, for wise purposes, determined that it 
 should be the last of Polish liberty. It was 
 decided, indeed, before the battle commenced. 
 The traitor Poniski, who covered with a de- 
 tachment the advance of the Polish army, 
 abandoned his position to the enemy and re- 
 treated. 
 
 Kosciusko was astonished, but not dismayed. 
 The disposition of his army would have done 
 honor to Hannibal. The succeeding conflict 
 was terrible. "When the talents of the General 
 could no longer direct the mingled mass of 
 combatants, the arm of the warrior was brought 
 to the aid of his soldiers. He performed 
 prodigies of valor. The fabled prowess of 
 Ajax, in defending the Grecian ships, was re- 
 alized by the Polish hero. Nor was he badly 
 seconded by his troops. As long as his voice 
 could guide, or his example fired their valor, 
 they were irresistible. In this unequal contest 
 Kosciusko was long seen, and finally lost to their 
 view. 
 
 " Hope for a season bade the world farewell, 
 And Freedom shriek'd when Kosciusko fell." 
 
 He fell covered with wounds, but still sur- 
 vived. A Cossack would have pierced his 
 breast, when an officer interposed. " Suffer 
 him to execute his purpose," said the bleeding 
 hero; "lam the devoted soldier of my coun- 
 try, and will not survive its liberties." The 
 name of Kosciusko struck to the heart of the 
 Tartar, like that of Marius upon the Cimbrian 
 warrior. The uplifted weapon dropped from 
 his hand. 
 
 Kosciusko was conveyed to the dungeons of 
 Petersburg ; and, to the eternal disgrace of the 
 Empress Catharine, she made him the object of 
 her vengeance, when he could be no longer the 
 
 object of her fears. Her more generous son 
 restored him to liberty. The remainder of his 
 life has been spent in virtuous retirement. 
 Whilst in this situation in France, an anecdote 
 is related of him which strongly illustrates the 
 command which his virtues and his services 
 had obtained over the minds of his country- 
 men. 
 
 In the late invasion of France, some Polish 
 regiments in the service of Russia passed 
 through the village in which he lived. Some 
 pillaging of the inhabitants brought Kosciusko 
 from his cottage. " When I was a Polish sol- 
 dier," said he, addressing the plunderers, " the 
 property of the peaceful citizen was respected." 
 " And who art thou," said an officer, u who ad- 
 dresses us with this tone of authority ?" " I am 
 Kosciusko!" There was magic in the word. 
 It ran from corps to corps. The march was 
 suspended. They gathered round him, and 
 gazed, with astonishment and awe, -upon the 
 mighty ruin he presented. " Could it indeed 
 be their hero," whose fame was identified with 
 that of their country ? A thousand interesting 
 reflections burst upon their minds; they re- 
 membered his patriotism, his devotion to liber- 
 ty, his triumphs, and his glorious fall. Their 
 ii"on hearts were softened, and the tear of sensi- 
 bility trickled down their weather-beaten faces. 
 We can easily conceive, sir, what would be the 
 feelings of the hero himself in such a scene. His 
 great heart must have heaved with emotion, to 
 find himself once more surrounded by the com- 
 panions of his glory ; and that he would have 
 t>een upon the point of saying to them 
 
 " Behold your General ! come once more 
 To lead you on to laurel'd victory, 
 To fame, to freedom." 
 
 The delusion could have lasted but for a mo- 
 ment. He was himself, alas ! a miserable crip- 
 ple ; and, for them ! they were no longer the 
 soldiers of liberty, but the instruments of am- 
 bition and tyranny. Overwhelmed with grief 
 at the reflection, he would retire to his cot- 
 tage, to mourn afresh over the miseries of his 
 country. 
 
 Such was the man, sir, for whose memory I 
 ask from an American Congress a slight tribute 
 )f respect. Not, sir, to perpetuate his fame 
 )ut our gratitude. His fame will last as long as 
 iberty remains upon the earth ; as long as a vo- 
 ary offers incense upon her altar, the name of 
 Kosciusko will be invoked. And if, by the 
 sommon consent of the world, a temple shall 
 >e erected to those who have rendered most 
 service to mankind, if the statue of our great 
 :ountryman shall occupy the place of the " Most 
 Worthy," that of Kosciusko will be found by 
 is side, and the wreath of laurel will be en- 
 wined with the palm of virtue to adorn his 
 )row. 
 
 WEDNESDAY, January 21. 
 Another member, to wit, from Massachu-
 
 106 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 Indian Affairs. 
 
 [JANUARY, 1818. 
 
 setts, THOMAS RICK, appeared, produced his cre- 
 dentials, and took his seat. 
 
 THURSDAY, January 22. 
 
 The resolution from the Senate, directing 
 " the publication and distribution of the journal, 
 and proceedings of the convention which form- 
 ed the present Constitution of the United States," 
 was read twice, and committed to the commit- 
 tee appointed by this House on the 7th instant, 
 upon that subject. 
 
 General Roscimlco. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON, of Ohio, having withdrawn 
 the resolution he offered for consideration yes- 
 terday, to which he understood there was con- 
 siderable objection, on the ground of its being 
 in a joint form, moved, in lieu thereof, a resolve 
 to the following effect, with a view to ex- 
 pressing the sense of this House alone on the 
 subject : 
 
 Resolved, That this House, entertaining the high- 
 est respect for the memory of General Kosciusko, his 
 services, <fec., the members thereof will testify the 
 same by wearing crape on the left arm for one 
 month. 
 
 After some debate, in which this motion was 
 supported by Mr. HARBISON, and opposed by 
 Messrs. REED, FORSYTH, and DESHA 
 
 Mr. HARRISON withdrew his resolution alto- 
 gether, seeing it was opposed, and that the want 
 of unanimity would destroy its value satisfied 
 that, in moving and supporting it, he had ac- 
 quitted his conscience. 
 
 [In the short debate on this question, the 
 merits of Kosciusko, the advocate of freedom, 
 and the friend of man, were fully admitted ; but, 
 it was shown that no such respect as was now 
 proposed had been paid to any of the departed 
 worthies, native or foreign, who had aided in 
 the achievement of our independence, except in 
 the single case of General WASHINGTON, which 
 was admitted to be an exception to all general 
 rules. Having as recently as 1810 refused a 
 like tribute to the memory of Colonel William 
 Washington, on his decease, it was too late now, 
 it was deemed, to commence a new system in 
 this respect.] 
 
 Indian Affairs. 
 
 Mr. SOUTHARD, from the committee appoint- 
 ed on so much of the President's Message as re- 
 lates to Indian Affairs, made a report upon the 
 subject, which was read; when, Mr. S. reported 
 a bill, for establishing trading-houses with the 
 Indian tribes, and for the organization and en- 
 couragement of schools for their instruction and 
 civilization ; which was read twice and com- 
 mitted to a Committee of the Whole. The re- 
 port is as follows : 
 
 The committee to whom was referred so mnch of 
 the President's Message as relates to Indian Affairs, 
 report : That the capital appropriated for prosecution 
 of Indian trade was, in 1809, augmented from 8200,- 
 000 to $300,000 ; which sum, by succeeding acts, has 
 been continued down to this period. Of the capital 
 
 thus appropriated, $290,000 have been drawn from 
 the Treasury, and actively employed under direction 
 of the Superintendent of Indian Supplies. Under the 
 various laws enacted for the support and encourage- 
 ment of Indian trade, eight factories or trading posts 
 have been established at the following points : 
 
 1. Fort Mitchell, Georgia. 
 
 2. Chickasaw Bluffs, Mississippi Territory. 
 
 3. Fort ConfederatioTi, on the Tombigbee river. 
 
 4. Fort Osage, on the Missouri river, near the 
 mouth of the Osage. 
 
 5. Prairie du Chien, on the Mississippi, near the 
 mouth of the Wisconsin river. 
 
 6. Ordered to Sulphur Fork, on Red river, for- 
 merly at Natchitoch.es. 
 
 7. Green Bay, on the Green Bay of Lake Michi- 
 gan, Illinois Territory. 
 
 8. Chicago, Lake Michigan. 
 
 The committee deem it unnecessary to present a 
 detailed view of the profits and loss of each particu- 
 lar agency, and submit, in relation to the general 
 establishment, that it has been a losing institution, 
 owing, it is presumable, to adventitious circumstan- 
 ces, originating in our late belligerent state, and not 
 growing out of any defect in the organization or 
 government of the trade. From the first operation 
 of this traffic up to December, 1809, it sustained a 
 loss of $44,538 36. Since that period the trade has 
 been more successful, it having yielded a profit, on 
 the capital actually vested in the merchandise, of 
 about $15,000 annually, after covering a loss of 
 $13,369, which accrued in consequence of the cap- 
 ture of several trading posts by the enemy during 
 the late war. 
 
 In this view of the subject the committee have not 
 embraced an item of 820,000, annually disbursed at 
 the Treasury for the Superintendent and his clerks, 
 the factories, &c., and which, when applied to the 
 concern, as necessarily it must be in making an es- 
 timate of profit and loss, will absorb the profits arising 
 from the funds employed in trade, and fnmish an 
 annual charge against the establishment of 5,000. 
 This annual loss being sustained by the Treasury, 
 pursuant to appropriations for the pay of the Super- 
 intendent and his assistants, is a loss to the Govern- 
 ment but not to the concern, in the diminution of 
 its capital, which, under all circumstances, remains 
 stationary. 
 
 The act passed 29th of April, 1816, giving to tho 
 President the discretionary power of licensing foreign- 
 ers to a participation in the Indian trade, is less ex- 
 ceptionable in theory than -in practice. With all the 
 guards of the act and precautions of the Executive, 
 it has been found impracticable, under dispensing 
 power, to avoid the admission of men of vicious hab- 
 its, whose conduct tends to interrupt the peace and 
 harmony of the United States and the Indian tribes ; 
 nor can such be introduced while the door is left open 
 to foreign traders; either admit or exclude all. A 
 system partial in its character will, by inhibiting a 
 worthy applicant, do him injustice ; and, by permit- 
 ting the fraudulent speculator, the savage for whom 
 the provision is made and the country are wronged. 
 The Executive must rely on recommendations in tho 
 exercise of the power deposited with him, and, no 
 doubt, is often deceived in the character of persona 
 recommended to Presidential patronage. 
 
 MONDAY, January 26. 
 Two other members, to wit : from Massachu-
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 107 
 
 JASUAKT, 1818.] 
 
 Fugitives from Justice and Service. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 setts, Jonx WILSOX, and from North Carolina, 
 JAMES STEWART, appeared, produced their cre- 
 dentials, were qualified, and took their seats. 
 
 TUESDAY, January 27. 
 
 Mr. WILLIAMS, of Connecticut, presented the 
 petition of Elizabeth Eaton, the widow of the 
 late General William Eaton, stating the services 
 and sacrifices of her late husband in the public 
 service, the poverty in which he left her and 
 her children, the loss of two of her sons, one in 
 the naval and the other in the military service 
 of the United States, and praying that some 
 provision may be made for her maintenance, 
 and for the support and education of the chil- 
 dren of the said General Eaton. Referred to 
 the Committee on Military Affairs. 
 
 Mr. CLAIBORNE presented a remonstrance of 
 Andrew Jackson, in behalf of himself and in 
 right of his wife, and as agent for the heirs and 
 representatives of Colonel John Donelson, de- 
 ceased, stating, that by the act of the State of 
 Georgia, of the 20th February, 1784, the said 
 Donelson was appointed one of the commission- 
 ers for laying out a new county, in the Big 
 Bend of the Tennessee river, for which services 
 he became entitled to a large tract of land lying 
 in said county, which they have been unable to 
 obtain, for reasons set forth in the petition, and 
 soliciting a conveyance thereof to him, and the 
 rest of the heirs of said Donelson ; which was 
 referred to a select committee ; and Mr. CLAI- 
 BORXE, Mr. COBB, Mr. HOGG, Mr. SETTLE, and 
 Mr. CRAWFORD, were appointed the committee. 
 
 Mr. CLAIBORNE also presented a similar peti- 
 tion of George W. Sevier, for and in behalf of 
 himself and the other heirs and representatives 
 of the late General John Sevier, deceased; 
 which was referred to the committee last ap- 
 pointed. 
 
 Fugitives from Justice and Service. 
 
 The order of the day on the bill " respecting 
 fugitives from justice, and persons escaping 
 from the service of their masters," having been 
 announced 
 
 Mr. RICH moved to commit the bill to a dif- 
 ferent committee, with a view of considering 
 the propriety of certain amendments. After 
 some little discussion, the motion was negatived. 
 
 The House then resolved itself into a Com- 
 mittee of the Whole on the bill. 
 
 The question was on an amendment proposed 
 by Mr. RICH to the bill, which has for its object 
 the preventing the transportation, in any man 
 ner, of any negro, mulatto, or person of color, 
 without having previously carried the same be- 
 fore some judge or justice of a court of record, 
 and giving sufficient proof of their being slaves, 
 and the property of the person by whose au- 
 thority they are so removed, under the penalty 
 of a sum not exceeding ten thousand dollars. 
 
 This amendment Mr. STORES had proposed to 
 amend, by substituting in lieu thereof a new 
 section, in the following words: 
 
 "That, if any person -without colorable claim, 
 shall knowingly and wilfully procure or cause to be 
 procured any such certificate or warrant, [of his 
 property in any particular individual,] with intention, 
 under color or pretence thereof, or the provisions of 
 this act, to arrest, detain, or transport, or cause to bo 
 arrested, detained, or transported, any person what- 
 soever, not held to labor or service as aforesaid, he 
 or she, on conviction thereof, shall suffer imprison- 
 ment, not exceeding fifteen years, or fined not exceed- 
 ing five thousand dollars, or both, in the discretion 
 of the court before whom such conviction shall be 
 
 Messrs. STORES and PFKDALL advocated the 
 amendment to the amendment, on the ground 
 of the difficulty of the subject, the very magni- 
 tude of which was a sufficient reason, it was 
 said, why it should not be appended to this bill, 
 but ought to be made the subject of a separate 
 act. 
 
 Mr. RICH vindicated his own amendment, on 
 the ground of the enormity of the crime of kid- 
 napping, repeated cases of which had occurred, 
 and which appeared to him to require the in- 
 terposition of the Legislature. 
 
 The amendment to the amendment was 
 agreed to, and then incorporated in the bill, by 
 a considerable majority. 
 
 Mr. CLAGETT said he should make but few 
 remarks upon this occasion. Since this bill has 
 been under discussion, said he, I have given it 
 due attention, but have not been able to per- 
 ceive a satisfactory reason for its passage ; nor 
 am I without surprise that it should have so 
 many advocates. The law of 1793, in pursu- 
 ance of the 2d sect. 4th art. of the constitution, 
 enacts, " that when a person, held to labor or 
 service in any of the United States, or in either 
 of the Territories, under the laws thereof, shall 
 escape into any other of the said States or Ter- 
 ritories, the person to whom such labor or ser- 
 vice may be due, his agent or attorney, shall 
 have power to seize or arrest such fugitive, and 
 take him or her before any judge of a circuit or 
 district court of the United States, residing or 
 being within the State, or before any magistrate 
 of a county, city, or town corporate, wherein 
 such seizure or arrest shall have been made, 
 and upon proof, to the satisfaction of such judge 
 or magistrate, that the person so seized, doth, 
 under the haws of the State from whence he 
 fled, owe service or labor to the person claiming 
 him, it shall be the duty of such judge or magis- 
 trate to give a certificate thereof to such claim- 
 ant, which shall be a sufficient warrant for re- 
 moving such fugitive to the State from whence 
 he fled." And, by the same law, any person 
 who shall obstruct such claimant in seizing a 
 fugitive, or rescue him after seizure, or harbor 
 or conceal him, knowing him to be a fugitive, 
 shall incur a penalty of five hundred dollars to 
 the use of such claimant, and be also liable to 
 the party for all other damages by him sus- 
 tained. Sir, however I may differ in opinion 
 from some honorable gentlemen upon the ques- 
 tion of right to this service, abstractly cousid-
 
 108 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 Fugitives from Justice and Service. 
 
 [JANUARY, 1818. 
 
 ered, I do not hesitate to say, that the clause of 
 the constitution, under which we legislate, is 
 imperative that it is a part of a solemn com- 
 pact between the several States in the Union, 
 and we are bound to carry it into complete ef- 
 fect. But does not the law cited secure to the 
 claimants all the rights which the constitution 
 guaranteed to them? Certainly it does. By 
 the law now in force, the claimant may, in the 
 first instance, without a warrant, arrest the fu- 
 gitive, and carry him before a tribunal for ex- 
 amination. This is a great latitude, and there is 
 danger of an abuse of this power to the injury 
 of the free citizen, who may never appear be- 
 fore such tribunal 1 If any amendment of this 
 law be necessary, it is to restrain the claimant 
 from an abuse of power ; but no such amend- 
 ment has been proposed. The courts of the 
 United States are the only proper tribunals to 
 take cognizance of the subject; and magistrates 
 of a State, as such, are not bound by your law. 
 Why, then, make this amendment ? 
 
 But, sir, while we are scrupulously guarding 
 from encroachments one clause of our constitu- 
 tion, let us be cautious lest we infract another, 
 equally important. It is not only my duty, but 
 my sincere desire, to preserve every part of this 
 sacred instrument, upon which our national 
 happiness depends. And now, sir, let me so- 
 licit your attention to the 9th sect, of the 1st 
 art. of this constitution, in these words: "The 
 privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not 
 be suspended, unless when, in cases of rebellion 
 or invasion, the public safety may require it." 
 Will not this bill, if it pass into a law, virtually 
 suspend the writ of habeas corpus at least its 
 efiect ? In my opinion it will : for this bill pro- 
 vides, if sxich writ issue, and it shall appear, 
 upon its return, that the supposed fugitive was 
 arrested under this law, (and it may be by or- 
 der of a justice of the peace,) such fugitive shall 
 be remanded into the custody of the officer who 
 arrested him. 
 
 For these reasons, sir, I shall give a negative 
 vote to the bill on your table. 
 
 Mr. PINDALL said, the bill professes to impose 
 a duty, to be performed by stated judges, in re- 
 lation to the recovery of runaway slaves. The 
 enactment of the bill does not, it is said, imply 
 what the opinion of the House or the friends of 
 the bill may be on the question of the power of 
 Congress to impose any other duties on the 
 State courts. 
 
 A gentleman mentioned, during the debate, 
 as an objection to the bill, that it imposed du- 
 ties upon State judges and officers, to which 
 Mr. PIXDAXL (the chairman of the committee 
 that reported the bill) replied, that those who 
 believed this subject involved the broad ques- 
 tion, whether Congress had the right in all 
 cases to require the execution of its laws 
 through the instrumentality of State officers, 
 would, if so disposed, be able to say much in 
 favor of the power. Indeed, some might con- 
 tend, with plausibility, that the question ought 
 to be considered as settled ; or an argument tho 
 
 same or similar to that derived from what has 
 been called contemporaneous practice, might be 
 deduced from the earliest acts of this Govern- 
 ment. Congress had repeatedly passed laws 
 depending for their execution on State courts. 
 This consideration might, in the estimation of 
 some gentlemen, weigh against the objection of 
 the member from Massachusetts, but he (Mr. 
 P.) did not rely upon it. 
 
 He said it was possible that the framers of 
 the constitution did not wish that the right of 
 Congress to impose duties upon State officers 
 should be coextensive with the powers of legis- 
 lation granted by that instrument, and yet may 
 have intended that such a power should exist 
 in some cases, or under some circumstances. 
 Although he would not intermeddle with the 
 abstract inquiry, whether Congress could, in all 
 its legislative province, impose upon a judicial 
 or ministerial State officer an obligation to exe- 
 cute the laws of the Union, he would insist on 
 his right to exercise the power in the instance 
 contemplated by the bill. The clause of the 
 constitution on which the bill rested, declared 
 that no person, held to service or labor in one 
 State, under the laws thereof, escaping into 
 another, shall, in consequence of any law or 
 regulation therein, be discharged from such 
 service or labor, but shall be delivered up on 
 the claim of the party to whom such service or 
 labor may be due. This clause, he said, was a 
 regulation between the respective States, con- 
 ferring rights on some States and obligations on 
 others; but the right, when exerted for the 
 benefit of the slaveholder, manifests itself by 
 means of the laws of his State ; for the clause 
 just quoted speaks of persons held to labor in 
 one State, under the laws thereof. The laws of 
 the State are made known, interpreted, and ex- 
 pounded by the official acts and decisions of 
 State judges and officers. 
 
 Again : the slave, taking refuge in another 
 State, shall le delivered up. This duty of de- 
 livering up the slave is not imposed on private 
 men or individuals, as in a state of nature, or it 
 might never be performed ; besides, private 
 men are not necessarily supposed to have the 
 slave in their possession or power. The duty 
 of delivering up the slave is imposed on the 
 State, and the State, as all other civil or social 
 political powers, necessarily, or at least usually, 
 acts by the intervention of its officers. 
 
 It being thus shown, in regard to this clause 
 of the constitution, that a right and correspond- 
 ing obligation are established between different 
 States, which, by ordinary interpretation, de- 
 pend for their development and exercise upon 
 the proper officers of each State ; and it being 
 admitted on all sides that Congress has the 
 power to regulate the due exercise of that right, 
 
 it follows that Congress can make a law to 
 regulate the conduct of these State officers in 
 the performance of their duty. 
 
 Further debate took place on the bill, and on 
 an amendment proposed by Mr. BALDWIN.
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 109 
 
 JANUARY, 1818.] 
 
 Fugitives from Justice and Service. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 Mr. FULLER then, after an ingenious speech 
 of considerable length, moved to strike out the 
 first section of the bill, with a view to destroy 
 it entirely, on the ground that it transcended 
 the constitutional provisions on the subject. 
 He also took exceptions to various features of 
 the bill. 
 
 Mr. STRONG, in a more decided manner, ex- 
 pre^t-d his opposition to the bill, on the ground 
 that the act already in existence on that subject 
 had gone full far enough in carrying into exe- 
 cution the constitutional provision on that sub- 
 ject, which he regarded as a compact, the mode 
 of executing which the non-slaveholding States 
 had reserved, and were at liberty to judge of 
 when proposed to them, &c. 
 
 Mr. COBB replied to the two gentlemen from 
 Massachusetts, vindicating the rights of the 
 holders of that description of property, as se- 
 cured by the constitution, as inalienable, and as 
 inviolable on any pretext by those who were 
 averse to the toleration of slavery, &c. 
 
 Mr. STRONG rejoined. 
 
 Mr. HOPKIXSOS stated certain objections to 
 the form of this bill, under which he thought it 
 possible that freemen might be apprehended as 
 slaves, without the necessary means of redress. 
 
 Mr. HOLMES, of Massachusetts, made some 
 remarks, of a nature conciliatory to the preju- 
 dices existing on both sides of this question, and 
 intimated that, though he was not in favor of 
 all the provisions of this bill, he should vote 
 against striking out the first section, because he 
 thought that the bill might be so moulded as to 
 be unobjectionable to any. 
 
 Mr. CLAY (Speaker) then engaged in the de- 
 bate, being called up by the peculiar interest 
 which the State of which he is a representative 
 has in the passage of the bill. The nature of 
 slave property, its evils, and the rights of its 
 possessors, were illustrated with great force, 
 and the necessity for the passage of an act of 
 this sort sustained by many arguments, in a 
 speech of considerable length. 
 
 Mr. BALDWIN rose on the question of con- 
 struction which had been given by some gentle- 
 men to the constitutional provision ; which, he 
 contended, conferred on Congress full power to 
 legislate on the subject, so as to give the strong- 
 est security to the holders of slave property. 
 
 The motion to strike out the first section was 
 negatived by a large majority. 
 
 Some further amendments having been made 
 to the bill, the committee rose, and reported the 
 bill as amended, and the House adjourned. 
 
 THURSDAY, January 29. 
 Fugitives from Justice and Service. 
 The House having resumed the consideration 
 of the bill to amend the act, entitled " An act re- 
 specting fugitives from justice, and persons es- 
 caping from the service of their masters" 
 
 Mr. RICH moved to recommit the bill to the 
 committee to whom has been referred the me- 
 morial of the annual meeting of the Society of 
 
 Friends at Baltimore, with a view of so amend- 
 ing the bill as to guard more effectually the 
 rights of free persons of color. This motion he 
 enforced by urging the oppressions to which 
 these people were now subjected, and the neces- 
 sity of some regulation on the subject, which he 
 thought might be very properly connected with 
 this bill. 
 
 Mr. PINDALL objected to the recommitment, 
 especially as the House had already once de- 
 cided against doing so, on the same ground of 
 the want of necessary connection of the proposed 
 amendment with the bill. 
 
 Mr. SMITH, of Maryland, suggested that the 
 subject of the protection of free people of color, 
 being of a distinct nature from this, was already 
 before a committee, who would without doubt 
 make a special report on the subject. Under 
 this impression, Mr. 8. said he should vote 
 against the motion for recommitment. 
 
 Mr. RHEA was also opposed to the recommit- 
 ment, and made some general remarks respect- 
 ing slavery, in the course of which he intimated 
 his opinion that the Government had shown its 
 aversion to slavery in every manner in its 
 power, and could not do more, unless by an ar- 
 bitrary abolition of slavery, which no one 
 would propose. If slavery must exist, as guar- 
 anteed by the constitution, he was surprised 
 at the opposition made to ridding it of some of 
 ita evils, by preventing escapes, &c. 
 
 Mr. LIVEBMOBE said, although not favorable 
 to the bill, he should vote against a recommit- 
 ment, because he wished that those who were 
 friendly to the bill might have the opportunity, 
 by amendment, to make it as- perfect as pos- 
 sible. 
 
 Mr. "W. P. MAOLAY was in favor of recom- 
 mitment. Admitting the force of the constitu- 
 tional provision, which secured the right of 
 proprietors to reclaim their runaway slaves, 
 he was not for going further than necessary ; 
 and appeared moreover to be highly impressed 
 with the importance of connecting with this 
 bill a provision to prevent the apprehension of 
 free persons of color, under pretence of their 
 being slaves. 
 
 The question on recommitment of the bffl 
 was decided in the negative, without a divi- 
 sion. 
 
 Further debate took place on the question 
 of concurrence in some of the amendments 
 made to the bill in the Committee of the Whole, 
 and on several other amendments proposed, in 
 the course of which Messrs. PINDALL, SERGEANT, 
 SPENCER, BALDWIN, RICH, TERBY, BEECHEB, 
 and others, actively exerted themselves. 
 
 Mr. SERGEANT made a proposition, having in 
 view to materially change the nature of the 
 bill by making judges of the State in which the 
 apprentices, slaves, &c., are seized, the tribunal 
 to decide the fact of slavery, instead of the 
 judges of the States whence the fugitives have 
 escaped. This was negatived by a large ma- 
 jority. 
 
 Mr. RICH made several successive attempts
 
 110 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 Fugitives from Justice and Service. 
 
 [JANUARY, 1818. 
 
 to procure amendments to the bill, relaxing 
 some of its provisions, which were successively 
 negatived. 
 
 The debate, though not very interesting, was 
 zealously persisted in to a late hour. 
 
 The question being on ordering the bill to a 
 third reading 
 
 A motion was made by Mr. "W. P. MAOLAT 
 to postpone the bill to Monday next; which 
 motion was negatived 79 to 62. 
 
 After two or three ineffectual motions to pro- 
 cure an adjournment, and to further amend 
 the bill 
 
 The question was at length taken, " Shall the 
 bill be engrossed, and read a third time ?" and 
 deckled, by yeas and nays : For the bill 86, 
 against it 55, as follows: 
 
 YEAS. Messrs. Abbott, Anderson of Kentucky, 
 Austin, Baldwin, Ball, Bassett, Bayley, Beecher, 
 Bellinger, Bloomfield, Blount, Bryan, Harwell, Camp- 
 bell, Claiborne, Cobb, Cook, Crawford, Cruger, De- 
 sha, Drake, Earle, Edwards, Ellicott, Ervin of South 
 Carolina, Floyd, Forney, Forsyth, Garnett, Hall of 
 Delaware, Hall of North Carolina, Harrison, Hogg, 
 Holmes of Massachusetts, Hubbard, Johnson of Vir- 
 ginia, Johnson of Kentucky, Lewis, Linn, Little, 
 Lowndes,'McLane, McCoy, Marchand, Marr, Mason 
 of Massachusetts, Middleton, Moore, Mumford, H. 
 Nelson, Nesbitt, Newton, Owen, Palmer, Patterson, 
 Peter, Pindall, Pleasants, Poindexter, Porter, Quarles, 
 Reed, Rhea, Ringgold, Robertson of Kentucky, Rug- 
 gles, Sampson, Sawyer, Settle, Slocumb, S. Smith, 
 Ballard Smith, Alexander Smyth, Southard, Speed, 
 Spencer, Stewart of North Carolina, Storrs, Strother, 
 Stuart, Tompkins, Trimble, Tucker of South Caro- 
 lina, Walker of North Carolina, Williams of North 
 Carolina, and Wilson of Massachusetts. 
 
 NAYS. Messrs. Adams, Allen of Massachusetts, 
 Allen of Vermont, Bateman, Bennett, Boss, Butler, 
 Clagett, Crafts, Culbreth, Folger, Hale, Hendricks, 
 Herrick, Hitchcock, Holmes of Connecticut, Hopkin- 
 son, Hunter, Huntington, Ingham, Irving of New 
 York, Kinsey, Lawyer, Livermore, W. Maclay, W. 
 P. Maclay, Merrill, Morton, Murray, Jeremiah Nel- 
 son, Orr, Parrott, Pawling, Rice, Rich, Richards, 
 Savage, Scudder, Sergeant, Seybert, Sherwood, Sils- 
 bee, Spangler, Strong, Tarr, Taylor, Terry, Upham, 
 Wallace, Wendover, Williams of Connecticut, Williams 
 of New York, Wilkin, and Wilson of Pennsylvania. 
 
 The bill was then ordered to be read the third 
 time to-morrow. 
 
 FRIDAY, January 80. 
 Fugitives from Justice and Service. 
 
 The House having resumed the consideration 
 of the bill providing for the recovery of fugitive 
 slaves, and the question having been announced 
 to be on the passage of the bill 
 
 Mr. ADAMS, of Massachusetts, opposed the bill 
 at much length ; on the ground principally that, 
 in guaranteeing the possession of skve property 
 to those States holding it, the constitution 
 did not authorize or require the General Gov- 
 ernment to go as far as this bill proposed, to 
 render the constitutional provision effectual; 
 that the bill contained provisions dangerous to 
 the liberty and safety of the free people of color 
 
 in other sections in the Union ; and that, in se- 
 curing the rights of one portion of the commu- 
 nity, he could not consent to jeopardize those of 
 another. 
 
 Mr. ANDERSON, of Kentucky, spoke some time 
 very earnestly in support of the bill, and in re- 
 ply to the objections urged by the gentlemen 
 who had at different times opposed it. 
 
 Mr. LIVERMORE, of New Hampshire, submit- 
 ted the reasons for his intention to vote against 
 the bill. He was willing to go to the necessary 
 extent in securing to the owners of this species 
 of property, permitted as it was by the consti- 
 tution; but the bill contained no sufficient 
 guard to the safety of those colored people who 
 resided in the States where slavery was known 
 only by name. The bill provided that alleged 
 fugitives were not to be identified and proven 
 until they reached the State in which the per- 
 son seizing them resided ; and this would ex- 
 pose the free men of other parts to the hazard 
 of being dragged from one extreme of the coun- 
 try to the other though this fear was not 
 strengthened by any want of respect for the 
 wisdom and justice of the Southern judiciaries, 
 to which he paid the highest compliment ; but 
 the feelings entertained on the subject in the 
 South, he feared, would make less secure the 
 liberty of any colored man carried there, and 
 charged with being a fugitive. 
 
 Mr. MASON, of Massachusetts, delivered at 
 length his motives for approving the bill. The 
 constitution, formed in the spirit of compro- 
 mise, had guaranteed this kind of property to 
 the Southern States, and as it appeared from 
 the insufficiency of the existing laws, that the 
 proposed bill was necessary to secure this right, 
 he was willing to adopt the measure, as he was 
 always willing to approve any measure to effect 
 what the constitution sanctioned. The possible 
 abuse of any thing was no argument against it, 
 if otherwise expedient, and on this ground he 
 was not prepared to reject the feature of the 
 bill so much opposed. The judicial tribunals 
 of the South, he had no doubt, would decide 
 on the cases as correctly as those of the North, 
 and on this subject perhaps more so, as, he be- 
 lieved, so strong was the feeling on this subject 
 in the latter section of the country, and so great 
 a leaning was there against slavery, that the 
 juries of Massachusetts would, in ninety-nine 
 cases in a hundred, decide in favor of the fugi- 
 tive. His feelings on this bill were also some- 
 what interested ; as he wished not, by denying 
 just facilities for the recovery of fugitive slaves, 
 to have the town where he lived (Boston) in- 
 fested, as it would be, without an effectual re- 
 straint, with a great portion of the runaways 
 from the South. 
 
 Mr. HOLMES, of Massachusetts, followed his 
 colleague in submitting his reasons for approv- 
 ing the bill, and to reconcile the apparent con- 
 tradiction in a gentleman from his part of the 
 country appearing as the supporter of this bill. 
 Eis course on this, as on other measures, was 
 based on his duty as a Eepresontative for the
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 Ill 
 
 JANUARY, 1818.] 
 
 Fugitives from Justice and Service, 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 whole Union, instead of local interests. This 
 measure, it appeared, was necessary to secure 
 the constitutional rights of a large portion of the 
 States ; and, as to the provision so strongly ob- 
 jected to by some gentlemen, he did not think 
 it competent in Massachusetts to try a question 
 between a Southern master and his slave; it 
 was a kind of question, with which his constit- 
 uents, to their honor, were not familiar, and 
 he wished them to remain so. He did not be- 
 lieve the freedom of a single man in the North 
 would be endangered by this provision of the 
 bill ; the habeas corpus would prevent it ; and 
 he went into various arguments to prove that 
 the bill was expedient, and free from the evils 
 apprehended by other gentlemen. 
 
 Mr. RHEA made some observations in support 
 of the bill, and in reply to the arguments against 
 it. So long as this property was authorized, 
 there could be no doubt of the right of the 
 holder to pursue it, and carry it back without 
 hindrance to the place from whence it escapes. 
 He thanked Heaven this nation was not charge- 
 able with the odium of introducing this species 
 of property ; it was an evil entailed on it ; and 
 this bUl was in conformity with the principles 
 of the compact which guaranteed this property 
 to its holders. There was little danger of per- 
 sons going from the South to claim free men as 
 their property ; such a fear was without founda- 
 tion. He always felt pain in hearing distinc- 
 tions made between the slaveholding States 
 and others ; nearly all the old original thirteen 
 States had held slaves, and, if circumstances 
 had enabled some of them to get rid of the 
 evil, the only feeling they ought to entertain 
 towards the others, is compassion that they are 
 not so fortunate. 
 
 Mr. STORES, of New York, entered into a 
 number of arguments in support of the bill. 
 He referred to and reasoned on the words of 
 the constitution, to show that the bill was con- 
 sonant to its provisions, and did not exceed the 
 limits within which Congress were authorized 
 to legislate on the subject. He expressed his 
 pleasure at the liberality which had been mani- 
 fested by some hi its discussion, but should like 
 to see a little more displayed by gentlemen from 
 the North, as an evidence they were willing to 
 sacrifice some of their old prejudices to the 
 spirit of harmony and mutual benefit 
 
 Mr. WHITMAN, of Massachusetts, admitted the 
 necessity of some additional regulations on this 
 subject, as the existing law appeared inadequate ; 
 but he could not vote for this bill in its present 
 shape. He objected to that provision, which 
 makes it penal hi a State officer to refuse his 
 assistance in executing the act. This feature, 
 if retained, would prevent his voting for the 
 bill, as its penalties would refaire the State 
 officers either to resign or perform an act which 
 might be repugnant to their feelings, and ren- 
 der their official stations frequently disagree- 
 able. Furthermore, he did not believe Congress 
 had the right to compel the State officers to 
 perform this duty they could only authorize 
 
 it ; and, as he believed the bill might be made 
 effectual without this objectionable provision, 
 he hoped it would be recommitted, and receive 
 the necessary modification. In reference to a 
 remark of his colleague, (Mr. MASON,) he had 
 no doubt that justice would be administered 
 under this act by the tribunals of Massachusetts, 
 if the duty were devolved on them, as impar- 
 tially as in any other part of the Union, not- 
 withstanding the prejudices they felt on the sub- 
 ject ; yet he did not doubt that exact justice 
 would also be rendered by the tribunals of the 
 South, where prejudices were felt of an oppo- 
 site character. 
 
 Mr. WILLIAMS, of Connecticut, was called up 
 by the remark of Mr; STORES, and admitted 
 that if he could not and had not banished all 
 his local prejudices, he ought to have done so. 
 Mr. W. then entered, at large, into an examina- 
 tion of the bill, into his reasons for opposing it 
 unless it was altered in some of its features, and 
 to show that in its present shape it was calcu- 
 lated to excite angry feelings, and rouse strong 
 prejudices hi those parts of the country where 
 shivery was not tolerated. This effect would 
 be produced by that provision under which a 
 free man of color might be unjustly seized and 
 dragged to a remote part of the country, and 
 his liberty endangered, if not destroyed. In 
 attempting, properly, he admitted, to secure the 
 right of property to one class of citizens, it was 
 unjust that the rights of another class should be 
 put in jeopardy, when, too, as he contended, 
 the danger might be avoided, hi one case, with- 
 out impairing the benefit hi the other. Al- 
 though he wished not to interfere between a 
 slave and his master, yet he argued that the 
 right ought to be tried in the State in which 
 the fugitive should be arrested ; and compared 
 the case to that of a runaway apprentice, who 
 could not be seized and carried away by the 
 ex parte testimony of the person claiming 
 turn. 
 
 The question on the passage of the bill was 
 :hen taken, and decided hi the affirmative 
 yeas 84, nays 69, as follows: 
 
 YEAS. Messrs. Abbott, Anderson of Kentucky, 
 Austin, Baldwin, Bassett, Bayley, Bellinger, Bloom- 
 field, Bryan, Burwell, Campbell, Cobb, Colston, Cook, 
 Crawford, Desha, Drake, Earle, Edwards, Ervin of 
 South Carolina, Floyd, Forney, Forsyth, Garnett, 
 Hall of Delaware, Hall of North Carolina, Hasbrouck, 
 Herbert, Herkimer, Hogg, Holmes of Massachusetts, 
 Hubbard, Johnson of Virginia, Johnson of Kentucky, 
 Lewis, Little, Lowndes, McLane, McCoy, Marchand, 
 Marr, Mason of Massachusetts, Mercer, Middleton, 
 Moore, Mumford, H. Nelson, Nesbitt, New, Newton, 
 Ogden, Owen, Palmer, Patterson, Peter, Pindall, 
 Pleasants, Poindexter, Quarles, Reed, Rhea, Ring- 
 
 13 Robertson of Kentucky, Robertson of Louisiana, 
 , Sampson, Settle, Slocumb, S. Smith, B. 
 J. S. Smith, Speed, Spencer, Stewart or 
 North 'Carolina, Storrs, Strother, Stuart of Marland, 
 Tompkins, Trimble, Tucker of South Carolina, Ty- 
 ler, Walker of North Carolina, Williams of North 
 Carolina, and Wilson of Massachusetts. 
 
 NATS. Messrs. Adams, Allen of Massachusetts,
 
 112 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 General St. Glair. 
 
 [FEBRUARY, 1818. 
 
 Allen of Vermont, Anderson of Pennsylvania, Ball, 
 Barber of Ohio, Bateman, Beecher, Bennett, Boden, 
 Boss, Clagett, Comstock, Crafts, Culbreth, Cushman, 
 Folger, Fuller, Gage, Hale, Hondricks, Herrick, 
 Heister, Hitchcock, Hopkinson, Hunter, Huntington, 
 Ingham, Irving of New Nork, Kinsey, Kirtland, Law- 
 yer, Livermore, W. Maclay, W. P. Maclay, Merrill, 
 Morton, Murray, Ogle, Orr, Parrott, Pawling, Pit- 
 kin, Rice, Rich, Richards, Savage, Scudder, Ser- 
 geant, Seybert, Shaw, Sherwood, Silsbee, Spangler, 
 Strong, Tallmadge, Tarr, Taylor, Terry, Townsend, 
 Upham, Wallace, Wendover, Whiteside, Whitman, 
 Williams of Connecticut, Williams of New York, 
 Wilkin, and Wilson of Pennsylvania. 
 
 Ordered, That the title be, "An act to pro- 
 vide for delivering up persons held to labor or 
 service in any of the States or Territories, who 
 shall escape into any other State or Territory." 
 
 The House adjourned to Monday. 
 
 MONDAY, February 2. 
 General St. Glair. 
 
 The House then, by a small majority, re- 
 solved itself into a Committee of the "Whole on 
 the bill for the relief of General Arthur St. 
 Clair. 
 
 This bill gave rise to a discussion which oc- 
 cupied the committee until sunset, in the 
 course of which the motives of the act of 1810, 
 for the relief of General St. Clair, the act of 
 limitations, the merits of the petitioner, the 
 justice of his claim, &c., were all brought into 
 view, as well as the propriety of various amend- 
 ments offered to the bill. 
 
 Mr. ERVIN, of South Carolina, spoke as fol- 
 lows : At the commencement of this debate, 
 I had no idea of intruding any observations of 
 mine upon the attention of this committee ; but, 
 in justice to my feelings, I cannot now be silent. 
 The integrity of the petitioner has been ques- 
 tioned, and his account denounced as incorrect. 
 It is a case, now, not so much of calculation, as 
 of feeling, and I address you with mingled sen- 
 sations of pity and regret ; pity, for the character 
 of this venerable Revolutionary officer, and re- 
 gret, that his claim should have met, in this 
 House, with a solitary opponent. I, therefore, 
 rise, not merely to defend the correctness of his 
 claim, but to endeavor to shield from the tarnish 
 of dishonor that fame which is no longer his, 
 but the inheritance of his country. Send not, 
 I beseech you, his claim to the Treasury Depart- 
 ment. Many of the vouchers, which might 
 have tended to evidence their correctness, may 
 have been lost through the lapse of years, or the 
 casualties of war. Again, sir, his demand is for 
 the interest of eighteen hundred dollars. In the 
 Treasury Department they allow no interest. 
 To send it there, then, is tantamount to a rejec- 
 tion. But in this House, which is, or ought to 
 be, the fountain of general justice, the principle 
 to pay interest has been adopted, and precedents 
 are already established. Here, then, let us de- 
 cide upon their correctness or incorrectness. 
 But, I am told, adopt the amendment proposed 
 
 by an honorable member from Georgia, and my 
 objections will be removed that the proposed 
 amendment gives to the head of the Treasury 
 Department equitable powers. Specify and de- 
 fine those powers, that I may judge of their 
 propriety ; for, if the powers thereby intended 
 to be given are calculated to arm the head of 
 that Department with discretionary powers, to 
 admit or reject the claim, as to him may appear 
 right and proper, without being governed by the 
 rules of office or regulations of law, I am in duty 
 bound to oppose it. Not, sir, that I doubt the 
 talent or integrity of the officer who presides 
 over, and confers honor upon that department, 
 but, because powers of that description, in a 
 free Government, ought never to be resorted 
 to, unless in cases of imperative necessity. 
 
 I now call your attention to General St 
 Olair's claim : It is for the interest of eighteen 
 hundred dollars, which, he alleges, he advanced, 
 during the Revolutionary war, to Major Butler 
 for the United States, and which sum was ex- 
 pended for their benefit, and produces to yon 
 the receipt given to him by Major Butler for 
 that sum. Duly to appreciate the value of this 
 loan, it is only necessary to advert to the time 
 when it was made. It was at the dawn of our 
 Revolution, when the liberties of our country 
 were struggling into existence. At this inter- 
 esting moment, he early and generously stepped 
 forward in their defence against the unrivalled 
 power, whose legions had humbled Spain and 
 France, and whose flag waved in proud triumph 
 round the universe. Under these appalling cir- 
 cumstances, his country sought him beyond the 
 mountains, and demanded his services he left 
 the endearment of his family, and the security 
 of private life, to encounter, for this very coui> 
 try, whose Government now repels his claim, 
 the dangers and destruction of war. It is, how- 
 ever, contended, by the honorable the Speaker, 
 that this receipt admits of two constructions. 
 I admit the fact : but will we consult the dig- 
 nity, or even the interest of our country, by 
 adopting a construction, which, whilst it debases 
 the individual, degrades the country? But I 
 contend that the construction given to the re- 
 ceipt, by the honorable the Speaker, is contrary 
 to every rule of construction with which I am 
 acquainted. He contends, with zeal and much 
 eloquence, that the money which was advanced, 
 and from which the receipt was given, may 
 have been public money which had been placed 
 in his hands by the then Government. Where 
 is the evidence to prove that fact ? It is very 
 material ; if such evidence does exist, the House 
 is entitled to it ; and if none is produced, we 
 are at liberty to presume that none exists. 
 Again, sir, every circumstance, connected with 
 this interesting (distressed Revolutionary soldier, 
 repels such an idea. He fought with Amherst 
 in the West, and conquered with Wolfe on thp 
 plains of Abraham ; at Ticonderoga he merited, 
 if he did not obtain, victory ; he rose superior 
 to the weakness of humanity, and yielded hinv 
 self a sacrifice to his integrity : he there could
 
 DEBATES OF CONGKESS. 
 
 113 
 
 FEBRUARY, 1818.] 
 
 General St. Clear. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 liave reaped bloody honors, and, perhaps, death- 
 less renown, by the destruction of a gallant 
 army, which afterwards contributed to the tri- 
 umph at Saratoga; the" adoption of his advice 
 eaved your army at Trenton ; he was one of 
 your Major Generals during the Revolutionary 
 war; he presided over the former delibera- 
 tions of your Congress; he was a friend of 
 WASHINOTOH, and shared the confidence of that 
 great man to the day of his death. And can it 
 be possible, that a man thus elevated, by those 
 circumstances which usually tend to ennoble 
 human character, can submit to the degradation 
 of presenting to the Government of his country 
 a false account for the pitiful sum of four or five 
 thousand dollars, and he trembling on the brink 
 of the grave ? The idea is too debasing, it is 
 ungenerous it ought not to be entertained for 
 a moment. Seven long years he has literally 
 begged at your doors ; committees after com- 
 mittees have said his accounts ought to be paid. 
 If you think otherwise, reject them ; but why 
 win you debase him why will you add insult 
 to injury? Recollect his services, and 0! let 
 his gray hairs pass in peace to the grave ! But 
 again, I have always been taught to believe, 
 that it is a correct rule of construction, when 
 an instrument of writing is presented to you, 
 susceptible of two constructions, you are bound 
 to permit that construction to prevail which 
 will operate most strongly against the obligor, 
 and most in favor of the payee or obligee. 
 Apply this rule of construction to the case now 
 before you, and further comment is unneces- 
 sary, the conclusion is irresistible. 
 
 The opponents of the claim tell us, if it is re- 
 jected, they will join and vote him so many 
 hundred dollars a year. Mr. Chairman, I have 
 no idea of introducing under the garb of public 
 sympathy, a pensioned corps, other than that 
 already established, composed of unfortunate 
 individuals disabled in the military or naval 
 service of my country. Let us first be just,, 
 and, with the public money, generous only in 
 case of necessity. 
 
 The acts of limitation have been appealed to 
 as barring the claim of the petitioner. Sir, let 
 them bar, and prevent fraud and injustice, but 
 not right, nor the claims of Revolutionary merit 
 in distress. Let them prevail in the depart- 
 ments of the Government ; enforce them, if you 
 please, in the courts of law, but in this temple 
 of justice they are inoperative they vanish be- 
 fore legislative discretion. An honorable gen- 
 tleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. HOPKIXSOX,) 
 whom I have always listened to with pleasure 
 and edification, has anticipated me in one idea 
 in relation to the act of limitation. He has 
 very properly remarked, that your committees 
 have not only acknowledged the correctness of 
 the claim, but recommended its payment, and 
 that the House, acting upon that recommenda- 
 tion, have not only sanctioned their reports, 
 but have paid the principal of the claim, which, 
 in legal contemplation, takes the claim out of 
 the act of limitation. It does more; it not 
 VOL. VI 8 
 
 only takes it out of the act of limitation, but 
 proves one of two things, either that the claim 
 is correct, and that the interest ought to be paid, 
 or that the committees who recommended pay- 
 ment, and the Congress which paid, paid an il- 
 legal and improper account. But I contend, 
 and hope I shall be able to prove to the satis- 
 faction of this committee, that this claim has 
 never been embraced by your acts of limitation. 
 Acts of limitation commence their operation, 
 not from the time of making a contract, or the 
 time of its execution, but from the day assigned 
 for payment ; for example, a note dated 1st of 
 January, 1817, payable the 1st of January, 1818, 
 when will an act of limitation commence its 
 operation ? Every mind anticipates the answer 
 from the day of payment; this principle 
 being established, let us inquire into the nature 
 of General St. Clair's claim : it is of the nature 
 of a debt payable on demand, which excludes 
 the idea of any particular day of payment ; in 
 such cases a discretionary power is left with 
 the payee or obligee to make the demand, which 
 is evidenced by proof of a formal demand, or, 
 what is the more usual way, by the entry of 
 mesne process in the hands of the sheriff; in 
 either way the act begins to run only from the 
 time of the demand. General St. Clair's claim, 
 if I am correctly informed, was presented in 
 1810, and has been preferred from that time to 
 the present; your acts of limitation therefore 
 cannot affect it. The correctness of the claim 
 being established, as his advocate in my official 
 capacity, I demand for him the payment. And 
 how is he paid ? Injustice still presents these 
 acts of limitation as a payment for what? 
 The claim? Yea, more; for sleepless days and 
 nights ; for services the most eminent, rendered 
 at a time which emphatically tried men's souls; 
 when patriotism was denounced as treason, and 
 defeat was slavery or death. Mr. Chairman, if 
 the claim is doubtful, and if I shall stand here 
 alone, I shall vote to relieve the distresses of the 
 Revolutionary soldier. Lamented ingratitude I 
 Thus have your soldiers been paid ; they who 
 fought for your liberties and independence. 
 After the Revolutionary war, they looked up to 
 their Government for justice; wounded and 
 disabled they performed an annual pilgrimage 
 to your House ; year after year, they petitioned 
 for their wages ; at last, tired with their com- 
 plaints, acts of limitation were passed ; just or 
 unjust, their claims were forever barred. Hope, 
 the last consolation of the miserable, being tips 
 cut off, numbers retired beyond the mountains 
 and pined out a miserable existence. This ses- 
 sion, the glorious few whom death had not re- 
 lieved, driven by want, once more approached 
 you; they dropped the tone of remonstrance; 
 they assumed the accents of humanity and dis- 
 tress, and begged for bread ; you felt the appeal, 
 and, with a promptitude honorable to yourselves 
 and grateful to the people, you voted a partial 
 relief. Ol that they had been made partakers 
 of the thousands that are expended in which 
 the heart would have united with the judgment
 
 114 
 
 ABKIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R] 
 
 Death of Mr. Goodwyn. 
 
 [FEBRUARY, 1818. 
 
 in approving the expenditure. Mr. Chairman, 
 we have listened to the prayers of the subaltern, 
 let us not discard the claim of the chieftain ; 
 pay him his account ; fill his heart with grati- 
 tude; send comfort to the humble mansion 
 which now shelters him from the rude storm 
 of the mountain ; he will thank you, and in his 
 last moments will give to his country all that 
 he has to give his blessing. 
 
 A motion, made by Mr. FORSYTH, to amend 
 the bill by directing the accounting officers of 
 the Treasury to adjust the claim of General St. 
 Clair, and allow him the principal and interest 
 of whatever amount may appear to be due, any 
 law to the contrary notwithstanding, was un- 
 der consideration, when the committee rose, 
 and obtained leave to sit again. 
 
 TUESDAY, February 3. 
 
 Another member, to wit, from Massachu- 
 setts, ELIJAH H. MILLS, appeared, produced his 
 credentials, and took his seat. 
 
 FRIDAY, February 6. 
 Case of George Mumford. 
 
 Mr. TAYLOB, from the Committee of Elec- 
 tions, made a report, accompanied by sundry 
 documents, amongst which is a letter from Mr. 
 Mumford to the committee on the case of 
 George Mumford, a member of this House 
 from North Carolina, whose right to a seat has 
 been questioned, because he had not, previously 
 to attending the House, resigned the office of 
 Principal Assessor in his district. The report 
 concludes, on the ground that the duties and 
 compensation of the office (and of course the 
 office itself) had expired, that George Mumford 
 is entitled to a seat in the House. 
 
 The report was read, and committed. It is 
 as follows : 
 
 The Committee of Elections, to which was referred 
 a resolution of the House of Representatives of the 
 10th of December, 1817, and a Message of the Presi- 
 dent of the United States, of the 29th of the same 
 month, report : 
 
 That in the year 1813, subsequent to the passage 
 of the act for the assessment and collection of direct 
 taxes and internal duties, George Mumford was ap- 
 pointed principal assessor of the tenth collection dis- 
 trict of North Carolina ; that he accepted the said 
 office, and executed the duties appertaining thereto, 
 tinder the several acts afterwards passed, laying di- 
 rect taxes upon the United States ; and that he has 
 jiot resigned the said office. 
 
 In the month of August, 1817, he was elected a 
 Representative of the said State ; and on the first 
 day of the present session he was qualified, and took 
 his seat in this House. 
 
 Tbe act of July 22, 1813, under which Mr. Mum- 
 ford held his appointment, was prospective and with- 
 out limitation. No law then existed laying a direct 
 tax. But as Congress intended resorting to that 
 system of revenue, it was enacted " that, for the pur- 
 pose of assessing and collecting direct taxes," the 
 United States should be divided into collection dis- 
 tricts, and a principal assessor appointed to each dis- 
 
 trict. If this act has neither expired nor been re- 
 pealed, Mr. Mumford is still in office, and cannot 
 rightfully be a member of this House. But, by the 
 second section of the act, to provide additional reve- 
 nues for defraying- the expenses of the Government, 
 and maintaining the public credit, by laying a direcf 
 tax upon the United States, and to provide for as 
 sessing and collecting the same, approved January 
 9, 1815, the said act was repealed, except so far as 
 the same respected collection districts, internal duties, 
 and the appointment and qualification of collectors 
 and assessors ; in all which respects it was enacted 
 that the said act should be, and continue in force for 
 the purposes of the last-mentioned act. The act of 
 22d July, 1813, so far as the same was not repealed, 
 was thereby limited to the duration of that act, and 
 was continued in force only for its purposes. By 
 'that act a direct tax of six millions of dollars was an- 
 nually laid upon the United States, and apportioned 
 agreeably to the provisions of the constitution. At 
 the first session of the Fourteenth Congress that act 
 was modified, by repealing so much thereof as laid 
 an nnnual tax of six millions, by reducing the same 
 to three millions, and by limiting its continuance to 
 one year ; and it was expressly enacted that all the 
 provisions of the act of January 9, 1815, except so 
 far as the same had been varied by subsequent acts, 
 and except the first section thereof, (which related to 
 the apportionment of the tax,) should be held to ap- 
 ply to the tax of three millions thereby laid. Thus 
 the act of July, 1813, was again limited, and con- 
 tinued in force for the purpose of the three million 
 tax, laid March 5, 1816. Whenever those purposes 
 were fulfilled, that act expired, and of course all of- 
 fices created by it ceased to exist. 
 
 By the letter of the Secretary of the Treasury, 
 hereto annexed, enclosing a report of the Commis- 
 sioner of the Revenue, it appears that the entire tax 
 assessed in the tenth collection district of North Car- 
 olina, was accounted for previous to the 1st of De- 
 cember, 1817, and that no official duty then remain- 
 ed to be performed by Mr. Mumford, the principal 
 assessor of that district His said office, therefore, 
 expired previous to his taking a seat in this House. 
 The committee, therefore, respectfully submit the 
 following resolution : 
 
 Resolved, That George Mumford is entitled to a 
 seat in this House. 
 
 MONDAY, February 9. 
 
 Another member, to wit, from the State of 
 South Carolina, ELDRED SIMKINS, appeared, pro- 
 duced his credentials, was qualified, and took 
 his seat. 
 
 MONDAY, February 23. 
 Death of Mr. Goodwyn. 
 
 After the usual form of reading the journal 
 of the preceding day's sitting, Mr. NEWTON, 
 of Virginia, rose to announce to the House 
 the death of his colleague, Colonel PETERSON 
 GOODWYN. 
 
 On me (said Mr. NEWTON) devolves the mel- 
 ancholy duty of informing the House of the 
 death of our late worthy associate, Mr. PETER- 
 SOX GOODWYK, of Virginia. Mr. Goodwyn 
 died at his seat in Virginia on the 21st of this
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 115 
 
 FEBRUARY, 1818.] 
 
 The Expatriation Bill. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 month. He has performed and finished his 
 duties here, and with a clear conscience, and 
 in the full expectation of the reward of his vir- 
 tues, he has gone for a time to repose with his 
 ancestors in the tomb. In amiableness of dis- 
 position, in suavity of manners, in acts of be- 
 nevolence and charity, in steadiness of friend- 
 ship, and in love and devotion to the repub- 
 lican institutions of his country, he was surpass- 
 ed by no man. 
 
 Mr. XEWTON offered the following resolution, 
 which was unanimously agreed to : 
 
 Resolved, That the members of this House will tes- 
 tify their respect for the memory of PETERSON Goo- 
 WTX, deceased, late a member of this body from the 
 State of Virginia, by wearing crape on the left arm 
 for one month. 
 
 Mr. NEWTON then submitted the following 
 resolution, which was also unanimously agreed 
 to: 
 
 Resolved, That a message be sent to the Senate, in- 
 forming them that this House, in testimony of their 
 respect for the late Colonel PETERSON GOODWYN, one 
 of their body from the State of Virginia, have unani- 
 mously resolved to wear crape on the left arm for one 
 month. 
 
 And then, on motion of Mr. FOBSYTH, the 
 House adjourned. 
 
 "WEDNESDAY, February 25. 
 Bankrupt Bill 
 
 The House proceeded to the consideration of 
 the Bankrupt biU. 
 
 The question being on Mr. EDWAEDS'S motion, 
 to discharge the Committee of the whole House 
 from the further consideration of the bill, and 
 to postpone it indefinitely. 
 
 The House having refused to agree to a mo- 
 tion for adjournment, the question on the mo- 
 tion to postpone the bill indefinitely was taken 
 by yeas and nays yeas 82, nays 70. 
 
 So the House determined that the bill be in- 
 definitely postponed, that is, rejected. 
 
 SATUEDAY, February 28. 
 The Expatriation Bill. 
 
 The House being thin, a motion was made to 
 adjourn ; which was lost ayes 41, noes 67 
 and the House then again resolved itself into a 
 Committee of the "Whole on the Expatriation 
 bill. 
 
 The question under consideration being the 
 motion to strike out the first section of the bill, 
 which was as follows : 
 
 Be it enacted, &c , That, whensoever any citizen of 
 the United States shall, by a declaration in writing, 
 made and executed in the district court of the United 
 States, within the State where he resides, in open 
 court, to be by said court entered of record, declare 
 that he relinquishes the character of a citizen, and 
 shall depart out of the United States, such person 
 shall, from the time of his departure, be considered 
 as haviug exercised his right of expatriation, and 
 ehall thenceforth be considered no citizen : 
 
 The debate on the bill, and on topics incident- 
 ally introduced by some of the speakers, occu- 
 pied the remainder of the day. Messrs. COBB, 
 McLANE, FOBSYTH, CLAY, JOHNSON of Virginia, 
 and EOBEETSON of Louisiana, engaged in the 
 discussion. 
 
 Mr. McLANE, of Delaware, said, that after the 
 observations which had been made by the other 
 gentlemen who had preceded him in debate, he 
 would not have intruded himself upon the time 
 of the committee, but for the purpose of sub- 
 mitting some views of the subject which did not 
 appear to him to have been yet given, and par- 
 ticularly in relation to our treaty with Spain, 
 which had been rendered important in this dis- 
 cussion. He would therefore ask the indulgence 
 of the committee for a few minutes, while he 
 urged those reasons which would induce him to 
 oppose the bill, and support the motion to strike 
 out the first section. He was aware that this 
 was a very favorite bill with the honorable 
 mover, who, no doubt, anticipated much good 
 from a law of the kind proposed. But, sir, said 
 Mr. McL., if I can succeed in convincing that 
 honorable gentleman that Congress have not 
 the constitutional power to pass such a law, and 
 that, if they had, it would be inadequate to one 
 very principal object anticipated from it, he will, 
 it is to be presumed, not feel very anxious about 
 its fate. 
 
 Mr. McL. said he would not, upon the pres- 
 ent occasion, either affirm or deny the right of 
 a citizen to expatriate himself, because he did 
 not conceive it to be necessary to the argument 
 of the particular subject before the committee. 
 He would content himself with inviting the at- 
 tention of gentlemen generally to the origin and 
 principles of the right, as it had been assumed, 
 and upon which alone it could exist. This, he 
 said, would be absolutely necessary, in order to 
 ascertain the power by which the exercise 
 of the right could either be controlled or reg- 
 ulated. 
 
 The right of expatriation, if it exist at all, is a 
 civil right, commensurate with civil society and 
 civil institutions. In a state of nature such a 
 right could not be known, because, in such a 
 state, the relation of citizen and country did not 
 exist. Then the inhabitants of the State were 
 not restricted to any particular spot, or subject- 
 ed to the control of any community ; the wide 
 world was before them, and they were at liberty 
 to roam wheresoever they pleased, and select 
 the place best calculated to supply their wants 
 and comforts, and to change it again whensoever 
 they should think proper, either from interest 
 or caprice. It was not until they united them- 
 selves into societies and communities, in which 
 their own self-government was merged in civil 
 institutions, that any restraint would be impos- 
 ed upon this general freedom. In giving up 
 the liberties of a state of nature, and entering 
 into civil society, they necessarily contracted 
 certain mutual obligations, by which the exer- 
 cise of their natural rights would be regulated. 
 The individual contracted obligations to his com-
 
 116 
 
 ABKIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 The Expatriation Bill. 
 
 [FEBRUAKY, 1818. 
 
 inanity or country, and the community to him, 
 upon which the safety of all materially depend- 
 ed, and which neither could disregard without 
 Jeopardizing that safety. He admitted that the 
 happiness of the individual and the community 
 constitute the objects of the association. 
 
 It is only necessary, therefore, said he, for the 
 present argument, for me to insist, and to ask 
 gentlemen to concede, what I apprehend will 
 not be denied, that the exercise of this right 
 must be consistent with these obligations : that 
 a citizen should not abandon his country with- 
 out good cause, or in the necessary and lawful 
 pursuit of happiness ; that he cannot divest him- 
 self of his duties to his country in the hour of 
 her peril, nor sacrifice all his obligations to her 
 imminent injury and ruin, and therefore that 
 the exercise of the right should be regulated by- 
 rules resulting from the nature and force of civil 
 obligations. The bill now before the committee 
 would seem to imply the recognition of these 
 principles. It proposes to make the Govern- 
 ment a party to the act, dissolving the tie be- 
 tween the citizen and his country, and to pre- 
 scribe the terms upon which it will consent to 
 the dissolution. Such a right cannot be a bar- 
 ren one. The power to prescribe rules upon 
 any subject necessarily implies the power of 
 judging of the propriety and extent of the rules. 
 
 If, then, Mr. Chairman, said Mr. MoL., the 
 exercise of the right of expatriation should be 
 consistent with the essential and fundamental 
 principles of civil obligations, and if any regula- 
 tion of its exercise is to emanate from the civil 
 power, it should proceed from that power to 
 whom the obligation is due ; from the supreme 
 or sovereign power of the state or community 
 of which the citizen is a member, and to whom 
 he owes his allegiance. It is to such a power 
 alone that these obligations have any relation. 
 The question then presents itself, Is the Gov- 
 ernment of the United States such a power, 
 and can Congress exercise it ? I apprehend not. 
 
 The powers of the General Government are 
 not absolute, but limited ; they are confined to 
 certain specified, enumerated 'objects, raised for 
 especial purposes. The supreme sovereign 
 power is in the people of the United States, 
 acting through the different State governments. 
 Prior to the organization of the Federal Gov- 
 ernment, the sovereignty of the States was ab- 
 solute and complete, and the natural and civil 
 allegiance of the citizen was exclusively due to 
 the particular State of which he was a member. 
 By that State alone could the right of expatria- 
 tion have been regulated. 
 
 In its organization, the General Government 
 was Federal, and not National, and, in the ex- 
 tent of its powers, it is Federal and not Na- 
 tional ; and the natural allegiance of the citizen 
 to his State is neither absolved nor infringed by 
 his connection with the Government of the 
 United States. He simply contracts certain du- 
 ties to the General Government, in no degree 
 inconsistent witli his allegiance to the State 
 sovereignty. This is perfectly clear, from the 
 
 nature of the Government. It was formed not 
 by the citizens of the United States, but by the 
 citizens of the respective States, acting as mem- 
 bers of their several political communities, and 
 designed for the protection of State rights. A 
 civil relation thus created to the General Gov- 
 ernment, never can be construed to abrogate 
 the natural relation between the citizen and 
 his State ; on the contrary, we find that this 
 relation is in full force in all essential points. 
 The right of the State to require of its citizens 
 militia services, and subject them to trials by 
 court-martials; to inflict punishment for the 
 commission of crimes ; to regulate the acquisition 
 of property, and the rules and principles of 
 descent, and, in short, to exercise, almost with- 
 out limit, an authority over the persons and 
 rights of their citizens ; but, above all, to re- 
 gulate and punish treason against the State. 
 The second section of the fourth article of the 
 Constitution of the United States recognized the 
 crime of treason against a State, by provid- 
 ing for the apprehension of the criminal, though 
 I apprehend such a recognition would not be 
 required to render it entirely clear. The ca- 
 pacity to commit treason against the State, re- 
 sults from natural relation between the citizen 
 and its sovereignty, and, though treason may also 
 be committed against the United States, it re- 
 sults more from the express provision of the 
 Constitution, than from any natural relation sub- 
 sisting between the citizen and the Govern- 
 ment. If, therefore, said Mr. McL., a citizen of 
 the United States could be released from his 
 duties to the General Government, he would 
 nevertheless continue a citizen of the State, and 
 his relation to the State government would be 
 even more absolute than it was before. But, 
 sir, as the States have an interest in preserving 
 the obligation of the citizen to the performance 
 of his duty to the United States, it may well be 
 questioned whether the General Government 
 can release him from those duties without the 
 consent of the State. So long as a citizen re- 
 mains a citizen of a State, a State has a right to 
 require the power of the General Government 
 in aid of his protection, and it cannot withhold 
 it. This is of the very essence of the compact 
 between the States and the General Govern- 
 ment. By this compact, the protection of the 
 rights ofi persons and property is fairly stipulat- 
 ed, and it cannot be dispensed with, in regard 
 to one, without the consent of all. This com- 
 pact constitutes the citizens of the State citi- 
 zens of the United States. The relation to the 
 State government was the basis of the relation 
 to the General Government, and therefore, as 
 long as a man continues a citizen of a State, he 
 must be considered a citizen of the United States. 
 I affirm that the Government of the United 
 States cannot withhold its protection from, or 
 dispense with its duties to any man, while he 
 remains a citizen of any individual State, and 
 that any act of the General Government, ab- 
 solving him from such duties, would be inopera- 
 tive.
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 117 
 
 FEBKC.UJY, 1818.] 
 
 The Expatriation Bill. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 It then becomes an important question, which 
 this committee must decide, whether Congress 
 can destroy the relation of citizenship between 
 a citizen and a State ? 
 
 The only powers possessed by Congress are 
 those enumerated in the constitution, or such as 
 are incidental to the execution of those enumer- 
 ated. It will not be contended that the power 
 in question is expressly given ; it is nowhere to 
 be found in the constitution ; and, as was well 
 remarked by the honorable gentleman from 
 Kentucky, (Mr. AXDEESOX,) it is not necessary 
 to the execution of any express power. I can- 
 not discern any reference which it has to either 
 the powers or objects of the Government. 
 
 The fundamental object of the General Gov- 
 ernment being shown to be the protection of 
 the States in their sovereign rights, the measure 
 now proposed would appear to be opposed to 
 the object, since it tends to sever the ties by 
 which the State communities are held toge- 
 ther, and puts the citizen beyond the protection 
 of both the State and the General Government. 
 Such a power, carried to an extent easily con- 
 ceivable, might interfere, materially, with State 
 rights, and drain the States of their population, 
 against their evident policy, and contrary, per- 
 haps, to their express laws. Sir, I do not know 
 whether such a law as is now contemplated, 
 does not go the whole of this extent ; it annihi- 
 lates the authority of the State over the citizen, 
 without its interposition, at the mere will and 
 pleasure of the individual It cannot, reason- 
 ably, be imagined that the States ever designed 
 to surrender this portion of their sovereignty ; 
 it strikes immediately at the root of their exist- 
 ence, and does not in any degree conduce to 
 the objects of the Union. 
 
 There is no instance in which the General 
 Government possesses any control over the 
 personal rights of the citizen, in his relation to 
 the individual State. Such is always exclusively 
 the object of State jurisdiction. The instances 
 in which it can exercise a power over the per- 
 sons of individuals, at all, are few, are confined 
 to their relations to the Federal Government, 
 and expressly defined in the constitution. But 
 the power of regulating expatriation, implies 
 indefinite supremacy over the personal rights 
 and effects of the individual, in all their rela- 
 tions. 
 
 Each State in the Union is a distinct, independ- 
 ent sovereignty, and without some provision 
 to the contrary, a citizen of one would be a 
 foreigner in another, liable to nil the disabilities 
 of that situation. It was essential, however, 
 for the great purposes of the Union, that such 
 an inconvenience should be guarded against, 
 and it was therefore declared, that " the citi- 
 zens of each State should be entitled to all 
 privileges and immunities of citizens in the 
 several States." It was this provision that 
 dictated the necessity of vesting in Congress 
 the power " to establish a uniform rule of 
 naturalization," lest the interests of one State 
 might be jeopardized by an improvident admis- 
 
 sion of citizens into another. But, even this 
 power of naturalization would not have been 
 possessed, unless it had been expressly delegated. 
 There is, perhaps, nothing more necessary and 
 natural to a sovereign State, than the power of 
 admitting foreigners to the rights of citizenship. 
 It was therefore inherent in State sovereignty, 
 and surrendered for the reason mentioned. But 
 the power of divesting the right of citizenship, 
 and of regulating the exercise of the right of 
 expatriation, is one of a very different charac- 
 ter, productive of different and important con- 
 sequences, equally an attribute of sovereign 
 power, but in no degree connected with the 
 power of naturalization, and therefore cannot 
 be supposed to have been surrendered at the 
 same time. I conclude, therefore, said Mr. 
 McL., that Congress, having no power to de- 
 stroy the relation between a citizen and his 
 State, cannot, constitutionally, pass any law 
 that could denaturalize him from the United 
 States. 
 
 Mr. JOHNSON, of Virginia, said he felt humili- 
 ated by the debate which had taken place on 
 the subject now under deliberation. To hear 
 the old feudal doctrine of perpetual allegiance 
 advocated on this floor, said Mr. J., as it has 
 been by the gentleman from Delaware, (Mr. 
 McLANE ;) the doctrine resulting from a system 
 which, from time immemorial, has borne down 
 and oppressed most of the wretched subjects of 
 Europe. A doctrine which was unknown in 
 England, until the reign of "William the Con- 
 queror ; who, by great art and address, prevail- 
 ed upon the English people to adopt the feudal 
 system, from which the doctrine of perpetual 
 allegiance sprang. 
 
 I had not expected at this period of peace, 
 tranquillity, and prosperity, when it is said that 
 no distinction of party exists, when all are pre- 
 tending to crowd into the Republican fold, to 
 hear the fundamental principles on which this 
 Government rests for its support, questioned, 
 much less denied to exist. Although no person 
 has had the hardihood to deny the right of the 
 citizen to expatriate himself, yet arguments are 
 used, which, if they be correct, go conclusively 
 to prove that the citizen cannot and ought not 
 to enjoy the means essential to the exercise of 
 this right. The gentleman from Delaware (Mr. 
 McLAXE) contends that allegiance is a contract 
 between the citizen and the sovereign power of 
 the country, which cannot be cancelled without 
 the consent of both the contracting parties. He 
 then charges the honorable gentleman from 
 Louisiana Olr. ROBEBTSON) with introducing 
 the bill on your table, in order to aid the pa- 
 triots of South America. I well recollect the 
 introduction of a similar proposition, by the 
 gentleman from Louisiana, during the Thirteenth 
 Congress, and the effect at that time produced 
 on the Federal gentlemen of the House. Our 
 attention is invited by the gentleman from 
 Delaware (Mr. MoLAUE) to the deplorable situa- 
 tion of the country during the late war. The 
 difficulties we had to encounter in raising an
 
 118 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 The Expatriation Bill. 
 
 [FEBRUARY, 1818. 
 
 army are described in glowing terms. Our 
 being driven almost to the adoption of a system 
 of conscription is artfully introduced. And we 
 are gravely admonished by the gentleman that 
 if we pass the present bill in the event of an- 
 other war, another period of difficulty to avoid 
 fighting the battles of their country, of assert- 
 ing its honor, defending its liberty and independ- 
 ence, our citizens will avail themselves of its 
 provisions, and exercise the right of expatria- 
 tion. Can this be possible, Mr. Chairman ? If 
 it be, I hope it is confined to the citizens of the 
 State of Delaware. I am confident that no 
 Virginian would ever abandon his country in 
 the hour of danger, would ever expatriate him- 
 self to avoid fighting her battles, defending her 
 honor, her liberty, and her independence. If, 
 however, there be such an one, I should have 
 no difficulty in fixing his doom ; I would furnish 
 him the means of expatriating himself to a region 
 from whence he never should return. Is there 
 any man who would dare to avow such a prin- 
 ciple ? No, sir. He would shrink from the 
 light like the recreant felon. He would dare 
 not meet the scrutinizing eye of investigation. 
 I hope there is not a square foot of soil within 
 the jurisdictional limits of the United States 
 which nurtures such a miserable and depraved 
 wretch. 
 
 What, sir, is the true question for the com- 
 mittee to decide ? Do the citizens of the United 
 States possess the right to expatriate themselves ? 
 Has Congress the power to legislate competent- 
 ly on the subject ? and is it expedient that a 
 complete and perfect act of legislation shall now 
 take place ? I answer that the citizens of the 
 United States do possess the right in the most 
 ample, unlimited, and unlimitable degree. If I 
 be asked from whence I derive the right I 
 point to Heaven. It is in that great charter by 
 which nature secured to man the right to seek 
 happiness wheresoever he could enjoy it. I 
 would disdain to derive the right from any of 
 the little petty sovereignties or Governments 
 on earth. Does it require any act of the Gov- 
 ernment to enable the citizen to exercise and 
 enjoy this right ? I contend not. The moment 
 a citizen changes permanently his residence, and 
 takes the oath of allegiance to the Government 
 of the country in which he has fixed his per- 
 manent residence, he has exercised this right. 
 All claims of the Government which he has 
 abjured cease to exist. But the decisions of 
 our courts are cited a long case has been read, 
 the case of Jonathan Williams, who had regu- 
 larly expatriated himself from Virginia, and 
 become a citizen of France, and who was tried 
 and punished by one of our Federal courts. 
 The remedy is at hand. It was an act of tyranny 
 and oppression for which the judge ought to 
 have been impeached. As it respects the right, 
 this is a plain question. No man has, no man 
 will dare openly to deny it. The warmest ad- 
 vocates of the feudal system the warmest 
 friends of English principles and English law 
 will not deny the right. How does the conduct 
 
 of England agree with the dictates after jurists ? 
 Two years' service in their navy, ipso facto, 
 makes an alien, a foreigner, a citizen of Eng- 
 land. Can any Government presume to natural- 
 ize foreigners and deny the right of expatria- 
 tion ? Such pretence ought to subject a Gov- 
 ernment to ridicule and scorn. 
 
 Mr. COBB, of Georgia, said, the object of the 
 bill under discussion, was not to change any 
 known law, acknowledged to be in force in the 
 United States. Its object was to declare that 
 the principle of perpetual allegiance, known 
 only to the common law of England, so many 
 of the other principles of which are in force, 
 has no binding efficacy upon the people of this 
 country. In reasoning upon such a law, said 
 he, it is indispensably necessary that all terms 
 necessarily used should have a definite and clear 
 meaning attached to them. 
 
 By allegiance, as it is explained by the judges 
 of our own courts, and as it is defined by those 
 who have preceded me in debate, we mean, 
 " that tie by which the Government and the 
 citizen are connected ; " from which protection 
 is promised, and submission expected ; protec- 
 tion being the duty imposed upon the Govern- 
 ment, and submission upon the citizen, with 
 their corresponding duties. Expatriation is the 
 dissolution of this tie ; it is the act of throwing 
 off the character of citizen of declaring that 
 protection is no longer expected, and conse- 
 quently claiming to be freed from the duty of 
 submission. The friends of this bill, of which 
 I am one, say that the citizen can, as a matter 
 of natural right, exercise this act of expatria- 
 tion whenever he pleases, and that of this right 
 no human laws can deprive him. If I under- 
 stood the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. PIN- 
 DALL,) even he does not deny the power of the 
 citizen to exercise this right, and yet, in the 
 next breath, he attempted to prove that there 
 was no such right ; that there is and must be, 
 in every citizen, a principle of gratitude so eter- 
 nal in its obligations, as that it cannot be dis- 
 charged. What is this but the English common 
 law upon the subject? The gentleman has 
 used almost the very words of Sir William 
 Blackstone. He ought also to have adopted 
 the reasons of the same writer, and have traced 
 this gratitude to the principles of universal 
 law, preached by himself only, and which no 
 other can understand. To me this principle of 
 universal law is so utterly incomprehensible, 
 that I have heard of but one thing more su- 
 premely ridiculous, and that is, the " immacu- 
 late purity of the Spanish monarchy," about 
 which we have learned something from the pen 
 of the Spanish Minister, during the present ses- 
 sion. Such a principle of universal law is a 
 twin brother of this immaculacy, and no head 
 but such as could comprehend the latter, is able 
 to understand the former. It was to be hoped 
 that doctrines like these were out of fashion ; 
 but, like Judge Ellsworth, the honorable gen- 
 tleman from Virginia cannot dispense with the 
 common law, or rather that part of it which
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 119 
 
 MARCH, 1818.] 
 
 Duty on Salt. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 does not and ought not to prevail in this coun- 
 try, for the best of reasons, that it is not found- 
 ed in common sense. 
 
 I would not be understood as denouncing the 
 common law ; on the contrary, in its genuine 
 principles I find a safe and sure guarantee of 
 the best rights of the citizen. 
 
 But -even in England the absurdity of the 
 doctrine of perpetual allegiance is obvious, 
 because of its inconsistency with other princi- 
 ples equally admitted, and founded in better 
 reasons. England also maintains the doctrine 
 of naturalization. "What is naturalization but 
 the act of conferring upon a foreigner all the 
 rights of a citizen, by the acquisition of which 
 he, at the same moment, imposes upon himself 
 all the duties of a citizen ? Can there be such 
 a thing as the naturalized citizen of two States? 
 Can all the duties of the citizen be claimed by 
 two States, each having a just right? Cer- 
 tainly not. For the act by which all the rights 
 of citizen are acquired, and all the duties are 
 imposed, necessarily pre-supposes that all con- 
 nection between the individual and any other 
 State, is dissolved. "Wherever naturalization, 
 then, is permitted, the right of expatriation is 
 admitted ; and all measures which have a ten- 
 dency to curtail this right, is tyranny. The 
 creatures of kings, and the slaves of despots, 
 may venture to assert a contrary doctrine, but 
 it ought never to come from the mouths of 
 freemen. 
 
 The question was at length taken on striking 
 out the first section of the bill, and decided in 
 the affirmative, by a small majority. 
 
 The committee rose, and reported to the 
 House this decision ; and, after refusing to ad- 
 journ, or to lay the bill on the table, the ques- 
 tion was taken on concurring with the com- 
 mittee in striking out the first section of the 
 bill, (considered equivalent to rejection,) and 
 was decided in the affirmative yeas 70, nays 
 68, as follows: 
 
 YEAS. Messrs. Abbott, Adams, Allen of Vermont, 
 Baldwin, Ball, Barbour of Virginia, Bayley, Beecher, 
 Blount, Boss, Campbell, Clagett, Colston, Crager, 
 Cnshman, Darlington, Drake, Earle, Edwards, Elli- 
 cott, Ervin of South Carolina, Folger, Hall of Dela- 
 ware, Hasbrouck, Herbert, Hitchcock, Hogg, Holmes 
 of Connecticut, Huntington, Lawyer, Livermore, 
 Lowndes, McLane, W. P. Maclay, Marr, Mason of 
 Rhode Island, Merrill, Middleton, Mills, Moore, Mor- 
 ton, Mnmford, J. Nelson, H. Nelson, Ogden, Ogle, 
 Orr, Parrott, Pindall, Pleasants, Porter, Reed, Rice, 
 Richards, Ruggles, Scudder, Servant, Sherwood, 
 Slocumb, A. Smyth, Stuart of Maryland, Tallmadge, 
 Taylor, Trimble, Wendover, Whitman, Williams of 
 Connecticut, Williams of New York, Wilkin, and 
 Wilson of Massachusetts. 
 
 NAYS. Messrs. Barber of Ohio, Bassett, Bateman, 
 Bellinger, Bennett, Boden, Butler, Cobb, Comstock, 
 Crafts, Desha, Forsyth, Fuller, Garnett, Harrison, 
 Hendricks, Herkimer, Herrick, Heister, Holmes of 
 Massachusetts, Hunter, Irving of New York, Johnson 
 of Virginia, Jones, Kinsey, W. Maclay, McCoy, Mur- 
 ray, T. M. Nelson, Nesbitt, Newton, Patterson, 
 Quarles, Rhea, Rich, Ringgold, Robertson of Ken- 
 
 tucky, Robertson of Louisiana, Sampson, Savage, 
 Sawyer, Seybert, Shaw, Silsbee, B. Smith, Southard, 
 Speed, Spencer, Stewart of North Carolina, Strother, 
 Tarr, Terrill, Tompkins, Tucker of South Carolina, 
 Tyler, Walker of Kentucky, Whiteside, and Wilson of 
 Pennsylvania. 
 
 The remaining sections of any bill, after the 
 first is stricken out, have usually been disposed 
 of by a motion of course ; but, on this occasion, 
 the procedure was objected to by Mr. JOHN- 
 SON, of Virginia, and by Mr. ROBERTSON, on the 
 ground that the bill was yet capable of amend- 
 ment, and might be put into a declaratory 
 shape, or amended in some way to recognize 
 the right (acknowledged by all, but controvert- 
 ed by certain judicial decisions) of expatriation. 
 To whom Mr. LOWNDES replied, that the pro- 
 ceeding now proposed was unparliamentary, 
 and would tend to the utter confusion of the 
 proceedings of the House, if sanctioned ; since 
 there would be no end to any question, if it 
 could be debated, and solemnly decided, and 
 then again debated and decided. 
 
 Before settling this mooted point of order, a 
 motion to adjourn finally prevailed, after being 
 once or twice refused. 
 
 TUESDAY, March 3. 
 Monument to the Baron de Kalb. 
 
 Mr. REED submitted the following preamble 
 and resolution : 
 
 "Whereas a resolution was passed by the Congress 
 of the United States, on the 14th day of October, 
 1780, in the following words, to wit : 
 
 Resolved, That a monument be erected to the 
 memory of the late Major General the Baron de 
 Kalb, in the city of Annapolis, in the State of Mary- 
 land, with the following inscription : 
 
 " Sacred to the Memory of THE BARON DE KALB, 
 Knight of the Royal Order of Military Merit, Briga- 
 dier of the Armies of France, and Major General in 
 the service of the United States of America. Having 
 served with honor and reputation for three years, he 
 gave a last and glorious proof of his attachment to 
 the liberties of mankind and the cause of America, 
 in the action near Camden, in the State of South 
 Carolina, on the 16th of August, 1780, when leading 
 on the troops of the Maryland and Delaware lines 
 against superior numbers, and animating by his ex- 
 ample to deeds of valor, he was pierced with many 
 wounds, and on the 19th following expired, in the 
 forty-eighth year of his age. The Congress of the 
 United States of America, in gratitude to his zeal, 
 services, and merit, have erected this monument" 
 
 Hesohed, therefore, That the aforegoing resolution 
 be referred to a select committee, with instruction to 
 report a bill to carry the same into effect. 
 
 The question was taken, " "Will the House 
 now consider the said resolution 1 ?" and deter- 
 mined in the negative. 
 
 Duty on Salt. 
 
 Mr. LOWNDES, from the Committee of Ways 
 and Means, who were instructed to inquire into 
 the expediency of repealing the duty on salt, 
 made a report against repealing the duty ; which
 
 120 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 Internal Improvement. 
 
 [MARCH, 1818. 
 
 was read, and referred to a Committee of the 
 Whole. The report is as follows : 
 
 That the letter from the Secretary of the Treasury, 
 with the statement which accompanies it, which they 
 report to the House, explains the principal objections 
 to the repeal of the duty in question, which have in- 
 duced the committee to concur in the opinion of the 
 Secretary. 
 
 TREASURY DEPARTMENT, Jan. 5, 1818. 
 
 SIR : In reply to your letter of the 12th ultimo, 
 enclosing a resolution of the House of Representatives, 
 instructing the Committee of Ways and Means " to 
 inquire into the expediency of repealing the law lay- 
 ing a duty on imported salt, granting a bounty on 
 pickled fish exported, and allowances to certain ves- 
 sels employed in the fisheries ;" requesting any infor- 
 mation or opinion which I may think proper to com- 
 municate, and particularly an estimate of the revenue 
 which has accrued from the salt duty in the years 
 1816 and 1817, I have the honor to suhmit a state- 
 ment of the revenue accruing from that duty during 
 the years 1815, 1816, and the first two quarters of 
 1817, and of the amount paid upon the exportation 
 of pickled fish, as well as of the allowances to vessels 
 employed in the fisheries. 
 
 Deducting the hounty and allowances from the 
 gross amount of duty, and apportioning the remain- 
 der between the two years and a half, the period 
 within which it has accrued, the annual average 
 revenue arising from that duty is estimated at $810,- 
 016. But as the war prevented importations to any 
 considerable extent during the first quarter of the year 
 1815, if that quarter should be omitted in the esti- 
 mate, the annual revenue arising from the duty on 
 salt during the period embraced by the statement 
 would exceed $900,000. By comparing the revenue 
 of the first two quarters of the year 1817 with that 
 which accrued in the year 1816, it appears that there 
 has been a considerable diminution during the latter 
 period; it may, therefore, be unsafe to estimate it 
 above 800,000 a year. 
 
 The revenue in the annual report of the Treasury 
 has been estimated for the year 1818 at $24,525,000, 
 including the internal duties, which have been since 
 repealed. The revenue for that and for the next two 
 years may be estimated at $22,025,000. The expen- 
 ditures for the same year have been estimated at 
 $21,946,351 74, which being deducted from the esti- 
 mated revenue, there would remain a surplus of rev- 
 enue, beyond the expenditure at present authorized 
 by law, of $78,648 26. 
 
 It therefore appears that, if the salt tax shall be 
 repealed, there will be a deficit in the revenue of 
 more than $700,000 annually, until the proceeds of 
 the lands in the State of Mississippi and in the Ala- 
 bama Territory shall be applicable to the current ex- 
 penses of the Government. During this interval the 
 deficit will have to be supplied by the balance esti- 
 mated to be in the Treasury on the 1st day of Janu- 
 ary of the present year. 
 
 As it is uncertain what appropriations may be made 
 during the present session of Congress, beyond those 
 authorized by existing laws, and upon which the esti- 
 mates of expenditure for the year 1818 are founded, 
 it is impossible to determine whether the balance in 
 the Treasury will be equal to the supply of the defi- 
 ciency which the repeal of the duty upon salt will 
 create. It may be proper also to observe, that, after 
 paying the interest of the public debt, and reimburs- 
 ing the old six per cent, and deferred stock, accord- 
 
 ing to the principles of the funding system, the ap- 
 propriation often millions of dollars, constituting the 
 sinking fund, will be unequal to the discharge of the 
 Louisiana debt during the years 1818 and 1819. The 
 deficiency was intended to be supplied from the bal- 
 ance remaining in the Treasury, under the provisions 
 of the act of the last session of Congress, providing 
 for the redemption of the public debt. A reduction 
 of the balance in the Treasury, so as to prevent its 
 application to this object, ought to be carefully guard- 
 ed against. 
 
 I have the honor to be, your most obedient and 
 very humble servant, 
 
 WM. H. CRAWFORD. 
 
 Hon. WILLIAM LOWNDES, 
 
 Chairman of the Com. of Ways and Means. 
 
 Statement showing the amount of duty which accrued 
 on salt imported during the years 1815 and 1816, 
 and from the 1st of January to the 30th June, 1817, 
 together with the amount paid for bounty on pickled 
 fish exported, and for allowances to vessels employed 
 in thejisheries during the same period. 
 
 Duty on Salt. 
 
 From 1st Jan. to 31st December, 1815, $855,448 40 
 From 1st Jan. to 31st December, 1816, 1,100,745 70 
 From 1st January to 30th June, 1817, 232,183 74' 
 
 Bounty. 
 
 From 1st Jan. to 31st December, 1815, 
 From 1st Jan. to 31st December, 1816, $586 80 
 From 1st January to 30th June, 1817, 1,836 20 
 
 Allowances. 
 
 From 1st Jan. to 31st December, 1815, $1,811 74 
 From 1st Jan. to 31st December, 1816, 84,736 26 
 From 1st January to 30th June, 1817, 76,786 43 
 TREASURY DEPARTMENT, 
 
 Register's Office, December 18, 1817. 
 
 JOSEPH NOURSE, Register. 
 
 FRIDAY, March 6. 
 
 Mr. BUTLER presented a petition of John 
 Stark, a Major General in the Revolutionary 
 Army, representing his necessitous circumstan- 
 ces, and praying that the bounty of the National 
 Government may he extended to him in the 
 decline of his days, in consideration of his faith- 
 ful services in the defence of his country : which 
 was referred to a select committee ; and Messrs. 
 BUTLEE, KICH, ANDERSON of Kentucky, MER- 
 CEE, LIVERMORE, HopKiNSON, and MILLS, were 
 appointed the committee. 
 
 SATTTRDAT, March 14. 
 Internal Improvement. 
 
 The House having resumed the consideration 
 of the report of the Committee of the Whole, 
 on the report of a Committee on the subject of 
 Roads and Canals ; and the question being on 
 agreeing to the first resolution reported by said 
 committee, in the following words : 
 
 1. Resolved, That Congress has power, under the 
 constitution, to appropriate money for the construc- 
 tion of post roads, military, and other roads, and of 
 canals, and for the improvement of water-courses. 
 
 Mr. JOHNSON, of Kentucky, said he had never 
 voted for any proposition since he had enjoyed
 
 DEBATES OF CONGKESS. 
 
 121 
 
 MARCH, 1818.] 
 
 Internal Improvement. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 the honor of a seat in this House, which he did 
 not helieve to be sanctioned by the express 
 letter of the constitution ; nor should he on the 
 present occasion. After expressing the satis- 
 faction which he had received from this debate, 
 than which he had never listened to any with 
 greater pleasure, Mr. J. proceeded to say, that, 
 as he bottomed his opinion on this question on 
 the express letter of the constitution, he should 
 derive no aid in support of his vote by implica- 
 tion. He claimed for Congress no grant of 
 power under that clause of the constitution 
 which speaks of the common defence and gen- 
 eral welfare ; nor did he stand here in any 
 other character than as an advocate for State 
 rights ; for he was thoroughly convinced that 
 there never was a more vital attack on the in- 
 tegrity of the States, and on State rights, than 
 would be the rejection of the present proposi- 
 tion, unless it Avere immediately followed by 
 an amendment to the constitution in this re- 
 spect. 
 
 Mr. DESHA moved to amend the said resolu- 
 tion, by striking out the words " and other" 
 the effect of which would have been to confine 
 the declaration to post roads and military roads. 
 
 After some remarks from Mr. LOWNDES, who 
 desired that the amendment might not prevail, 
 that the House might be allowed to vote on 
 the broad proposition, the motion of Mr. DESHA 
 was negatived. 
 
 Mr. MILLS moved to postpone indefinitely the 
 further consideration of the subject, and sup- 
 ported this motion in a speech of half an hour. 
 
 Mr. LOWXDES made some observations calcu- 
 lated to show that it was highly important to 
 obtain a decision of this House at the present 
 session ; a different course, after the many days 
 consumed in debate, he thought would be un- 
 just to the committee who had made report on 
 the subject, and dissatisfactory in its result. 
 
 Messrs. BALDWIN and LIVEKMOEE also op- 
 posed the indefinite postponement. 
 
 The motion for indefinite postponement was 
 decided in the negative, by yeas and nays for 
 the postponement 77, against it 87. 
 
 The question was then taken on concurring 
 in the first resolution adopted by the Committee 
 of the "Whole, as above stated, and decided as 
 follows yeas 90, nays 75: 
 
 YEAS. -Messrs. Abbott, Anderson of Kentucky, 
 Baldwin, Barber of Ohio, Bateman, B.ayley, Beecher, 
 Bloomfield, Campbell, Colston, Comstock, Crawford, 
 Cruger, Cushman, Darlington, Ellicott, Ervin of 
 South Carolina, Forsyth, Gage, Hall of Delaware, 
 Harrison, Hasbrouck, Hendricks, Herbert, Herkimer, 
 Herrick, Heister, Hitchcock, Holmes of Massachusetts, 
 Hopkinson, Hubbard, Irving of New York, Johnson 
 of Kentucky, Jones, Kinsey, Lawyer, Linn, Liver- 
 more, Lowndes, McLane, W. P. Maclay, Marchand, 
 Marr, Mercer, Middleton, Moore, Morton, Mumford, 
 Murray, Jeremiah Nelson, Ogflen, Ogle, Palmer, 
 Parrott, Patterson, Pawling, Peter, Pindall, Poin- 
 dexter, Porter, Quarles, Robertson of Kentucky, Rob- 
 ertson of Louisiana, Savage, Schuyler, Sergeant, Sey- 
 bert, Simkins, Slocumb, S. Smith, Bal. Smith, South- 
 ard, Spencer, Stuart of Maryland, Tallmadge, Tarr, 
 
 Taylor, Terrill, Trimble, Tucker of Virginia, Upham, 
 Wallace, Wendover, Westerlo, Whiteside, Whitman, 
 Wilkin, Wilson of Massachusetts, and Wilson of 
 Pennsylvania. 
 
 NAYS. Messrs. Adams, Allen of Massachusetts, 
 Allen of Vermont, Anderson of Pennsylvania, Austin, 
 Ball, Barbour of Virginia, Bassett, Bellinger, Ben- 
 nett, Blonnt, Boden, Bryan, Bnrwell, Butler, Clagett, 
 Cobb, Cook, Crafts, Culberth, Desha, Drake, Earle. 
 Edwards, Folger, Forney, Garnett, Hale, Hall of 
 North Carolina, Hogg, Holmes of Connecticut, Hun- 
 ter, Huntington, Johnson of Virginia, Kirtland, Mc- 
 Coy, Mason of Massachusetts, Mason of Rhode Island, 
 Merrill, Mills, Mosely, H. Nelson, T. M. Nelson, 
 New, Orr, Owen, Pitkin, Pleasants, Reed, Rhea, 
 Rice, Richards, Ringgold, Ruggles, Sampson, Sawyer, 
 Scudder, Settle, Sherwood, Shaw, Silsbee, Alexander 
 Smyth, J. S. Smith, Speed, Stewart of North Caro- 
 lina, Strong, Terry, Tompkins, Townsend, Tucker of 
 South Carolina, Taylor, Walker of North Carolina, 
 Williams of Connecticut, Williams of New York, and 
 Williams of North Carolina. 
 
 So the first resolution was adopted. 
 
 The second resolution having been read in 
 the following words : 
 
 2. Resolved, That Congress has power, under the 
 constitution, to construct post roads and military 
 roads ; provided that private property be not taken 
 for public use, without just compensation. 
 
 The question was then taken on agreeing to 
 the second resolution as above stated, and de- 
 cided as follows yeas 82, nays 84 : 
 
 YEAS. Messrs. Anderson of Kentucky, Baldwin, 
 Barber of Ohio, Bateman, Baylcy, Beecher, Bloom- 
 field, Campbell, Colston, Comstock, Crawford, Cruger, 
 Cushman, Darlington, Ellicott, Ervin of South Car- 
 olina, Forsyth, Gage, Hall of Delaware, Harrison, 
 Hasbrouck, Hendricks, Herbert, Herkimer, Herrick, 
 Heister, Hitchcock, Hopkinson, Irving of New York, 
 Johnson of Kentucky, Jones, Kinsey, Lawyer, Linn, 
 Livermore, Lowndes, McLane, Marchand, Marr, Mer- 
 cer, Moore, Morton, Mumford, Murray, Ogden, Ogle, 
 Palmer, Parrott, Patterson, Pawling, Peter, Pindall, 
 Porter, Quarles, Rich, Robertson of Kentucky, Rob- 
 ertson of Louisiana, Savage, Schuyler, Sergeant, 
 Seybert, Simpkins, Slocumb, Ballard Smith, South- 
 ard, Speed, Spencer, Stuart of Maryland, Tallmadge, 
 Tarr, Taylor, Terrill. Trimble, Upham, Wallace, 
 Wendover, Westerlo, Whiteside, Wilkin, Wilson of 
 Massachusetts, and Wilson of Pennsylvania. 
 
 NAYS. Messrs. Abbott, Adams, Allen of Massa- 
 chusetts, Allen of Vermont, Anderson of Pennsyl- 
 vania, Austin, Ball, Barbour of Virginia, Bassett, 
 Bellinger, Bennett, Blount, Boden, Boss, Bryan, Bnr- 
 well, Butler, Clagett, Claiborne, Cobb, Cook, Crafts, 
 Culberth, Desha, Drake, Earle, Edwards, Folger, 
 Forney, Garnett, Hale, Hall of North Carolina, Hogg, 
 Holmes of Massachusetts, Holmes of Connecticut, 
 Hunter, Huntington, Johnson of Virginia, W. Maclay, 
 W. P. Maclay, McCoy, Mason of Massachusetts, Ma- 
 son of Rhode Island/Merrill, Mills, Mosely, Jeremiah 
 Nelson, H. Nelson, T. M. Nelson, New, Orr, Owen, 
 Pitkin, Pleasants, Poindexter, Reed, Rhea, Rice, 
 Richards, Ringgold, Ruggles, Sampson, Sawyer, Scnd- 
 der, Settle, Shaw, Sherwood, Silsbee, S. Smith, Alex- 
 ander Smyth, J. S. Smith, Stewart of North Caro- 
 lina, Strong, Terry, Tompkins, Townsend, Tucker of 
 Virginia, Tucker of South Carolina, Tyler, Walker 
 of North Carolina, Whitman, Williams of Connecti-
 
 122 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 Our Relations with Spain. 
 
 [MARCH, 1818. 
 
 cut, 'Williams of New York, and Williams of North 
 Carolina. 
 
 So the resolution was not agreed to. 
 
 The third resolution was then read as fol- 
 lows : 
 
 3. Resolved, That Congress has power, under the 
 constitution, to construct roads and canals necessary 
 for commerce between the States; provided, that 
 private property be not taken for public purposes, 
 without just compensation. 
 
 The question was then stated upon concur- 
 ring with the Committee of the Whole, in that 
 part of their amendment embraced by the fourth 
 resolution, in the following words, viz : 
 
 4. Resolved, That Congress has power, under the 
 constitution, to construct canals for military pur- 
 poses: Provided, That no private property be taken 
 for any such purpose, without just compensation 
 being made therefor. 
 
 The question then recurred on agreeing to 
 the said fourth resolution, and being taken, it 
 was determined in the negative yeas 61, nays 
 88. 
 
 So the resolution was not agreed to. 
 
 The result of the whole proceeding is, that 
 the House have come the following resolution : 
 
 " That Congress have power, under the constitu- 
 tion, to appropriate money for the construction of 
 post roads, military and other roads, and of canals, 
 and for the improvement of water-courses."* 
 
 Our Relations with Spain. 
 
 The following Message was then received 
 from the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES : 
 To ihe Speaker of the House of Representatives : 
 
 In compliance with a resolution of the Senate, of 
 the 16th December, and of the House of Representa- 
 tives, I lay before Congress a report of the Secretary 
 
 * The vote in this case seems to have turned upon the 
 word "necessary,'" as found at the end of the enumerated 
 powers granted to Congress ; and under which word it was 
 held to be constitutional to adopt the measures -which were 
 deemed necessary to carry into effect these granted powers ; 
 a very unsafe way of deriving powers ; as the opinion ol 
 what may be necessary may depend upon the temperament 
 of different members as well as upon judgment, and may 
 vary in the same man at different times ; and is, at all times, 
 Influenced by existing circumstances. Thus the financial 
 circumstances of the country in the war of 1812 induced the 
 establishment of the second National Bank under the sup- 
 position of necessity : the circumstances of the country in 
 the Mexican war of 1846, were different, and no such bank 
 was thought of. Again : The want of roads during the war of 
 1812, for the march of troops, and the transportatio 
 supplies, and the general difficulty in carrying the mails 
 
 and keeping up commercial intercourse, : 
 
 these roads 
 
 be felt as a necessity in war, in commerce, and in the post 
 office : and many roads, undor the conviction of these nece* 
 sities, were then made not one of which is now so used 
 all being superseded by the railways, and the electric tele 
 graph fruits of individual genius and private enterprise 
 So that the constitutionality of the federal road-making 
 power would be condemned in 1856 upon the same test on 
 which it was established in 1818. 
 
 State, and the papers referred to in it, respecting 
 be negotiation with Spain. To explain fully the 
 nature of the differences between the United States 
 and Spain, and the conduct of the parties, it has been 
 ound necessary to go back to an early epoch. The 
 ecent correspondence, with the documents accom- 
 aanying it, will give a full view of the whole sub- 
 ect, and place the conduct of the United States, in 
 very stage, and under every circumstance, for justice, 
 Qoderation, and a firm adherence to their rights, on 
 hat high and honorable ground, which it has invari- 
 ibly sustained. 
 
 JAMES MONROE. 
 WASHINGTON, March 14, 1818. 
 
 DEPARTMENT OF STATE, March 14, 1818. 
 
 The Secretary of State, to whom have been refer- 
 red the resolution of the Senate, of 16th, December, 
 ind of the House of Representatives of the 24th Feb- 
 ruary last, has the honor of submitting to the Presi- 
 dent the correspondence between this Department 
 ,nd the Spanish Minister resident here, since he 
 received the last instructions of his Government to 
 renew the negotiations which, at the time of the last 
 communication to Congress, were suspended by the 
 nsufficiency of his powers. These documents will 
 show the present state of the relations between the 
 two Governments. 
 
 As in the remonstrance by Mr. de Onis, of the 6th 
 of December against the occupation by the United 
 States of Amelia Island, he refers to a previous com- 
 munication from him, denouncing the expedition of 
 Sir Gregor McGregor against that place, his note of 
 9th July, being the paper thus referred to, is added 
 to the papers now transmitted. Its date, when com- 
 pared with that of the occupation of Amelia by Mc- 
 ill show that it was written ten days after 
 that event ; and the contents of his note of Gth De- 
 cember, will show that measures had been taken by 
 the competent authorities of the United States to ar- 
 rest McGregor as soon as the unlawfulness of his pro- 
 ceedings within our jurisdiction had been made known 
 to them by legal evidence, although he was beyond 
 the reach of the process before it could be served 
 upon his person. The tardiness of Mr. Onis's remon- 
 strances is of itself a decisive vindication of the 
 magistrates of the United States against any impu- 
 tation of neglect to enforce the laws ; for, if the 
 Spanish Minister himself had no evidence of the pro- 
 ject of McGregor, sufficient to warrant him in ad- 
 dressing a note upon the subject, to this Department, 
 until ten days after it had been accomplished, it can- 
 not he supposed that officers, whose authority to act 
 commenced only at the moment of the actual violation 
 of the law, and who could be justified only by clear 
 and explicit evidence of the facts in proof of such 
 violation, should have been apprised of the necessity 
 of their interposition in time to make it effectual 
 before the person accused had departed from this 
 country. 
 
 As, in the recent discussions between Mr. Onis and 
 this Department, there is frequent reference to those 
 of the negotiation at Aranjuez in 1805, the corre- 
 spondence between the Extraordinary Minister of the 
 United States at that period, and Don Pedro Cevallos, 
 the Minister of Foreign Affairs in Spain, will be also 
 permitted as soon as may be, to be laid before Con- 
 ondence between 
 ing, immediate- 
 
 gress, together with the 
 Don Francisco Pizarro and Mr. 
 
 ly preceding the transmission of new instructions to 
 Mr. Onis, and other correspondence of Mr. Onis with
 
 DEBATES OP CONGRESS. 
 
 123 
 
 MARCH, 1818.] 
 
 Neutral Relations. 
 
 [H. OK R. 
 
 this Department, tending to complete the view of 
 the relations between the two countries. 
 
 JOHN QUINCY ADAMS. 
 
 MONDAY, March 16. 
 
 Mr. MARK presented a petition of the General 
 Assembly of the State of Tennessee, praying 
 that such measures may be adopted, as will en- 
 able citizens of that State to take possession 
 of lands purchased by them from the State of 
 North Carolina, and which are now held by the 
 Chickasnw Indians, under a treaty concluded 
 with the United States. Referred'to the com- 
 mittee appointed on the 17th December last, 
 respecting the Indian title to lands within the 
 State of Kentucky. 
 
 Mr. ROBERTSON, of Louisiana, presented a 
 petition of Gales & Seaton, stating, that they 
 proposed to publish a History of Congress, from 
 the commencement of the Government to the 
 present day, and praying the aid and patronage 
 of Congress in their said publication; which 
 was read, and referred to a select committee ; 
 and Mr. ROBERTSON, Mr. TYLER, Mr. HOPKIN- 
 SON, Mr. HOLMES, of Massachusetts, and Mr. 
 SLMKINS, were apppointed the committee. 
 
 Mr. SCOTT presented petitions of sundry in- 
 habitants of the Territory of Missouri, praying 
 that the said Territory may be admitted into 
 the Union, as a State, on an equal footing with 
 the original States ; which were, together with 
 the petitions of a similar nature, heretofore 
 presented at the present session, referred to a 
 select committee ; and Mr. SCOTT, Mr. ROBERT- 
 SON of Kentucky, Mr. POINDEXTER, Mr. HEN- 
 D RICKS, Mr. LIVERMOBE, Mr. MILLS, and Mr. 
 BALDWIN, were appointed the committee. 
 
 TUESDAY, March 17. 
 
 Neutral Relations. 
 
 The House went into Committee of the Whole 
 on the bill in addition to " An act for the pun- 
 ishment of certain crimes against the United 
 States," and to repeal the acts therein men- 
 tioned, (to enact into one, with amendments, 
 the several acts heretofore passed to enforce 
 the neutral obligations of the United States.) 
 
 Mr. FORSYTH rose in explanation of the views 
 of the Committee of Foreign Relations in pro- 
 posing this bill, which was the result of the gen- 
 eral inquiry into the various existing acts on 
 this subject which had been referred to them, 
 and which it was presumed answered the inten- 
 tions of the House in directing the inquiry. Mr. 
 F. briefly recapitulated the history of the several 
 laws passed on this subject, from the act of 
 1794, rendered necessary by the French Revo- 
 lution, and the want of sufficient power in the 
 Executive to enforce on our own citizens the 
 observance of neutrality, down to the act of 
 the last session ; and concluded by explaining 
 the amendment which the committee had 
 deemed necessary to the strict impartiality ot 
 the provisions of the bill they had reported. 
 Mr. ROBERTSON, of Louisiana, after submitting 
 
 his reasons for disputing the propriety of some 
 of the former acts ; for believing that the pro- 
 visions of the present bill exceeded the obliga- 
 tions imposed on us by a just regard to neutral 
 duties, and went further than the neutral acts 
 of any other nation moved, first, to strike out 
 the following proviso : 
 
 1 That if any person so enlisted, shall, within 
 thirty days after such enlistment, voluntarily discover 
 upon oath to some justice of the peace, or other civil 
 magistrate, the person or persons by whom he was 
 so enlisted, so as that he or they may be apprehended 
 or convicted of the said offence, such person so dis- 
 covering the offender or offenders, shall be indemni- 
 fied from the penalty prescribed by this act" 
 
 This motion was agreed to without a divi- 
 sion. 
 
 Mr. CLAY offered some general remarks on 
 the offensive nature of the bill, which, he said, 
 instead of an act to enforce neutrality, ought to 
 be entitled, an act for the benefit of His Ma- 
 jesty the King of Spain. He also expressed his 
 unwillingness thus to be called on to re-enact 
 laws already in force, of which he did not wish 
 to have now the labor of investigating their 
 principles, or the responsibility, if wrong, of ren- 
 ovating and participating in' them. Sufficient, 
 he thought, for the day, was the evil thereof; 
 and he was sorry the committee had not con- 
 tented itself with bringing forward some original 
 proposition, without hunting out and bringing 
 up for re-enaction all the old laws heretofore 
 passed on the subject. There was a great dif- 
 ference between suffering acts to remain unre- 
 pealed, and bringing them up for re-enactment, 
 and he gave notice that, after this bill should 
 be made as perfect as its friends could make it, 
 he should submit a single proposition to leave 
 the act of 1794 in force, and to repeal the acts 
 of 1797 and of 1817. Mr. C. concluded by 
 moving to strike out of the second section the 
 words which make it penal for a person to " go 
 beyond the limits or jurisdiction of the United 
 States, with intent to be enlisted or entered," 
 hi the service of any foreign Prince or State. 
 
 Mr. FORSYTH opposed the motion, and ob- 
 served, that after the great labor which the 
 committee had undertaken on this subject, at 
 the instance of the Speaker, (Mr. CLAY.) they 
 had some reason to complain of his remarks on 
 the course they had taken. A general inquiry 
 into the subject and revision of the acts had 
 been referred to them, and the committee had 
 found it easier and better to amend and bring 
 into one general bill all the acts, than to adopt 
 any other course. Mr. F. said that, so far 
 from operating unfairly against the cause of the 
 patriots, this bill removed certain provisions of 
 the act of 1797, which bore exclusively on that 
 cause, denouncing the severest penalties against 
 those of our citizens who aid them, which this 
 bill would render equal and impartial. Mr. F. 
 adduced some arguments to show the propriety 
 of retaining the provision moved to be stricken 
 out ; but, after some conversation between Mr. 
 CLAY and Mr. FORSYTH, the question was taken.
 
 124 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R] 
 
 The Neutrality Bill. 
 
 [MARCH, 1818. 
 
 and Mr. CLAY'S motion agreed to without a 
 count. 
 
 MT. KOBERTSON, of Louisiana, objected to the 
 penalties proposed by the bill, as unreasonably 
 severe, and instead of a fine of $10,000, and ten 
 years' imprisonment which the judge might, at 
 his discretion, impose on the offender moved 
 to substitute $2,000 and three years. 
 
 This motion was opposed by Messrs. FORSYTE, 
 SMITU of Maryland, LIVERMOEH, and KHEA, and 
 supported by Messrs. KOBEBTSON of Louisiana, 
 CLAIBORNE, and BALL. 
 
 The question being divided, the motion to re- 
 duce the fine was negatived ayes 40 ; and the 
 motion to reduce the limit of imprisonment was 
 carried 62 to 60. 
 
 Mr. HOLMES, of Massachusetts, moved to 
 amend the section, so as to leave it to the dis- 
 cretion of the judge to inflict both fine and im- 
 prisonment, or one only, instead of being 
 obliged, as the bill stood, to impose both, if 
 either. Negatived ayes 55. 
 
 Mr. HERRICK moved to reduce the fine to 
 $5,000 ; which was also negatived. 
 
 After some other unsuccessful motions of 
 minor importance 
 
 Mr. FORSYTE moved to strike from the third 
 section the provision which makes it penal for 
 any citizen to fit out or arm, without the juris- 
 diction of the United States, any ship or vessel 
 with intent to commit hostilities upon the citi- 
 zens or subjects of a friendly State leaving in 
 this section only the provision against such citi- 
 zens of the United States as shall, beyond our 
 jurisdiction, fit out vessels to commit hostilities 
 against the citizens of the United States. 
 
 This motion produced a good deal of debate, 
 principally on the expediency of striking out 
 the whole section, and on the impropriety of 
 still retaining a feature in the bill which would 
 admit the possibility of a crime so monstrous 
 and improbable, as that of citizens going abroad 
 to commence war upon the citizens and qom- 
 merce of their own country, and which, even 
 if committed, would be punishable either as 
 treason or piracy. 
 
 Messrs. CLAY, EOBEETSON, FORSYTII, SMITH 
 of Maryland, and PITKIN, joined in the discus- 
 sion ; but, before any question was taken, the 
 committee rose, and the House adjourned. 
 
 WEDNESDAY, March 18. 
 The Neutrality Bill 
 
 A motion (made yesterday) to amend the 
 fourth section of the bill, was now agreed to 
 the effect of which was to confine the provi- 
 sions of that section to the punishment of any 
 citizens of the United States who should fit out 
 vessels to cruise against the commerce of the 
 United States, leaving out what related to the 
 commerce of foreign nations. 
 
 Mr. CLAY rose to propose an amendment he 
 had before indicated. Amended as it had been, 
 Mr. C. said he had no objection to retaining the 
 fourth section ; but moved to strike out all the 
 
 remainder of the bill, except so much as retains 
 the provisions of the act of 1794, and repeals 
 the acts of 1797 and 1817 the simple effect of 
 which amendment would be to repeal the act 
 of 1797 and that of 1817. In the propriety of 
 repealing the act of 1797, he understood the 
 Chairman of Foreign Kelations to concur. Of 
 course, then, it would only be necessary to show 
 that the act of the last session ought to be re- 
 pealed ; and that it goes beyond any neutral 
 duty we can owe. In the threshold of this 
 discussion, Mr. C. said, he confessed he did not 
 like much the origin of that act. There had 
 been some disclosures, not in an official form, 
 but in such a shape as to entitle them to cre- 
 dence, that showed that act to have been the 
 result of a teasing on the part of foreign agents 
 in this country, which he regretted to have 
 seen. But, from whatever source it sprung, if 
 it was an act necessary to preserve the neutral 
 relations of the country, Mr. 0. said it ought to 
 be retained. But this he denied. The act was 
 predicated on the ground that the existing pro- 
 visions did not reach the case of the war now 
 raging between Spain and the South American 
 provinces. In its provisions it went beyond the 
 obligations of the United States to other powers, 
 and that part of it was unprecedented in any 
 nation, which compelled citizens of the United 
 States to give bonds not to commit acts without 
 the jurisdiction of the United States, which it 
 is the business of foreign nations, and not of 
 this Government, to guard against. Does the 
 act of 1794, said Mr. C., embrace the case of 
 the Spanish patriots ? That was the question, 
 and it was not worth while to disguise it. If 
 St. Domingo was not included, as had been 
 said, in the act of 1794, it would not follow- 
 that that act did not embrace the case of the 
 Spanish patriots. What was the condition of 
 St. Domingo ? Had the Executive of the Unit- 
 ed States ever acknowledged, in regard to that 
 war, that it was a civil war, respecting which 
 the United States stood in a neutral relation ? 
 No such acknowledgment, he said, had ever 
 been made, in respect to the war in that island, 
 as had been expressly made by the Executive 
 in regard to the war in South America, that it 
 was a civil war. And, when the courts came 
 to apply the law to cases before them, having 
 the decision of the Executive to guide them, 
 they must decide that the law of 1794 is appli- 
 cable to both parties. The act of 1817, conse- 
 quently, was wholly unnecessary to the object 
 for which it was avowedly enacted, and was 
 one of superfluous legislation. Mr. C. said 
 he recollected with pleasure that he gave his 
 negative to it ; that every member from the 
 State of which he was a Kepresentative did the 
 same. Ho recollected that sixty-three members 
 of that part of this House, with whom it had 
 been, and would always be, his pride and pleas- 
 ure to act, had recorded their votes against it. 
 The voice of the country had since pronounced 
 its doom, and left for Congress nothing to do 
 but to repeal the act. Disguise it as you will,
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 125 
 
 MARCH, 1818.] 
 
 The Neutrality Bill. 
 
 [H..OP R. 
 
 said lie, the world has seen the act in its true 
 character ; has regarded it as a measure calcu- 
 lated to affect the struggle going on in the 
 South, and discovered that, however neutral in 
 its language, its bearing was altogether against 
 the cause of the patriots. How, asked he, is 
 that war now carried on ? But for the sup- 
 plies drawn from this country through Havana, 
 for sustaining the army of Morillo, this modern 
 Alva, whose career is characterized by all the 
 enormities which have consigned to perpetual 
 infamy the name of his great prototype ; but 
 for the supplies drawn through Havana, whose 
 port is open to us .only for the sake of those 
 supplies, General Morillo could not have sup- 
 ported his army. This fact he had from the 
 highest authority, from the commander of one 
 of our national vessels who had been on a 
 cruise in that quarter and had received it from 
 the lips of Morillo himself. It becomes us, Mr. 
 C. said, really and bona fide to perform our 
 neutral obligations. He had seen and heard of 
 circumstances respecting this subject, humiliat- 
 ing in the extreme. He had been told, for in- 
 stance, that in the case lately argued in the 
 Supreme Court of the United States, of some 
 of those individuals tried in the court of the 
 United States at Boston, not only was the At- 
 torney-General ready at his post, as he should 
 be, to attend to it, but the attorney for the 
 Massachusetts district was there to argue it 
 also; and, not satisfied with this, a foreign 
 agent was seen attending the court, to see prob- 
 ably that nothing was omitted, and not even 
 a poor Amicus Curis3 was there to speak for 
 the accused. Such was the state of the case 
 that the humanity of the Attorney-General had 
 interposed, and induced that highly meritorious 
 officer to make some suggestions favorable to 
 those individuals. Was there a man in this 
 country, Mr. C. asked, who did not feel his 
 conscience reproach him for that transaction? 
 
 The act of 1797 being given up on all hands, 
 and the act of 1817 being, as he thought he had 
 shown, unnecessary, he hoped his motion would 
 prevail. If, however, contrary to his belief, 
 the House should decide that the act of 1794 
 did not cover the case of the existing civil war, 
 and the act of 1817 should be thought necessary 
 to bring it within the provisions of the act of 
 1794, Mr. 0. said he should, in that event, sub- 
 mit another proposition to amend the bill, pre- 
 dicated on the idea that some provision was 
 necessary hi addition to the act of 1794. 
 
 The motion of Mr. CLAY to amend .the bill 
 having been stated from the Chair 
 
 Mr. FOBSYTH said he was opposed to the mo- 
 tion, and could not but suppose the honorable 
 Speaker himself was doubtful of its success, as 
 he had drawn before the House a variety of 
 considerations which had no bearing on the 
 question. Mr. F. denied, in the first place, that 
 public sentiment had condemned the act of 
 1817. It was true, indeed, that certain exclu- 
 sive friends of liberty, at the head of presses in 
 the United States, had condemned this act; but, 
 
 so far as we have any expression of opinion 
 from the great body of the people of the Unit- 
 ed States, from the thinking part of the com- 
 munity, the act had been approved. But the 
 Speaker had informed the committee that sixty- 
 three members of the House had opposed that 
 act, and that all the members from a certain 
 section of the country were in favor of it. 
 This was another point, Mr. F. said, on which 
 he differed from the honorable Speaker. The 
 act of 1817, as it stands, came into this House 
 on the 3d of March, 1817, and was passed by a 
 large majority, the yeas and nays not having 
 been required on it. How the Speaker then 
 had ascertained the political complexion of 
 those who voted for the bill, Mr. F. knew not ; 
 as far as he recollected, a very small minority 
 had voted against it. That part of *the bill 
 which had been objected to in this House, had 
 been stricken out in the Senate, and the bill, so 
 amended, and as it now stands, was scarcely 
 opposed on its final passage. There was, there- 
 fore, no decided political sentiment expressed 
 on the passage of the bill. But, to excite pre- 
 judice against the act of 1817, another ground 
 had been taken, and a suggestion made, which, 
 if true, was a reflection, not on the House, but 
 on the gentleman whose eulogy the Speaker 
 some days ago pronounced. The origin of this 
 act had been imputed to the teasing of certain 
 foreign agents near the United States. That 
 the Message of President Madison, recommend- 
 ing that act, was in consequence of the repre- 
 sentations of foreign ministers, Mr. F. said he 
 was ready to admit not of reiterated importu- 
 nities, but of a performance of their duty to 
 their Governments by remonstrating against 
 violations, by citizens of the United States, of 
 obligations which we owe not to any one na- 
 tion, but equally to all. A remonstrance had 
 been made by the Portuguese Minister, a garbled 
 representation of which had been published ; a 
 similar statement of facts had been made by 
 the- Minister of Great Britain, another by the 
 Minister of France. All the foreign Ministers 
 here had, in short, represented that citizens of 
 the United States, engaged in cruises in patriot 
 vessels, as they were called, fitted from our 
 ports, committed depredations on the commerce 
 of England, France, and Spain. What, Mr. F. 
 asked, had been the duty of the President of 
 the United States if these facts were true? 
 "Were not the United States bound to make re- 
 paration, if, without an effort to prevent it, we 
 suffered depredations to be made, by our citi- 
 zens, and from our ports, on the commerce of 
 nations in amity with us ? The Government, 
 he said, had heretofore recognized this princi- 
 ple, and had remunerated foreign citizens for 
 property taken from them by citizens of the 
 United States. The President, then, had barely 
 performed an imperious duty in representing to 
 Congress the insufficiency of the laws, &c. 
 
 But, Mr. F. said, he would never do the late 
 President the injustice to state his views, when 
 he had it in hia power to quote his own Ian
 
 126 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OP R..] 
 
 Neutral Relations. 
 
 [MARCH, 1818. 
 
 guage conveying them. [Mr. F. then referred 
 to the President's Message, of last session, on 
 which the neutrality act of March 3d, 1817, was 
 founded.] lie appealed to every other member 
 of the House whether, in this recommendation, 
 there was any thing censurable ; any thing that 
 the most fastidious could mark for reprobation. 
 The act of 1817 was precisely correspondent 
 with the Message, and, almost in so many, 
 words, an answer to it. It corrected the de- 
 fects of the existing laws, and enabled the 
 President of the United States, where there 
 was strong ground to presume that a cruiser 
 was about to violate the neutral relations of the 
 United States, to arrest his departure until he 
 should give bond not to violate the laws of his 
 country. But this, the House had been told, 
 was a most extraordinary provision, and unpre- 
 cedented in the annals of civilized legislation. 
 It was not necessary, Mr. F. said, for him to 
 tell the House that, whenever a citizen of the 
 United States or of any State is accused, on 
 public ground, of intending to commit an of- 
 fence against the authority of the laws, it is the 
 duty of a magistrate to require him not only to 
 give security not to commit a particular act, but 
 to bind him over, in ample security, that he will 
 not violate any of the laws. But it was object- 
 ed, particularly, that it was required of a citizen 
 to give bond to refrain, when beyond the juris- 
 diction of the United States, from certain acts. 
 And was it not right to do so, when the United 
 States were responsible for his conduct when 
 beyond their j urisdiction ? That was a question 
 which had long been settled. And was there any 
 hardship, Mr. F. asked, in requiring bond from a 
 citizen that he will refrain on the high seas from 
 acts affecting the character of the country, and 
 involving it in disputes with foreign powers? 
 And yet there was nothing else in that act which 
 even in the eyes of the honorable Speaker was 
 reprehensible. But this provision had been 
 said to be unprecedented. Why, Mr. F. said, 
 our statute book is full of similar provisions. 
 Every restrictive law of the United States, every 
 law forbidding commercial intercourse or regu- 
 lating it with foreign nations, contains similar 
 provisions. The laws prohibiting the slave trade 
 contain similar provisions. If a person swear 
 that he suspects another of intention to violate 
 the laws, against the slave trade, the person so 
 suspected is required by the collector to give 
 bond and security that he will not violate the 
 law in this re.spect. And where, Mr. F. asked, 
 was the impropriety of this provision? But 
 there was a still stronger case : That of the act 
 prohibiting intercourse with St. Domingo was 
 perfectly parallel to the present ; for, although 
 the color of those who were there fighting for 
 their liberty might make a difference in the 
 policy of the Government, it could make none 
 in the principles on which that policy was 
 founded. It was well known that, at the date 
 of that act, a contest existed between the Euro- 
 pean colonists and the colored population of St. 
 Domingo ; the latter claiming a recognition of 
 
 their liberty, the former claiming to reduce 
 them to obedience. Did the United States per- 
 mit the vessels of that Government, or pretend- 
 ed Government, to come here for military sup- 
 plies? Did it permit the agent from St. 
 Domingo to reside here, to grant commissions 
 to privateers, to make representations to the 
 Government, officially or unofficially, and to 
 make appeals from the acts of the Executive to 
 the Congress or the people ? No, Mr. F. said, 
 the Government of France asked from the jus- 
 tice of this country, to pass laws prohibiting 
 any commercial intercourse with the citizens of 
 St. Domingo, and an act was passed, for two 
 years, and afterwards continued in force for two 
 years longer, one of the provisions of which was 
 similar to that one of the act of '17, which was 
 so much reprobated by the Speaker. 
 
 Mr. KOBEBTSON, of Louisiana, said he had 
 voted against the act of 1817, and was now in 
 favor of its repeal. Before coming to that 
 question, however, he would remark that, when 
 our situation was more critical, and when, in 
 point of resources, we were infinitely weaker ; 
 when, in 1794, our citizens were engaged in 
 behalf of the republicans of France, with a zeal 
 infinitely more dangerous to the peace of the 
 country than any thing that has been exhibited 
 in regard to the patriots of South America, the 
 act of 1794 had been deemed sufficient to secure 
 the observance of our neutral relations. Was 
 our situation, he asked, more critical in 1817 
 than in 1794 ? If not, ought we to have been 
 induced to take stronger measures by far than 
 had been applied to the emergency of 1794? 
 The administration of WASHIXGTOJJ not only 
 deemed the act of that day sufficient, but cau- 
 tiously limited its duration to two years. It 
 had been subsequently renewed two or three 
 times, and Congress had always been satisfied 
 with its provisions. In 1817, however, a state 
 of things somewhat similar occurs, but infinitely 
 less critical, in consequence of another effort, 
 by another people, to throw off the yoke of a 
 despotic Government. As the struggle of the 
 people of France for liberty gave rise to the act 
 of 1794, so that of the people of South America 
 gave rise to the act of 1817, which was passed 
 by Congress without the knowledge of any ex- 
 terior pressure on the Government, or of the 
 letter which had been mentioned, and other 
 representations. It now appeared that the act 
 of 1817 was passed in consequence of representa- 
 tions of foreign nations, growing out of hostile 
 feelings to the cause in which the people of 
 South America were engaged. This, said Mr. 
 K., might be a sufficient ground for the Minis- 
 ters of Portugal, of England, and of France, to 
 proceed upon but shall we sympathize in their 
 feelings on the subject, and be induced by them 
 to pass acts to shackle our citizens, when it is 
 so easy to trace their remonstrances to a gen- 
 eral hostility to the cause of any people who 
 are engaged in a struggle to ameliorate their 
 condition by changing their form of govern- 
 ment? It did not appear now, he said, that
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 127 
 
 MARCH, 1818.] 
 
 Neutral Relations. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 that act had been passed so much with a view 
 to do what was just to ourselves, as to accom- 
 modate the views of foreign nations. That, 
 Mr. R. said, had been his objection to the act 
 when it passed ; and the more its causes and 
 effects were developed, the more anxious he 
 was to get rid of it, and to return to the statu- 
 tory provisions of 1794, which, for a number of 
 years, had been found sufficient. 
 
 The cases stated by the Chairman of the 
 Committee of Foreign Relations, (Mr. FOBSYTH,) 
 as having induced the passage of the act of last 
 session, were already provided for by the act of 
 1794 ; he referred to cases of fitting out vessels 
 in our harbors, and with them cruising against 
 the commerce of foreign nations, prohibited in 
 that act, under very heavy penalties. But the 
 act of 1817 went a step further, and authorized 
 the collector to stop any vessel manifestly built 
 for warlike purposes, if it has a cargo on board 
 which shows it to have been intended for such 
 purposes, or having a crew, or for any other 
 cause, justifying that suspicion. Mr. R. wished 
 to know by what authority the Government 
 undertook to say, that a vessel built for warlike 
 purposes should not leave the ports and harbors 
 of the United States. "What breach of neutral- 
 ity is it to suffer such vessels to depart our 
 ports ; and why are we required, in this man- 
 ner, to cripple the operations of the shipholders 
 and shipbuilders ? Mr. R. strongly objected to 
 the latitude of discretion given to collectors by 
 the term " or for any other cause," which sub- 
 jected the vessels of our citizens to vexatious 
 detentions. This, he said, was one difference 
 between the act of 1794 and that of 1817 ; but 
 there was yet another. By the act of 1817, not 
 only armed vessels, but vessels manifestly built 
 for war, though built for sale only, were forbid- 
 den to go from our ports without giving bond 
 that they were not to be employed in aiding or 
 assisting any military expedition, &c., and so 
 obviously unjust was this provision, that the 
 gentleman himself had found it necessary to 
 propose an amendment to narrow its scope. 
 Mr. R. concluded by repeating that he could 
 see nothing in our situation which required 
 a stronger act than was deemed sufficient in 
 1794, and he, therefore, hoped the acts of 1797 
 and 1817 would be repealed. 
 
 Mr. LOWXDES commenced his remarks by re- 
 deeming the act of 1817 from the charge which 
 had been alleged against it, as far as his opinion 
 went, by declaring that act not to have been 
 adopted in consequence of any foreign remon- 
 strance, but to have been the deliberate expres- 
 sion of the judgment of this and of the other 
 House ; and, though he kad listened with the 
 greatest attention to the arguments of the gen- 
 tlemen from Kentucky and Louisiana, they had 
 failed to convince him that that deliberate ex- 
 pression of the opinion of Congress at the last 
 ses.-ion ought now to be reversed. But, he 
 said, there was less difference on principle than 
 he had expected to have found between those 
 gentlemen and those who approved the act of 
 
 the last session. The Speaker particularly had 
 conceded that the acts were unlawful which 
 hat law was designed to prevent ; and the only 
 difference between us, said Mr. L., is that for 
 the prevention of these unlawful acts we pro- 
 pose a remedy, which they will not accept. 
 On the question of the criminality of enlistment 
 in a war between two powers with whom we 
 are in amity, we perfectly agree. The opinion 
 of the House and of the country, Mr. L. said, 
 must be that, so long as we profess neutrality, 
 we ought to observe it ; that our neutral obli- 
 gations should be fairly and honestly fulfilled. 
 And it was because he thought it the duty of 
 Congress to prevent our citizens, by requiring 
 bond and security to that effect, from engaging 
 in the existing war, that he was willing to con- 
 tinue the act which the Speaker proposed to 
 repeal. He could not think, he said, that there 
 was any thing new in the act of 1817; not 
 merely because similar provisions might be 
 found in our own municipal regulations, but be- 
 cause analogous provisions existed in the laws 
 of other nations. Mr. L. asked of the honorable 
 Speaker, seeing that in time of war we require 
 bond from privateers, before commissioned, 
 that they will not violate the laws of nations, 
 why in time of peace he would not require 
 bonds from those suspected of the intention to 
 violate them. Mr. L. considered it an imper- 
 fect view of the subject to suppose that the 
 bond thus required was only to prevent injury 
 being done to any one power. Those who 
 leave our shores to assail the property of one 
 power, may, when they get to sea, employ 
 their arms against any and every nation. It 
 was perfectly fair, certainly, that those who 
 left our shores with the means of mischief on 
 board, should give that security against their 
 involving the interests, and perhaps the peace 
 of then* country, which bonds, such as are re- 
 quired by the law of 1817, are calculated to 
 afford. The gentleman from Louisiana appeared 
 to think that there could scarcely be any thing 
 in the cargo of the vessel which ought to be 
 taken as an indication of a warlike purpose. 
 Now, Mr. L. said, though he did not think this 
 clause material not, however, that he would 
 repeal a law because every syllable it contained 
 was absolutely necessary yet he thought that 
 from the cargo the object of an expedition fitted 
 from our ports might be readily inferred. Might 
 there not, he said, be that preparation of fixed 
 ammunition, &c., which would afford a strong 
 presumption that the vessel was not intended 
 for traffic, but prepared for war? He thought 
 this might occur where other proof would fail. 
 Mr. L. took other views of this question. He 
 said he could not regard this question as one of 
 a mere fulfilment of our duties to the countries 
 at war, as the vessels equipped in our ports 
 might be employed against other countries with 
 whom we are at peace, as well as against those 
 belligerents. One consideration for such an act 
 he would suggest, which it was too late for us 
 I to deny, that we are responsible for injuries
 
 128 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.) 
 
 Neutral Relations. 
 
 [MABCH, 1818. 
 
 done by vessels of the United States, after they 
 leave our ports, before they arrive at a foreign 
 port. For such depredations we are responsi- 
 ble, and have recognized the principle by pay- 
 ing claims founded on it. We have bound our- 
 selves to respect the principle in a manner 
 equally obligatory, by preferring claims founded 
 on it against other nations. Having done so, 
 every consideration of prudence, of respect for 
 the character of our country, requires that we 
 should exact the security which is demanded 
 by the act of 1817. As regards those who de- 
 sire to trade in vessels of war, it is necessary to 
 provide, as has been provided, that it shall be 
 carried on in a way beneficial to them, but 
 compatibje with the higher interests of the 
 country. No duty, said Mr. L., is by the act 
 of 1817 exacted from any individual which the 
 Speaker does not think, as well as myself, ought 
 to be performed ; a bond only is exacted, in 
 certain suspicious cases, that that duty shall be 
 performed. Where the hardship, then ; where 
 the commercial inconvenience of being required 
 to give bond that, while on the high seas, the 
 suspected vessel shall not violate the laws of the 
 country ? The act of 1817 created no new duty, 
 established no new prohibition ; it only secured 
 the execution of existing duties in a particular, 
 for the failure to observe which the Treasury of 
 the United States, and not the offending indi- 
 viduals, would ultimately be responsible. Mr. 
 L. would not say that the act merited none of 
 the reprobation bestowed on it ; but he would 
 say that it had not been proved to contain any 
 injurious or oppressive provisions. 
 
 Mr. CLAY said it was always with very pain- 
 ful regret that he found himself differing from 
 the gentleman who had just taken his seat, and 
 with the Chairman of the Committee of For- 
 
 _ eign Relations; and, when differing from them; 
 
 ' he almost distrusted his own perceptions. But 
 this was not the first time he had that misfor- 
 tune ; for his honorable friend (Mr. LOWNDKS) 
 had been at the last session a powerful auxil- 
 iary in carrying through the bill which then 
 passed, and was now proposed to be repealed. 
 Notwithstanding his great regret at the circum- 
 stance, however, he must obey the dictates of 
 his own judgment. Mr. 0. said he never had 
 intimated that the act of 1817 did not originate 
 in the judgment of this House, or that it was 
 passed at the instance of any foreign Ministers ; 
 and yet, if he understood the gentleman from 
 Georgia, he had admitted that the committee 
 had had the benefit of the suggestions of several 
 foreign Ministers. It was immaterial to him, 
 Mr. 0. said, whether the act sprung from any 
 suggestion of foreign agents, or whether after it 
 was recommended, the letters of the Ministers 
 were sent to the Committee of Foreign Rela- 
 tions. As to the foreign Ministers, Mr. C. said, 
 in referring to them, he meant nothing disre- 
 spectful towards them he would not treat 
 with disrespect even the Minister of Ferdinand, 
 whoso cause this bill was intended to benefit ; 
 he, said Mr. C., is a faithful Minister ; if, not 
 
 satisfied with making representations to the for- 
 eign department, he also attends the proceed- 
 ings of the Supreme Court, to watch its deci- 
 sions, he affords but so many proofs of the 
 fidelity for which the representatives of Spain 
 have always been distinguished. And bow 
 motifying is it, sir, to hear of the honorary re- 
 wards and titles, and so forth, granted for these 
 services ; for, if I am not mistaken, our act of 
 1817 produced the bestowal of some honor on 
 this faithful representative of His Majesty and, 
 if this bill passes which is now before us, I have 
 no doubt he will receive some new honor for 
 his further success. No, Mr. C. said, he would 
 never treat foreign Ministers to our Govern- 
 ment with disrespect. But yet he was not en- 
 tirely satisfied with the suggestions respecting 
 the representations, garbled and ungarbled, of 
 the foreign Ministers. In regard to the letter 
 of the Minister of Portugal a man whom Mr. 
 C. said he highly venerated ; whom he regard- 
 ed as an honor to his country and an ornament 
 to science a man whose country could not have 
 shown a greater respect for the United States 
 than by deputing him as its representative to 
 this Government with regard to that letter, as 
 the gentleman had charged the publication 
 which had been made of it to be a garbled one, 
 and it seemed by his confession, (his precious con- 
 fession, he would call it, but not in the obnox- 
 ious sense of the term,) that he either had the 
 document in his possession or had seen it, he 
 hoped that he would lay it before the House 
 in extenso, that they might see it in its un- 
 garbled state, &c. But, having been contra- 
 dicted in the statement he had made when up 
 before, respecting the passage of the act of 1817, 
 Mr. 0. begged of the honorable gentleman, be- 
 fore he disputed any statement of his (Mr. C.'s) 
 to take the trouble to examine whether he was 
 himself correct. If the gentleman would turn 
 to the Journal, he would find that, on the ques- 
 tion to engross the bill, there were sixty-three 
 in the negative. [Mr. FOKSTTH explained ; the 
 bill thus ordered to be engrossed was not that 
 which finally passed, which came from the Sea- 
 ate.] If, Mr. CLAY continued, the gentleman 
 would look over the list of names recorded in 
 the negative, he would find the name of one of 
 the present Cabinet, the Secretary of War. The 
 yeas and nays had also been taken on the prop- 
 osition to postpone the bill indefinitely when it 
 came back from the Senate ; and, although owing 
 to the period of the session, a smaller number vo- 
 ted on the bill, there were yet thirty -seven votes 
 for postponement, to some sixty odd against it. 
 
 But, said Mr. C., it seems that in the remarks 
 which I have submitted, I have made some re- 
 flections on the late President of the United 
 States. No such thing. But was there not, he 
 asked, a considerable alteration, since the act of 
 1817, in our posture in respect to the war be- 
 tween Spain and the Provinces. The Executive 
 had since declared to the whole world that the 
 condition of the United States is one of neutral- 
 ity in regard to the contest. Not that only 

 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 129 
 
 MARCH, 1818.] 
 
 Neutral Relations. 
 
 [H. OF B. 
 
 but that the war carrying on is a civil war, and 
 that we owe to both parties all the obligations 
 of neutrality the obligations due to a party in 
 a civil war being very different from those due 
 to a people in rebellion, and demanding there- 
 fore a different state of our laws. But, return- 
 ing to the late President of the United States 
 no man, Mr. C. said, had a more high sense of 
 the exalted character and distinguished services 
 of the gentleman to \vhom he thus alluded ; 
 but, whilst, said he, I am a Representative of 
 the nation, I shall speak freely my sentiments, let 
 them be in opposition to whom they may, 
 whether the existing or any former Chief Ma- 
 gistrate of the United States. Mr. C. then 
 called upon gentlemen to show that the act of 
 1794 was inapplicable to the existing conflict 
 under the circumstances of the change of atti- 
 tude, to which he had referred. The gentle- 
 man had contended it was not, because of a de- 
 cision in the case of St. Domingo. That, Mr. 
 C. said, was a case standing on insular ground, 
 and totally different from the present. We ad- 
 mit the flag of the patriots: that President 
 Madison did we declare the contest to be a 
 civil war: that President Monroe did and com- 
 missioners have been sent there, if not with cre- 
 dentials, to hear and make representations. 
 The Judiciary then would say, that the act of 
 1794 does include the case, and the act of 1817 
 would be superfluous and unnecessary, but for 
 the further provisions contained in that act. 
 Gentlemen had contended, that these further 
 provisions were necessary, because it was prop- 
 er to require bond and security from vessels de- 
 parting from our ports, that they will not violate 
 our neutral obligations without the territory of 
 the United States. This proposition, Mr. 0. 
 could not reconcile with the admission he un- 
 derstood gentlemen to make, that acts com- 
 mitted out of our jurisdiction are acts of which 
 foreign powers must take care for themselves. 
 
 The bonds required by the restrictive sys- 
 tems, which had been referred to, were not anal- 
 ogous to the present case ; they stood on pecu- 
 liar ground, the measures they were necessary 
 to enforce having been required by our own 
 policy, in defence of our own rights and in- 
 terests, and were not an act of legislation for 
 the benefit of a foreign power, for whom we 
 are under no obligation to legislate. The dif- 
 ference in the two cases was precisely the dif- 
 ference between legislating for ourselves and 
 legislating for others. But it had been said, 
 that bonds are required even from privateers 
 in war. That is because they have commis- 
 sions, said Mr. 0., and, acting under our au- 
 thority, constitute a particular part of the force 
 of the community, and the bond is required for 
 our own sakes. Whilst on this subject, he said, 
 he could not see the cause for all this anxiety 
 on the part of gentlemen, lest the patriots 
 should get hold of a vessel prepared for war. 
 Were they not aware that the whole marine of 
 tlie Island of Cuba consists of vessels purchased 
 from this country? Ships are an objecl of 
 VOL. VI. 9 
 
 commerce, condemned by no authority. It 
 was particularly fitting, under present circum- 
 stances, that we should give every facility to 
 the sale of our ships. Do we not know, said 
 he, that owing to the condition of the world, 
 our merchant vessels are cut out of employ- 
 ment, and that, unless we can sell them, they 
 will rot at our wharves? Mr. C. laid it down 
 as a principle, incontrovertible, that a ship, 
 armed or not armed, was an object of com- 
 merce. Gentlemen would not deny, that the 
 materials of armament might be separately 
 sold, and afterwards combined. But the honor- 
 able gentleman from South Carolina had made 
 one admission, which gives up the question, 
 when he conceded that an armed ship might be 
 fitted out completely equipped go to a for- 
 eign port, and afterwards go to war with any 
 belligerent whatever, without a violation of 
 our neutrality. And yet such a course, ad- 
 mitted by the gentleman to be lawful, was ex- 
 pressly forbidden by the act of 1817. 
 
 [Mr. LOWNDES briefly explained, not ad- 
 mitting the principle Mr. C. considered him 
 as ceding, in the latitude given to it by the 
 Speaker.] 
 
 Mr. C. said he had conceived the principle 
 to be fairly inferred from the course of the gen- 
 tleman's argument; and he did not yet under- 
 stand him as denying, that, after a vessel gets 
 into a foreign port, and departs thence, our re- 
 sponsibility for its conduct ceases. And the 
 gentleman had the other day admitted, in de- 
 bate on another subject, the right of expatria- 
 tion. Suppose, then, that any number of citi- 
 zens of the United States should fit out an 
 armed vessel to go to any port in Spanish, 
 America, and there expatriate themselves by 
 becoming citizens of another country, might 
 they not then engage in war under the flag of 
 that country ? Gentlemen would not deny it, 
 and yet they would be forbidden to do so by 
 the act of 1817. 
 
 Mr. C. stated further objections to this act. 
 For example, the collector of a port might de- 
 tain any vessel, when the number of men, the 
 nature .of the cargo, or any other circumstance, 
 induce him to suppose the vessel is intended 
 for cruising with a belligerent purpose. Mr. 0. 
 said he was opposed to vesting such discretion- 
 ary power in any collector. The voyage may 
 be intended to Lima, to China, or any distant 
 port, and the voyage may be totally defeated, 
 and heavy loss incurred, by a mere caprice of 
 the collector. Mr. C. wished his honorable 
 friend (Mr. JOHNSON) to read a letter he had re- 
 ceived from St. Bartholomew's, stating that 
 three vessels had arrived there from British 
 ports, not only with skeletons of regiments, but 
 with nearly all the men, on their way to join 
 the patriots. Had these men, Mr. 0. asked, 
 been subjected to any bond and security to 
 any such onerous provisions as are contained hi 
 this bill? No, said he ; we alone, it seems, are 
 to stretch our power to its limit to prevent our 
 citizens from aiding in any manner the efforts
 
 130 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 Neutral Relations. 
 
 [MAKCH, 1818. 
 
 of those who are struggling for liberty in the 
 South; whilst Great Britain, in this respect, 
 pursues a policy which we might worthily im- 
 itate. While at peace, he admitted, we oughi 
 to perform our obligations of neutrality ; but 
 they did not require the passage of bills with 
 neutral titles, but with provisions favorable to 
 one only of the belligerents. What, on the 
 other hand, had Great Britain done ? She had 
 issued a proclamation which almost recognizes 
 the independence of the provinces, calling the 
 contest a war between America and Spain, and 
 forbidding her citizens to engage in it, but re- 
 quiring no bond and security from them. No, 
 said Mr. C., she has gone a step further than 
 she has ever before gone: her citizens, who 
 constitute a part of the armies of Spain, she has 
 forbidden from fighting against the patriots. I 
 wish we might imitate her example, and ob- 
 serve a real neutrality, instead of that which 
 exists in name only, to the prejudice of one 
 party and not of the other 
 
 In reference to the suggestions made by Mr. 
 LOWNDES respecting spoliations, Mr. 0. asked, 
 what success have we had in our applications 
 for indemnity for spoliations? We are told, 
 very good-naturedly, indeed, by the Secretary 
 of State, in a late communication I am sorry 
 we have not the benefit of that letter though, 
 when we get it, I presume we shall find it a 
 compilation of other works on the same sub- 
 ject the Secretary of State tells us, very good- 
 naturedly, that we have patiently waited for 
 the settlement of our differences with Spain, 
 and it will require no very great effort to wait 
 a little longer. Very good-natured, indeed! 
 No change, say gentlemen, in the aspect of our 
 relations with Spain ! Yes, a most humiliating 
 one, within the last three or four years. We 
 were told by the President, in his message at the 
 commencement of the session ; and, ambiguous 
 as the intimation was, hope clung to it as prom- 
 ising a change; that a disposition had been 
 shown on the part of Spain, to move in the ne- 
 gotiation. And what sort of a motion was it? 
 A motion which has terminated in something 
 like a perpetual repose, waiting till the passions 
 and prejudices of His Majesty of Spam may 
 have time to subside. Admirable Job-like pa- 
 tience, ^aid Mr. CLAY. I thank my God that I 
 do no possess it. 
 
 Let us, said Mr. 0., in conclusion, put all 
 these statutes out of our way, except that of 
 1794. When was that passed ? At a moment 
 when the enthusiasm of liberty ran through the 
 country with electric rapidity ; when the whole 
 country, en masse, was ready to lend a- hand 
 and aid the French nation in their struggle, 
 General WASHINGTON, revered name! the Fa- 
 ther of his Country, could hardly arrest this in- 
 clination. Yet, under such circumstances, the 
 act of 1794 was found abundantly sufficient. 
 There was, then, no gratuitous assumption of 
 neutral debts. For twenty years that act has 
 been found sufficient. But some keen-sighted, 
 sagacious foreign Minister finds out that it is 
 
 not sufficient, and the act of 1817 is passed. 
 That act, said Mr. C., we find condemned by 
 the universal sentiment of the country; and I 
 hope it will receive further condemnation by 
 the vote of the House this day. 
 
 Mr. LOWNDES rose to vindicate himself from 
 the charge of inconsistency alleged against him 
 by the Speaker ; but which, he said, could not 
 be properly established by taking a sentence or 
 half a sentence from a speech, and founding an 
 argument on it. The Speaker infers, said he, 
 because I will not take measures to punish him 
 who, without the jurisdiction of the United 
 States, enters into a vessel armed by a foreign 
 authority, and cruises on the property of for- 
 eign nations, that I must therefore be willing 
 that a citizen of the United States, within the 
 limits of the United States, in a vessel belong- 
 ing to the United States, shall involve the Gov- 
 ernment in a responsibility for her acts, with 
 equal impunity. Mr. L. submitted to the com- 
 mittee, whether there was any resemblance be- 
 tween the two propositions. 
 
 Mr. FORSYTE explained the difference as to 
 facts between him and the Speaker. If what 
 the Speaker had advanced, respecting the vote 
 on the act of 1817, had been intended as argu- 
 ment, Mr. F. said, he had endeavored to show 
 that there was no weight in it, by showing 
 that the vote to which the Speaker had referred 
 was not on the bill which actually passed, but 
 on a bill reported by the Committee on Foreign 
 Relations which did not pass. The member of 
 the Cabinet, who had been referred to, voted 
 against the last-mentioned bill, but in favor of 
 that which passed into a law, and there was a 
 very small minority against it. With respect 
 to the influence which produced the passage of 
 the act of 1817, if there was any felt, it was by 
 the President, and to him must be imputed the 
 blame; for to him the remonstrances of the 
 foreign Ministers had been addressed, and he 
 had brought the subject before Congress. With 
 respect to the correspondence with the Minis- 
 ters, on the call of the committee for facts of 
 depredations by our cruisers, these papers had 
 been shown to them. I have no recollection, 
 said Mr. F., of every word in one of the official 
 notes, but I am sure that the version which has 
 seen given of it is not correct. I very well re- 
 collect, although not particularly remembering 
 :he particular words or arguments, that the 
 x)ne of the letter and its manner were perfectly 
 respectful to the Government, and such as 
 might have been expected from the character 
 of the Minister. It was neither indecent nor 
 disrespectful ; in the letter which is published 
 as a copy of that, there are passages both inde- 
 cent and disrespectful. 
 
 In reply to the suggestion, that even if the 
 act of 1817 was required at the time it passed, 
 "t was no longer necessary, because of a change 
 n our posture, Mr. F. said he knew of no such 
 shange. As far as the independence of the 
 >rovinces, or of any of them, was recognized at 
 hispnoment, it had been at that day. If his
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 131 
 
 MARCH, 1818.] 
 
 Ohio Contested Election. 
 
 [H. OP R. 
 
 memory was not, in this respect, treacherous, 
 the President of the United States announced 
 to the Spanish Minister, through the Secretary 
 of State, in the correspondence between them 
 laid before this House at the middle of the last 
 session, that such was the relation in which we 
 regarded them. This answer had been given 
 to an application to exclude their flags from 
 our ports. 
 
 To show that his construction of the decision 
 of the Supreme Court on the act of 1794, as ap- 
 plied to the case of St. Domingo, was correct, 
 Mr. F. quoted the words of the decision from 
 Cranch's Reports. In Massachusetts, the case 
 referred to by the Speaker, was that of an in- 
 dictment for piracy, from which the accused 
 sought to shield himself by a commission from 
 one of the Governments asserting their inde- 
 pendence. The judges composing the court 
 differed on points of law. One of the questions 
 was, whether a commission emanating from any 
 revolted colony, district, or people, whose in- 
 dependence was not recognized by the Execu- 
 tive authority of the United States, was valid. 
 Here was a question, very different from the 
 present one raised by the courts of the United 
 States, and brought up for decision ; it was not 
 decided, because the counsel for the party was 
 not present, or for some cause of that descrip- 
 tion. This point being doubtful, it was highly 
 proper that the act of 1817 should have re- 
 moved all doubt on the subject. Under the act 
 of 1794, it was doubtful whether the commis- 
 sion of certain acts was an offence under our 
 laws or not ; and a long course of litigation be- 
 fore the courts would have been necessary be- 
 fore the question would have been settled. It 
 was better to settle the question, and clear the 
 law of all doubt. In this view, the act of 1817 
 was necessary, independently of all other con- 
 siderations, and ought not to be repealed. 
 
 FEIDAT, March 20. 
 OTiio Contested, Election. 
 
 The House (having refused to take up the 
 Neutrality bill) again went into Committee of 
 the Whole, on the report of the Committee of 
 Elections respecting the right of Mr. HEBEICK, 
 a member from Ohio, to a seat in this House 
 Mr. ADAMS'S motion to reverse the report, and 
 thus vacate the seat, being under consideration. 
 
 Mr. TATLOE concluded his remarks (which 
 were interrupted by the adjournment yesterday) 
 in favor of the report. 
 
 Mr. HOPKINSON took the opposite side, and 
 spoke near an hour against the report of the 
 Committee of Elections, and the right of the 
 member to a seat. 
 
 Mr. BALDWIN spoke at considerable length in 
 confirmation of the right of Mr. HEEEICK to his 
 seat. 
 
 Mr. ADAMS briefly replied; when the question 
 was taken on reversing the report of the Com- 
 mittee of Elections, and carried ayes 67, noes 
 
 The committee then rose, and reported their 
 decision to the House. 
 
 After a good deal of desultory conversation 
 on various motions, touching the right of certain 
 members to vote on the question, whose seats 
 were supposed to be held under circumstances 
 similar to that of Mr. HEBBIOK, and therefore 
 personally interested in the decision ; and after 
 refusing to excuse Messrs. BABBEB, of Ohio, and 
 HTJBBABD, of New York, from voting, the ques- 
 tion on concurring with the Committee of the 
 Whole in reversing the report of the Committee 
 of Elections, was decided in the negative, by 
 yeas and nays. Those who voted for concurring 
 with the Committee of the Whole, and, of 
 course, against the right of the member to a 
 seat, were : 
 
 Messrs. Abbott, Adams, Allen of Massachusetts, 
 Anderson of Kentucky, Austin, Ball, Barbour of 
 Virginia, Bateman, Bayley, Beecher, Bellinger, Ben- 
 nett, Burwell, Claiborne, Cook, Crawford, Cushman, 
 Darlington, Edwards, Ervin of South Carolina, Floyd, 
 Forney, Forsyth, Garnett, Hogg, Holmes of Connec- 
 ticut, Hopkinson, Hnntington, Irving of New York, 
 Johnson of Virginia, Little, Lowndes, McLane, Mair, 
 Mason of Rhode Island, Middleton, Jeremiah Nelson, 
 H. Nelson, Owen, Pawling, Peter, Pindall, Pleasants, 
 Reed, Rhea, Rice, Richards, Robertson of Louisiana, 
 Ruggles, Sawyer, Scbnyler, Sergeant, Seybert, Sher- 
 wood, Simkins, Slocumb, S. Smith, Bal. Smith, J. S. 
 Smith, Speed, Stewart of North Carolina, Terrill, 
 Terry, Tompkins, Tucker of Virginia, Tucker of 
 South Carolina, Walker of Kentucky, Wendover, 
 Westerlo, Whiteside, Williams of Connecticut, Wil- 
 liams of New York, Williams of North Carolina, and 
 Wilson of Massachusetts 74. 
 
 Those who voted against concurring, and in 
 favor of the member's keeping his seat, were : 
 
 Messrs. Allen of Vermont, Anderson of Pennsylva- 
 nia, Barber of Ohio, Bassett, Bloomfield, Blount, 
 Boden, Boss, Butler, Campbell, Clagett, Cobb, Corn- 
 stock, Crnger, Culbreth, Desha, Earle, Ellicott, Fol- 
 ger, Gage, Hale, Hall of Delaware, Harrison, Has- 
 brouck, Herkimer, Hitchcock, Holme's of Massachu- 
 setts, Hubbard, Hunter, Johnson of Kentucky, Jones, 
 Kinsey, Kirtland, Lawyer, Linn, Livermore, W. P. 
 Maclay, McCoy, Marchand, Mason of Massachusetts, 
 Merrill, Moore, Morton, Mosely, Mumford, Murray, 
 New, Ogle, Palmer, Patterson, Poindexter, Porter, 
 Rich, Ringgold, Robertson of Kentucky, Sampson, 
 Savage, Scudder, Settle, Shaw, Silsbee, Southard, 
 Spencer, Strong, Tallmadge, Tarr, Taylor, Townsend, 
 Tyler, Upham, Walker of North Carolina, Wallace, 
 Whitman, Wilkin, and Wilson of Pennsylvania 77. 
 
 So the House refused to concur in the report 
 of the Committee of the Whole ; and then, after 
 an unsuccessful motion by Mr. FOESYTH, to re- 
 commit the subject to the Committee of Elec- 
 tions, with instructions to report the case of 
 Mr. HEKEIOK distinct from other cases now em- 
 braced in the report ; and a motion also unsuc- 
 cessful, by Mr. ALLEN, of Massachusetts, to post- 
 pone the report indefinitely 
 
 The question was taken, by yeas and nays, 
 on agreeing with the Committee of Elections, 
 that Mr. HEBEICK is entitled to a seat, and 
 decided in the affirmative yeas 77, nays 70.
 
 132 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OP R] 
 
 National Flay. 
 
 [MARCH, 1818. 
 
 TUESDAY, March 24. 
 
 Another member, to wit, from Pennsylvania, 
 THOMAS J. ROGERS, elected to supply the vacancy 
 occasioned by the resignation of John Boss, ap- 
 peared, produced his credentials, was qualified, 
 and took his seat. 
 
 Batture at St. Louis Pre-emption Rights, and, 
 Out-lots and Commons in Missouri. 
 
 On motion of Mr. SOOTT, 
 
 Resolved, That the Committee on the Public 
 Lands be instructed to inquire into the expedi- 
 ency of granting or securing to the town of St. 
 Louis, in the Missouri Territory, as a common, 
 all the sand-bar or batture, formed by the re- 
 cession of the Mississippi river, between the 
 said town and low-water mark ; and to prohi- 
 bit the location of any floating claim in the said 
 Territory, thereon, or if any location should 
 have been made, to prohibit by law the issuing 
 of a patent therefor. 
 
 Resolved, also, That the Committee on the 
 Public Lands be instructed to inquire into the 
 expediency of prohibiting by law the location 
 of any floating claim, on any lands in the Terri- 
 tory of Missouri, the right of pre-emption to 
 which land has been secured to any settler, by 
 the act of the 12th of April, 1814, or if any such 
 location should have been made, to prohibit by 
 law, the issuing a patent therefor. 
 
 Resolved, also, That the Committee on the 
 Public Lands be instructed to inquire into the 
 expediency of prohibiting by law the location 
 of any floating claim, in the Territory of Mis- 
 souri, on any lands, the right, title, or claim to 
 which, has been at any time heretofore given 
 notice of, or filed with either of the Boards of 
 Commissioners in said Territory, or with the 
 recorder of land titles, acting as such under any 
 kw of Congress, for the adjustment of land 
 titles in said Territory, or, if any such location 
 should have been made, to prohibit by law the 
 issuing of patents therefor. 
 
 Resolved, also, That the Committee on the 
 Public Lands be instructed to inquire into the 
 expediency of prohibiting by law the location 
 of any floating claim in the Territory of Mis- 
 souri, on any town lot, village lot, put-lot, com- 
 mon field lot, or common, in, adjoining, or ap- 
 pertaining to any of the towns or villages in 
 the Territory of Missouri, or if any such loca- 
 tion shaU have been made to prohibit by law 
 the issuing of patents therefor. 
 
 National Flag. 
 
 The House then resolved itself into a Com- 
 mittee of the "Whole on the bill to alter the flag 
 of the United States, [providing that from and 
 after the fourth day of July next, the flag of the 
 United States be thirteen horizontal stripes, al- 
 ternate red and white ; that the Union be twenty 
 stars, white in a blue field ; and that, on the ad- 
 mission of every new State into the Union, one 
 star be added to the Union of the flag, and that 
 such addition shall take effect on the fourth 
 day of July then next succeeding such admission.] 
 
 Mr. WENDOVEB rose. In complying with a 
 duty incumbent on me, said Mr. W., as result- 
 ing from a proposition I had the honor to sub- 
 mit to the House, for altering in part the flag of 
 the United States, I feel no disposition to con- 
 sume much of the time of the committee, or to 
 .ndulge in the many observations which tho 
 nature of the subject might appear to justify. 
 But I ask tho patience of the committee, while 
 I state a few of the considerations which pre- 
 sent themselves in favor of the bill now on your 
 table. 
 
 Sir, the importance attached to a national flag, 
 both in its literal and figurative use, is so univer- 
 sal, and of such ancient origin, that we seldom 
 inquire into the meaning of their various figures, 
 as adopted by other nations, and are in some 
 danger of forgetting the symbolical application 
 of those composing that of our own. 
 
 Were we now about to devise suitable em- 
 blems for a national flag, I doubt not we should 
 see much diversity of sentiment, and perhaps 
 some efforts for local gratification ; but I pre- 
 sume we should unite in some general and ap- 
 propriate figures, referring not to sectional but 
 national objects. But on this subject we need 
 not differ. Suitable symbols were devised by 
 those who laid the foundation of the Republic ; 
 and I hope their children will ever feel them- 
 selves in honor precluded from changing these, 
 except so far as necessity may dictate, and with 
 a direct view of expressing by them their ori- 
 ginal design. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, I am not particularly informed 
 as to the origin of our flag ; but have repeatedly 
 heard it was first used by a citizen of Philadel- 
 phia, on his own vessel, and afterwards adopted 
 by the Congress of the Revolution, as appro- 
 priate to and emblematical of these confederated 
 States, contending for the rights of man, and 
 the rich boon of an independent Government. 
 At its adoption our flag was founded on a rep- 
 resentative principle, and in the arrangement 
 of its parts made appli cable to the number of 
 the States then united against the common foe. 
 The same representative principle was retain- 
 ed and applied when the flag was altered ; but 
 experience having shown that a similar exten- 
 sion of numbers throughout the flag would 
 now be improper and inconvenient. It is worthy 
 the attention of the National Legislature again 
 to consider the subject, and see if it be practi- 
 cable to retain in it the object contemplated by 
 its founders, as pointing to the component parts 
 of the nation, without losing sight of the origi- 
 nal formation of this Government as a free 
 republic. 
 
 Sir, the flag of the United States having un- 
 dergone some change, and in its present state 
 being altogether inappropriate, we are called 
 upon to determine whether a further change be 
 not advisable, and, if it be, what alteration will 
 be most proper, and best to apply to the pres- 
 ent and relative state of the nation, consistent 
 with the representative character of the flag. If 
 you do not alter it, you do injustice to the States
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 133 
 
 MARCH, 1818.] 
 
 National Flag. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 admitted into the Union since the former altera- I 
 tion ; and if you alter in the way as before, you 
 will destroy" the conspicuity of your flag, and 
 render it too indistinct to be known at a dis- 
 tance, and increase the inconvenience already 
 experienced. 
 
 At the present day, and particularly since the 
 commencement of the late war, there are few 
 vessels, however small, if they carry a mast, 
 but are 'furnished with a flag of some descrip- 
 tion ; and it is well known to gentlemen living 
 on the seaboard, and others, that it is impracti- 
 cable for small vessels to conform even to the 
 present law ; and the law itself does not corre- 
 spond with the existing or original facts. 
 
 The flag of the United States was altered by 
 law, from thirteen to fifteen stripes and stars, 
 on the first of May, 1795, to apply to the ad- 
 mission of Vermont and Kentucky into the 
 Union. On the first of June, 1796, Tennessee 
 was admitted. Thus the alteration was appli- 
 cable to the fact on which it was predicated, 
 for the short space of one year and one month. 
 On the 19th of February, 1803, Ohio was ad- 
 mitted, Louisiana on the 30th of April, 1812. 
 Indiana was admitted at the last session of Con- 
 gress, and Mississippi at the present session, and 
 you now have on your table a bill for the ad- 
 mission of another State. Calculating on such 
 a result caused many to regret the former 
 alteration ; and no doubt the same reason ope- 
 rated in the House of Representatives when the 
 bill passed, and will account for the small ma- 
 jority of eight by which it succeeded. 
 
 I presume none will now advocate the pro- 
 priety of continuing the fifteen stripes as at 
 present ; that number was founded on a mere 
 contingency, which has since repeatedly hap- 
 pened, and will frequently occur ; whereas the 
 number proposed by the bill refers to our na- 
 tional origin, and is equally interesting to all. 
 
 Sir, it cannot be deemed proper to go on and 
 increase the stripes in your flag. There are now 
 twenty States ; what number they will ultimate- 
 ly extend to none can conjecture. For my own 
 part, I doubt not there will in time be acces- 
 sions from the East, from the North, from the 
 West, and from the South. Sir, I am not now 
 speaking of conquest. I am willing every peo- 
 ple should " manage their own affairs in" their 
 own way." But I can no more believe that 
 any portion of the earth will remain in perpet- 
 ual thraldom, and be forever tributary to a 
 foreign power, than I can subscribe to the doc- 
 trine of a ceaseless succession of legitimate kings. 
 
 Sir, it cannot be deemed desirable, under the 
 existing state of things, in relation to the stripes 
 and stars in the flag, to retain it in its present 
 situation ; it is not only inapplicable, but both 
 parts refer to the same thing, and the one is a 
 duplicate of the other ; but the alteration pro- 
 posed will direct the view to two striking facts 
 in our national history, and teach the world an 
 important reality, that republican government 
 is not only practicable, but that it is also pro- 
 gressive. 
 
 Is it desirable to produce greater uniformity ? 
 Most undoubtedly it is. In the navy the law is 
 generally conformed to, but it is well known 
 that uniformity does not elsewhere exist. If 
 evidence were wanting, among other and nu- 
 merous instances, I would refer you to the flag 
 at this moment waving over the heads of the 
 Representatives of the nation, and two others 
 in sight, equally the flags of the Government : 
 while the law directs that the flag shall contain 
 fifteen, that on the Hall of Congress, whence 
 laws emanate, has but thirteen, and those at 
 the Navy Yard and Marine Barracks have each 
 at least eighteen stripes. Nor can I omit to 
 mention the flag under which the last Congress 
 sat during its first session, which, from some 
 cause or other unknown to me, had but nine 
 stripes. But even that flag, with all its defects, 
 was entitled to much honor, for it was not only 
 striped, but, to use another British cant, it was 
 " Bagged Bunting" and was the first flag hoist- 
 ed on the Hall of Congress, after the proverbial 
 " Bulwark of Religion" had here, in this city, 
 shown its anxious solicitude to promote the use- 
 ful arts. 
 
 Sir, I consider the plan proposed as in unison 
 with the original design ; it points to the States 
 as they commenced and as they now are, and 
 will, with an inconsiderable addition, direct the 
 mind to a future state of things. The necessary 
 alteration, either now or hereafter, can be made 
 by almost any person, at any place and at any 
 time ; and the proposition, if adopted, will in 
 future save the expense of legislating on the 
 subject. 
 
 The committee who reported this bill deemed 
 it advisable to direct that the stripes be horizon- 
 tal ; this is now the form in use ; but it results 
 from example, and not from the act, and would 
 be equally conformable to law, if the stripes 
 were arranged in a perpendicular direction. 
 There is, indeed, one exception in practice. 
 Under the laws for the collection of impost and 
 tonnage, the Executive has directed that the 
 cutters and boats employed in this service shall 
 carry ensigns and pennants, with perpendicular 
 stripes, and other marks of distinction ; but this 
 being alterable at the pleasure of the President, 
 forms no objection to the proposition in the bill ; 
 and it is obviously proper to define the form in 
 this particular, when it is considered that in this 
 only has been the distinction between the flags 
 of two different nations, and was recently the 
 case as regarded those of France and Holland. 
 
 As to the particular disposition of the stars 
 in the union of the flag, the committee were of 
 opinion that might be left at the discretion of 
 persons more immediately concerned ; either to 
 arrange them in the form of one great luminary, 
 or in the words of the original resolution of 1777, 
 " representing a new constellation." 
 
 Mr. Chairman, in viewing this subject, there 
 appears to be a happy coincidence of circum- 
 stances, in having adopted the symbols in your 
 flag, and a peculiar fitness of things in making 
 I the proposed alteration. In that part designed
 
 134 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OP R.] 
 
 Spanish American Province*. 
 
 [MARCH, 1818. 
 
 at a distance to characterize your country, and 
 which ought, for the information of other na- 
 tions, to appear conspicuous and remain perma- 
 nent, you present the number of the stars that 
 burst the bands of oppression, and achieved 
 your independence ; while in the part intended 
 for a nearer, or home view, you see a represent- 
 ation of your happy Union as it now exists, 
 and space sufficient to embrace the symbols of 
 those who may hereafter join under your ban- 
 ners. 
 
 Spanish American Provinces. 
 
 The House went into Committee of the Whole 
 on the appropriation bill ; the clause appropri- 
 ating thirty thousand dollars for compensation 
 to the Commissioners, sent to South America by 
 the Executive in December last, under consid- 
 eration. 
 
 Mr. CLAY wished to know if this appropriation 
 was to defray the expenses of the commission 
 lately sent to South America ; if so, he would ask 
 of the chairmen of the Committee of Ways and 
 Means and the Committee of Foreign Relations, 
 whether those Commissioners were furnished 
 with credentials, and if their appointment had 
 been confirmed by the Senate ; also, to what 
 ports of South America they were sent, and the 
 probable duration of the commission ; and, also, 
 if it would not be looking too much into its 
 objects, he would be glad to know what those 
 objects were. 
 
 Mr. LOWNDES said, that although he had not 
 all the information required by the Speaker, yet 
 he was possessed of something on the subject 
 more than newspaper intelligence. It must be 
 recollected that the objects of the Committee of 
 Ways and Means were confined merely to the 
 financial department ; they had, however, some 
 information on this subject, received in reply to 
 some inquiries that the committee had, in the 
 performance of their duties, addressed to the De- 
 partment of .State, which would answer the 
 Speaker's inquiry as to the credentials and the 
 probable duration of the commission. The other 
 points did not come within the objects belong- 
 ing to the Committee of Ways and Means. 
 
 The papers referred to by Mr. L. were handed 
 up by him and read as follows : 
 
 DEPABTMENT OF STATE, March 2, 1818. 
 SIR : I have the honor to enclose a copy of the com- 
 mission from this Department with which Messrs. 
 Rodney, Graham, and Bland, were furnished by direc- 
 tion of the President. They have, as you will per- 
 ceive, no distinct diplomatic rank. They are expected 
 to be absent seven or eight months ; and the compen- 
 sation allowed them by the President is $G,000 each, 
 and $2,000 to their Secretary. Their expenses on the 
 voyage, until their return, except while on shore in 
 South America, are likewise allowed ; and Messrs. 
 Rodney and Graham having been appointed in June 
 last, and prepared to go, but by various accidents de- 
 tained until the beginning of December, when they 
 sailed, claim on that accouut a further allowance. If 
 after their arrival at Buenos Ayres, they find it advis- 
 able that one or more of them should remain on that 
 continent, and go to Chili, that measure is within 
 
 their discretionary powers. As this contingency was, 
 however, not expected as probable ; and, if it should 
 occur, it was not foreseen to what extent of time it 
 might go, no specific allowance was fixed upon for it. 
 Under these circumstances, it was anticipated that the 
 sum of thirty thousand dollars would not more than 
 suffice to cover the expenses of the mission. 
 
 I am, with great respect, sir, your very humble and 
 obedient servant, 
 
 JOHN Q. ADAMS. 
 
 W. LOWNDES, Esq., Chairman, dec. 
 
 To all who shall see these presents : 
 Be it Known, Caesar Augustus Rodney, John Gra- 
 ham, and Theodorick Bland, three distinguished citi- 
 zens of the United States, and enjoying, in a high 
 degree, the confidence and esteem of the President, 
 are about to visit, in a national ship, on just and 
 friendly objects, and at the special desire of the 
 President, divers places and countries in South 
 America. 
 
 These are therefore to request that, whithersoever 
 they may go, they, with their suite, may be received 
 and treated in a manner due to the .confidence re- 
 posed in them, and each of them, as aforesaid, by 
 the President of the United States, and to their own 
 merit. 
 
 Given tinder my hand, and the seal of the Depart- 
 ment of State, this twenty -fourth day of No- 
 [L. s.] vember, in the year of our Lord one thousand 
 eight hundred and seventeen. 
 
 JOHN Q. ADAMS. 
 Secretary of State. 
 
 Mr. CLAY rose, not, he said, to make any ob- 
 jection to the three respectable citizens for 
 whom this appropriation was intended that 
 was not his object ; but to enter his protest to 
 this kind of appropriation by Congress. As to 
 the object of the commission, he thought it of 
 very little use for the expenditure of public 
 money ; he referred to the views avowed, and 
 the directions to touch at Buenos Ayres, &c., 
 and said, if the object of the commission was to 
 acquire information of the actual state of affairs 
 in the Southern provinces, it was the most un- 
 fortunate mode that could have been adopted 
 for that purpose. What, asked Mr. C., was this 
 mode ? Three distinguished citizens are select- 
 ed, their appointment and intentions are an- 
 nounced by the newspapers, months before their 
 departure, then declared by the President him- 
 self, and made known to the whole world, and 
 they depart with all the paraphernalia of public 
 Ministers ; information of their object precedes 
 them wherever they go. As soon as they ar- 
 rive at a South American port they are sur- 
 rounded by all the factions in the country; 
 royalists, if there were any, as well as republi- 
 cans ; who strive to prejudice them in favor of 
 their respective interests, to mislead their judg- 
 ments, and prevent the getting correct informa- 
 tion of the real condition of things. ^Mr. C. 
 described the extent of the interior provinces of 
 Buenos Ayres, to show that the time allowed 
 to the Commissioners (if they were acquainted 
 with the language, manners, and habits, of the 
 country) was inadequate to enable them to 
 make any material addition to our stock of in-
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 135 
 
 MARCH, 1818.] 
 
 Spanish American Provinces. 
 
 [H. OF IL 
 
 formation ; but, even if they could, were they 
 to range the whole continent, and visit even the 
 armies, whether successful or not, of the differ- 
 ent parties, still, their object being known, they 
 would everywhere be liable 1 to the same de- 
 ception and imposition. Correct information 
 they would not obtain. The proper course to 
 have adopted, Mr. C. said, was to despatch an 
 individual unknown to all parties ; some intel- 
 ligent, keen, silent, and observing man, of pleas- 
 ing address and insinuating manners, who, 
 concealing the object of his visit, would see and 
 hear every thing, and report it faithfully. 
 
 But it was not to the object of the appropri- 
 ation, boldly as the mission had been devised, 
 that Mr. C. rose to object ; it was the constitu- 
 tional point it involved that made it obnoxious ; 
 and he read the clause of the constitution which 
 requires the consent and concurrence of the 
 Senate to all appointments not specifically pro- 
 vided for by law, to show that these Commis- 
 sioners should have been nominated to that 
 body taking it for granted, that they had not 
 been submitted to the Senate. The President 
 had not only made these appointments without 
 the authority of the constitution, or of any law 
 recognizing them, but in derogation from a posi- 
 tive act of Congress. There was an act of Con- 
 gress fixing the grade of the only Ministers we 
 sent abroad, and it provided for two cases only, 
 that of Minister Plenipotentiary and that of 
 Charge des Affaires. To the first it assigned a 
 salary of $9,000, to the last a salary of $4,500. 
 Here were Commissioners, then, sent with a 
 salary fixed by the sole authority of the Presi- 
 dent, and not conformable to that prescribed by 
 the law in either of the two grades. If he 
 might assign $6,000, what was there to prevent 
 his allowance of $50,000 ? It might be said in 
 that case this House would afford a remedy ; 
 but gentlemen would perceive how difficult it 
 would be, to withhold from an agent an appro- 
 priation, which had been promised and pledged 
 by the Executive. There was a contingent fund 
 of $50,000 allowed to the President by law, 
 which he was authorized to expend without 
 rendering to Congress any account of it it was 
 confided to his discretion, and, if the compensa- 
 tion of the Commissioners had been made from 
 that fund, Mr. C. said, it would not have been 
 a proper subject for inquiry ; but, under present 
 circumstances, in opposition to the constitution, 
 he could not be going too far, in giving at least 
 his protest to this appropriation. It was not 
 his intention to make any motion on the sub- 
 ject, and he made none. 
 
 Mr. FoBflTxn said> the constitution vests the 
 Executive with the powers to make appoint- 
 ments in the recess of the Senate. Whether 
 these were such as required the confirmation of 
 the Senate, had been or would be submitted for 
 that purpose, to that body, he did not know, 
 nor was it necessary to inquire. He presumed 
 what ought to be done would be done, and he 
 was disposed to leave the subject to the Execu- 
 tive and to the Senate, to whom it more prop- 
 
 erly belonged. If the idea of the Speaker was 
 correct, and these were officers requiring a 
 nomination to, and the approbation of the 
 Senate, yet. as they were appointed in the re- 
 cess, no constitutional wrong had been done in 
 their appointment. But the Speaker had ob- 
 jected to this commission because it was useless, 
 if it was information they went for. "Was it not 
 proper and necessary, Mr. F. asked, for the 
 Government to have information of the state 
 of the South American provinces of their ac- 
 tual political condition, their prospects of suc- 
 cess, &c. ? If so, this information could be ob- 
 tained only hi two ways by the newspapers, 
 or by agents sent out for that purpose. The 
 vague and uncertain reports given in the news- 
 papers could not be relied on, and the President 
 had thought proper to send intelligent agents 
 to obtain the knowledge desired. It was prob-' 
 able that a private man might have obtained 
 this information better ; but there was another 
 point to be considered the importance of this 
 information to the Government was such, that 
 it would be necessary that this individual 
 should be an American, and the kind of infor- 
 mation to be acquired might have subjected him 
 to the fate of other Americans in the Spanish 
 provinces ; he might have been thrown into a 
 dungeon. The opposite party might adopt this 
 course to prevent his communicating the infor- 
 mation he should have acquired. This had been 
 done ; American citizens had been thrown into 
 dungeons. In whatever aspect this subject was 
 viewed, Mr. F. could see no impropriety in 
 voting this appropriation. It was true, the 
 President might have taken it out of the secret 
 service fund, and no inquiry would have been 
 made about it ; but, in order to meet all the ex- 
 penses of the mission, it might have been neces- 
 sary to ask a further appropriation for this fund, 
 and then the inquiry would have been made, 
 for what it was wanted. The present course, 
 he thought, was more honorable and fair. It 
 would have been necessary nearly to double the 
 ordinary contingent fund, and it would have 
 been a conclusive objection to the appropriation, 
 that Congress was ignorant of the object to 
 which it was to be applied. "Would the House 
 have been willing to vote an addition to the se- 
 cret service fund, for what might have been 
 considered the employment of spies throughout 
 the world ? This objection to such an appro- 
 priation, he believed, would have been made 
 with effect; and it was much better for the 
 Executive to proceed in the present open and 
 frank manner. Mr. F. took occasion, in reply 
 to an allusion of Mr. CLAT, to say, that it was 
 true he did not find fault with the Executive 
 quite as often as the honorable Speaker had 
 latterly done, but still he was not the defender 
 of all Executive measures. The committee 
 would do him the justice to recollect that he 
 sometimes differed from the Executive, and 
 never failed to censure what he believed cen- 
 surable. 
 Mr. CLAY said, in reply, that Mr. FOESTTH
 
 136 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 Presidential Message Political Condition of Spanish America. 
 
 [MARCH, 1818. 
 
 had not controverted the objection that these 
 appointments had not been submitted to the 
 Senate. But these agents were to be provided 
 for, either in the quality of Ministers or Charges 
 des Affaires ; and, considered in either capacity, 
 the House was called on to make a larger ap- 
 propriation than was authorized by law for 
 officers of that character. As to a private 
 agent being liable to the fate mentioned by Mr. 
 FOBSYTII, what, he asked, were the immunities 
 of the present Commissioners? Nothing more, 
 he said, than those of a private man. It had 
 even been decided, in the affair of the Eussian 
 Consul at Philadelphia, that Consul Generals 
 were not entitled to the immunities of Minis- 
 ters. But, could not the President have given 
 the same commission to one man, sent privately 
 to obtain information, as to those three Com- 
 missioners, and with the same effect and valid- 
 ity ? As to the object of the commission, Mr. 
 C. again asked, how these gentlemen were to 
 acquire this information respecting the independ- 
 ence of the South American provinces? The 
 fact of their independence was not to be estab- 
 lished by a dedimus potestatum sent out to take 
 depositions. The independence of some of 
 these States was matter of history was too 
 notorious to require the evidence of those Com- 
 missioners. And Mr. 0. referred to the con- 
 dition of some of the South American States, 
 on which the knowledge was complete, and 
 contended that they had been sent to parts, 
 with regard to which (Venezuela and Buenos 
 Ayres, for example) our information was most 
 perfect, and were not to visit all those parts 
 (Mexico and New Granada) from which we 
 most wanted it. Mr. C. again adverted to the 
 manner in which the Commissioners had been 
 appointed, which being done not according to 
 law, was the more improper, as they had not 
 sailed till after the meeting of Congress, when 
 it would have been scarcely any detention to 
 have waited the concurrence of the Senate, 
 which was in session when they departed. 
 
 Mr. HOPKINSOX observed, that he did not 
 rise to express any opinion upon the object or 
 utility of the mission in question he was will- 
 ing to agree in both ; but he desired to express 
 distinctly his dissent to the appropriation, be- 
 cause he believed the appointment of these 
 Commissioners was of a kind, under the provi- 
 sion and spirit of our constitution, to require 
 the approbation and assent of the Senate, and 
 because he had no reason to believe such assent 
 h'ad ever been given by the Senate, or asked by 
 the Executive. He thought it more important 
 for us, as the Representatives of the American 
 people, to attend to and guard our own consti- 
 tution, than to send abroad to inquire into the 
 form of government of other people. Mr. H. 
 said, that being up, he would take occasion to 
 say that he saw little or no difference between 
 sending a Minister without consulting the Sen- 
 ate, in a case when their assent is admitted to 
 be necessary, and sending him just on the eve 
 of the meeting of that body, without any known 
 
 urgency, and afterwards submitting the appoint- 
 ment to the Senate. Nobody can believe the 
 Senate can exercise that free and unemba'rrassed 
 judgment upon the nomination which the con- 
 stitution intended they should have, after the 
 Minister had actually embarked and sailed for 
 his destination, with his outfit and other ex- 
 penses of the mission. 
 
 On the suggestion of Mr. LOWXDES this ap- 
 propriation was passed by for the present, that 
 in the mean time the additional information 
 which had been asked for by the Speaker might 
 be obtained from the Department of State. 
 
 Mr. CLAY rose, and moved to insert in the 
 bill a provision to appropriate the sum of eigh- 
 teen thousand dollars as the outfit and one year's 
 salary of a Minister to be deputed from the 
 United States to the independent provinces of 
 the River Plata, in South America. 
 
 This proposition Mr. C. followed up by en- 
 tering into a discussion of the question, involved 
 in his motion, of a formal recognition of the 
 independence of the South American States 
 mentioned. He had spoken something more 
 than an hour, when (having given way for a 
 motion to that effect) the committee rose, about 
 half-past four o'clock, and the House adjourned. 
 
 WEDNESDAY, March 25. 
 On motion of Mr. MAKE, the Committee on 
 the Public Lands were instructed to inquire 
 whether any, and if any, what further provi- 
 sions of law are necessary for preventing waste 
 and trespass on that portion of the public lands 
 which have been, or may hereafter be, reserved 
 for the use of schools. 
 
 Presidential Message Political Condition of 
 " --* America. 
 
 Several Messages were received from the 
 PEESIDEST OF THE UNITED STATES. The first ot 
 the said Messages was read, and is as follows : 
 WASHINGTON, March 24, 1818. 
 
 In pursuance of a resolution of the House of Rep- 
 resentatives of the 7th instant, I now transmit the 
 report of the Secretary of State, with a statement of 
 the expenses incurred under the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 
 7th articles of the Treaty of Ghent, specifying the 
 items of expenditure in relation to each. 
 
 JAMES MONROE. 
 
 The second of the said Messages was read, and 
 is as follows : 
 To the House of Representatives of the United States : 
 
 In conformity with the resolution of the House of 
 Representatives of the 5th of December last, I now 
 transmit a report of the Secretary of State, with a 
 copy of the documents which it is thought proper to 
 communicate, relating to the independence and polit- 
 ical condition of the provinces of Spanish America. 
 JAMES MONROE. 
 
 WASHINGTON, March 25, 1818. 
 
 The report of the Secretary of State is as 
 follows : 
 
 The Secretary of State, to whom has been referred 
 the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 
 loth of December, has the honor of submitting the
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 137 
 
 MARCH, 1818.] 
 
 Presidential Message Seminole War. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 documents herewith transmitted, as containing the 
 information possessed at his department, requested 
 by that resolution. 
 
 In the communication received from Don Manuel 
 H. de Aguirre, there are references to certain con- 
 ferences between him and the Secretary of State, 
 which appear to require some explanation. 
 
 The character in which Mr. Aguirre presented 
 himself was that of a public agent from the Govern- 
 ment of La Plata, and of private agent of that of 
 Chili his commissions from both simply qualified 
 him as agent ; but his letter from the Supreme Direc- 
 tor Pueyrredon, to the President of the United States, 
 requested that he might be received with the consid- 
 eration due to his diplomatic character. He had no 
 commission as a public minister of any rank, nor any 
 foil power to negotiate as such. Neither the letter, 
 of which he was the bearer, nor he himself, at his 
 first interviews with the Secretary of State, suggested 
 that he was authorized to ask the acknowledgment 
 of his Government as independent a circumstance 
 which derived additional weight from the fact, that 
 his predecessor, Don Martin Thompson, had been dis- 
 missed by the Director Pneyrredon, for having tran- 
 scended his powers, of which the letter brought by 
 Mr. Aguirre, gave notice to the President. 
 
 It was some time after the commencement of the 
 session of Congress, that he made this demand, as 
 will be seen by the dates of his written communica- 
 tions to the Department. In the conferences held 
 with him on that subject, among other questions 
 which it naturally suggested, were those of the man- 
 ner in which the acknowledgment of his Government, 
 should it be deemed advisable, might be made ? and 
 what were the territories which he considered as 
 forming the State or nation to be recognized ? It 
 was observed, that the manner in which the United 
 States had been acknowledged as an independent 
 power by France, was, by a treaty concluded with 
 them, as an existing independent power, and in 
 which each one of the States, then composing the 
 Union, was distinctly named ; that something of the 
 same kind seemed to be necessary in the first ac- 
 knowledgment of a new government, that some 
 definite idea might be formed not of the precise 
 boundaries, but of the general extent of the country 
 thus recognized. He said the Government of which 
 he desired the acknowledgment, was of the country 
 which had, before the revolution, been the Vice 
 Royalty of La Plata. It was then asked, whether 
 that did not include Montevideo and the territory 
 occupied by the Portuguese the Banda Oriental, 
 understood to be under the government of General 
 Artigas, and several provinces, still in the undisputed 
 possession of the Spanish Government He said it 
 did ; but observed, that Artigas, though in hostility 
 with the Government of Buenos Ayres, supported, 
 however, the cause of independence of Spain and 
 that the Portuguese could not ultimately maintain 
 their possession of Montevideo. It was after this 
 that Mr. Aguirre wrote the letter, offering to enter 
 into a negotiation for conducting a treaty ; though 
 admitting that he had no authority to that effect 
 from his government It may be proper to observe, 
 that the mode of recognition by concluding a treaty, 
 had not been suggested as the only one practicable 
 or usual, but merely as that which had been adopted 
 by France with the United States, and as offering 
 the most convenient means of designating the extent 
 of the territory acknowledged as a new dominion. 
 
 The remark to Mr. Aguirre, that if Buenos Ayres 
 should be acknowledged as independent, others of 
 the contending provinces would, perhaps, demand the 
 same, had particular reference to the Banda Orien- 
 tal. The inquiry was, whether General Artigas 
 might not advance a claim of independence for those 
 provinces, conflicting with that of Buenos Ayres for 
 the whole Vice Royalty of La Plata ? The Portu- 
 guese possession of Montevideo was noticed in refer- 
 ence to a similar question. 
 
 It should be added, that these observations were 
 connected with others, stating the reasons upon 
 which the present acknowledgment of the Government 
 of La Plata, in any mode, was deemed by the President 
 inexpedient, in regard as well to their interests as to 
 those of the United States. 
 
 JOHN QUTNCY ADAMS. 
 
 Presidential Message Seminole War. 
 The last of the said Messages was read, and 
 is as follows : 
 
 To the House of Representatives of the United States : 
 I now lay before Congress all the information in 
 the possession of the Executive respecting the war 
 with the Seminoles, and the measures which it has 
 been thought proper to adopt for the safety of our 
 fellow-citizens on the frontier exposed to their rav- 
 ages. The enclosed documents show that the hostili- 
 ties of this tribe were unprovoked, the offspring of a 
 spirit long cherished, and often manifested towards 
 the United States, and that, in the present instance, 
 it was extending itself to other tribes, and daily as- 
 suming a more serious aspect. As soon as the nature 
 and object of this combination were perceived, the 
 Major General commanding the southern division of 
 the troops of the United States, was ordered to the 
 theatre of action, charged with the management of 
 the war, and vested with the powers necessary to 
 give it effect. The season of the year being unfa- 
 vorable to active operations, and the recesses of the 
 country affording shelter to these savages, in case of 
 retreat, may prevent a prompt termination of the 
 war, but it may be fairly presumed that it will not 
 be long before this tribe, and its associates, receive 
 the punishment which they have provoked and justly 
 merited. 
 
 As almost the whole of this tribe inhabits the 
 country within the limits of Florida, Spam was 
 bound, by the Treaty of 1795, to restrain them from 
 committing hostilities against the United States. 
 We have seen with regret, that her Government has 
 altogether failed to fulfil this obligation, nor are we 
 aware that it made any effort to that effect When 
 we consider her utter inability to check, even in the 
 slightest degree, the movements of this tribe, by hep 
 very small and incompetent force in Florida, we are 
 not disposed to ascribe the failure to any other cause. 
 The inability, however, of Spain to maintain her 
 authority over the territory and Indians within her 
 limits, and in consequence to fulfil the treaty, ought 
 not to expose the United States to other and greater 
 injuries. When the authority of S^R ceases to ex- 
 ist there, the United States have irVght to pursue 
 their enemy, on a principle of self-defence. In this 
 instance, the right is more complete and obvious, 
 because we shall perform only what Spain was bound 
 to have performed herself. To the high obligations 
 and privileges of this great and sacred right of self- 
 defence, will the movement of our troops be strictly
 
 138 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 Spanish American Provinces. 
 
 [MARCH, 1818. 
 
 confined. Orders have been given to the General in 
 command, not to enter Florida, unless it be in pur- 
 suit of the enemy, and in that case to respect the 
 Spanish authority wherever it is maintained, and he 
 will be instructed to -withdraw his forces from the 
 province as soon as he shall have reduced that tribe 
 to order, and secure our fellow-citizens, in that quar- 
 ter, by satisfactory arrangements, against its unpro- 
 voked and savage hostilities in future. 
 
 JAMES MONROE. 
 WASHINGTON, March 25, 1818. 
 
 The said Messages and their accompanying 
 documents, were ordered to lie on the table. 
 
 Spanish American Provinces. 
 
 The House having again resolved itself into a 
 Committee of the Whole on the annual general 
 appropriation bill, and Mr. CLAY'S proposition 
 to amend the bill by inserting a clause for ap- 
 propriating $18,000 for the outfit and year's 
 salary of a Minister to Buenos Ayres, yet pend- 
 ing, Mr. CLAY concluded, in a speech of three 
 hours in length, the observations he yesterday 
 commenced in support of his proposition ; the 
 whole of which is given entire, as follows : 
 
 Mr. CLAY said he rose, under feelings of deep- 
 er regret than he had ever experienced on any 
 former occasion, inspired, principally, by the 
 painful consideration, that he found himself, on 
 the proposition which he meant to submit, dif- 
 fering from many highly esteemed friends, in 
 and out of this House, for whose judgment he 
 entertained the greatest respect. A knowledge 
 of this circumstance had induced him to pause ; 
 to subject his own convictions to the severest 
 scrutiny ; and to revolve the question over and 
 over again. But all his reflections had con- 
 ducted him to the same clear result ; and much 
 as he valued those friends, great as his defer- 
 ence was for their opinions, he could not hesi- 
 tate, when reduced to the distressing alterna- 
 tive of conforming his judgment to theirs, or 
 pursuing the deliberate and matured dictates of 
 his own mind. He enjoyed some consolation, 
 for the want of their co-operation, from the 
 persuasion that, if he erred on this occasion, he 
 erred on the side of the liberty and the happi- 
 ness of a large portion of the human family. 
 Another, and, if possible, indeed a greater 
 source of the regret to which he referred, was 
 the utter incompetency which he unfeignedly 
 felt to do any thing like adequate justice to the 
 great cause of American independence and 
 freedom, whose interests he wished to promote 
 by his humble exertions, in this instance. Ex- 
 hausted and worn down as he was, by the fa- 
 tigue, confinement, and incessant application 
 incident to the arduous duties of the honorable 
 station he haj^ during a four months' session, 
 he should neUall that kind indulgence which 
 had been so often extended to him by the 
 House. 
 
 He begged, in the first place, to correct mis- 
 conceptions, if any existed, in regard to his 
 opinions. He was averse from war with Spain, 
 or with any power. He would give no just 
 
 cause of war to any power not to Spain her- 
 self. He had seen enough of war, and of its 
 calamities, when even successful. No country 
 upon earth had more interest than this in cul- 
 tivating peace, and avoiding war, as long as it 
 was possible honorably to avoid it. Gaining 
 additional strength every day, our numbers 
 doubling in periods of twenty-five years, with 
 an income outstripping all our estimates, and 
 so great, as, after a war in some respects dis- 
 astrous, to furnish results which carry aston- 
 ishment, if not dismay, into the bosom of the 
 states jealous of our rising importance, we had 
 every motive for the love of peace. He could 
 not, however, approve, in all respects, of the 
 manner in which our negotiation with Spain 
 had been conducted. If ever a favorable time 
 existed for the demand, on the part of an in- 
 jured nation, of indemnity for past wrongs, 
 from the aggressor, such was the present time. 
 Impoverished and exhausted at home, by the 
 wars which have desolated the Peninsula, 
 with a foreign war, calling for infinitely more 
 resources in men and money, than she can pos- 
 sibly command, this is the auspicious period 
 for insisting upon justice at her hands, in a 
 firm and decided tone. Time is precisely what 
 Spain now most wants. Yet what were we 
 told by the President, in his Message, at the 
 commencement of Congress ? That Spain had 
 procrastinated, and we acquiesced in her pro- 
 crastination. And the Secretary of State, in 
 the late communication with Mr. Onis, after 
 ably vindicating all our rights, tells the Spanish 
 Minister, with a good deal of sang froid, that 
 we had patiently waited thirteen years for a 
 redress of our injuries, and that it required no 
 great effort to wait longer ! He would have 
 abstained from thus exposing our intentions. 
 Avoiding the use of the language of menace, 
 he would have required, in temperate and de- 
 cided terms, indemnity for all our wrongs ; for 
 the spoliations upon our commerce ; for the in- 
 terruption of the right of depot at New Orleans, 
 guaranteed by treaty ; for the insults repeatedly 
 offered to our flag; for the Indian hostilities 
 which she was bound to prevent ; for the bel- 
 ligerent use made of her ports and territories 
 by our enemy, during the late war and the 
 instantaneous liberation of the free citizens of 
 the United States, now imprisoned in her jails. 
 Contemporaneous with that demand, without 
 waiting for her final answer, and with a view 
 to the favorable operation on her councils, in 
 regard to our own peculiar interests, as well as 
 in justice to the cause itself, he would recog- 
 nize any established government in Spanish 
 America. He would have left Spam to draw 
 her own inferences from these proceedings, as 
 to the ultimate steps which this country might 
 adopt, if she longer withheld justice from us. 
 And if she persevered in her iniquity, after we 
 had conducted the negotiation in the manner 
 he had endeavored to describe, he would then 
 take up and decide the solemn question of peace 
 or war, with the advantage of all the light shed
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 139 
 
 MARCH, 1818.] 
 
 Spanish American Provinces. 
 
 [H. OP R 
 
 upon it by subsequent events and the probable 
 conduct of Europe. 
 
 Spain had undoubtedly given us abundant 
 and just cause of war. But, it was not every 
 cause of war that should lead to war. "War 
 was one of those dreadful scourges that so 
 shakes the foundations of society ; overturns or 
 changes- the character of governments ; inter- 
 rupts or destroys the pursuits of private hap- 
 piness ; brings, in short, misery and wretched- 
 ness in so many forms ; and at last is, in its 
 issue, so doubtful and hazardous that nothing 
 but dire necessity can justify an appeal to arms. 
 If we were to have war with Spain, he had, 
 however, no hesitation in saying that no mode 
 of bringing it about could be less fortunate than 
 that of seizing, at this time, upon her adjoining 
 province. There was a time, under other cir- 
 cumstances, when we might have occupied East 
 Florida, with safety ; had we then taken it, our 
 posture in the negotiation with Spain, would 
 have been totally different from what it is. 
 But, we had permitted that time, not with his 
 consent, to pass by unimproved. If we were 
 to seise upon Florida, after a great change in 
 those circumstances, and after declaring our 
 intention to acquiesce in the procrastination 
 desired by Spain, in what light should we be 
 viewed by foreign powers, particularly Great 
 Britain? We have already been accused of 
 inordinate ambition, and of seeking to aggran- 
 dize ourselves by an extension, on all sides, of 
 our limits. Should we not, by such an act 
 of violence, give color to the accusation ? No, 
 Mr. Chairman, if we are to be involved in war 
 with Spain, let us have the credit of disinter- 
 estedness ; let us put her yet more in the wrong. 
 Let us command the respect which is never 
 withheld from those who act a noble and gen- 
 erous part. He hoped to communicate to the 
 committee the coAdclion which he so strongly 
 felt, that, adopting the amendment which he 
 intended to propose, would not hazard, in the 
 slightest degree, the peace of the country. But 
 if that peace were to be endangered, he would 
 infinitely rather it should be for our exerting 
 the right, appertaining to every state, of ac- 
 knowledging the independence of another state, 
 than for the seizure of a province which sooner 
 or later we must certainly acquire. 
 
 Mr. C. proceeded. In contemplating the great 
 struggle in which Spanish America is now en- 
 gaged, our attention is first fixed by the im- 
 mensity and character of the country which 
 Spain seeks again to subjugate. Stretching on 
 the Pacific Ocean from about the 40th degree 
 of north latitude, to about the 55th degree of 
 south latitude, and extending from the mouth 
 of the Eio del Norte (exclusive of East Flori- 
 da) around the Gulf of Mexico, and along the 
 South Atlantic to near Cape Horn, it is about 
 5,000 miles in length, and, in some places, near 
 3,000 in breadth. Within this vast region, we 
 behold the most sublime and interesting objects 
 of creation; the loftiest mountains, the most 
 majestic rivers in the world ; the richest mines 
 
 of the precious metals ; and the choicest pro- 
 ductions of the earth. We behold there a spec- 
 tacle still more interesting and sublime the 
 glorious spectacle of eighteen millions of people, 
 struggling to burst their chains and to be free. 
 When we take a little nearer and more detailed 
 view, we perceive that nature has, as it were, 
 ordained that this people and this country shall 
 ultimately constitute several different nations. 
 Leaving the "United States on the north, we 
 come to New Spain, or the Vice Royalty of 
 Mexico on the south ; passing by Guatemala, 
 we reach the Vice Royalty of New Grenada, 
 the late Captain Generalship of Venezuela, and 
 Guyana, lying on the east side of the Andes. 
 Stepping over the Brazils, we arrive at the 
 United Provinces of La Plata, and, crossing the 
 Andes, we find Chili on their west side, and 
 further north, the Vice Royalty of Lima or 
 Peru. Each of these several parts is sufficient 
 in itself, in point of limits, to constitute a pow- 
 erful state, and, in point of population, that 
 which has the smallest contains enough to make 
 it respectable. Throughout all the extent of 
 that great portion of the world, which he had 
 attempted thus hastily to describe, the spirit of 
 revolt against tie dominion of Spain had mani- 
 fested itself. The revolution had been attended 
 with various degrees of success hi the several 
 parts of Spanish America. In some it had 
 been already crowned, as he would endeavor to 
 show, with complete success, and in all he was 
 persuaded that independence had struck such 
 deep root, as that the power of Spain could 
 never eradicate it. What were the causes of 
 this great movement? 
 
 Three hundred years ago, upon the ruins of 
 the thrones of Montezuma and the Incas of Peru, 
 Spain erected the most a^pendous system of 
 colonial despotism that the world has ever seen 
 the most rigorous, the most exclusive. The 
 great principle and object of this system has 
 been to render one of the largest portions of the 
 world exclusively subservient, in all its faculties, 
 to the interests of an inconsiderable spot in 
 Europe. To effectuate this aim of her policy, 
 she locked Spanish America up from the rest oi 
 the world, and prohibited, under the severest 
 penalties, any foreigner from entering any part 
 of it. To keep the natives themselves ignorant 
 of each other, and of the strength and resources 
 of the several parts of her American possessions, 
 she next prohibited the inhabitants of one Vice 
 Royalty or Government from visiting those of 
 another ; so, that the inhabitants of Mexico, for 
 example, were not allowed to enter the Vice 
 Royalty of New Grenada. The agriculture of 
 those vast regions was so regulated and re- 
 strained as to prevent all collision with the in- 
 terests of the agriculture of the Peninsula. 
 Where nature, by the character and composi- 
 tion of the soil, had commanded, the abominable 
 system of Spain has forbidden the growth of 
 certain articles. Thus, the olive and the vine, 
 to which Spanish America is so well adapted, 
 are prohibited wherever their culture could in-
 
 140 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 erican Provinces. 
 
 [MARCH, 1818. 
 
 terfere with the olive and the vine of the Pen- 
 insula. The commerce of the country, in the 
 direction and objects of the exports and imports, 
 is also siibjected to the narrow and selfish views 
 of Spain, and fettered by the odious spirit of 
 monopoly existing in Cadiz. She has sought, 
 by scattering discord among the several castes 
 of her American population, and by a debasing 
 course of education, to perpetuate her oppres- 
 sion. Whatever concerns public law, or the 
 science of government, all writers upon political 
 economy, or that tend to give vigor, and free- 
 dom, and expansion to the intellect, are pro- 
 hibited. Gentlemen would be astonished by the 
 long list of distinguished authors, whom she 
 proscribes, to be found in Depon's and other 
 works. A main feature in her policy is that 
 which constantly elevates the European and de- 
 presses the American character. Out of up- 
 wards of 750 Viceroys and Captains General, 
 whom she has appointed since the conquest of 
 America, about eighteen only have been from 
 the body of the American population. On all 
 occasions she seeks to raise and promote her 
 European subjects, and to degrade and humiliate 
 the Creoles. Wherever in America her sway 
 extends every thing seems to pine and wither 
 beneath its baneful influence. The richest re- 
 gions of the earth ; man, his happiness and his 
 education ; all the fine faculties of his soul, are 
 regulated, and modified, and moulded, to suit 
 the execrable purposes of an inexorable des- 
 potism. 
 
 Such is a brief and imperfect picture of the 
 state of things in Spanish America in 1808, 
 when the famous transactions of Bayonne oc- 
 curred. The King of Spain and the Indies (for 
 Spanish America had always constituted an in- 
 tegral part of the Swinish empire) abdicated his 
 throne and became a voluntary captive. Even 
 at this day, one does not know whether he should 
 most condemn the baseness and perfidy of the 
 one party, or despise the meanness and imbe- 
 cility of the other. If the obligation of obedi- 
 ence and allegiance existed on the part of the 
 colonies to the King of Spain, it was founded on 
 the duty of protection which he owed them. 
 By disqualifying himself from the performance 
 of this duty, they became released from that ob- 
 ligation. The monarchy was dissolved, and each 
 integral part had a right to seek its own hap- 
 piness by the institution of any new govern- 
 ment adapted to its wants. Joseph Bonaparte, 
 the successor de facto of Ferdinand, recognized 
 this right on the part of the colonies, and re- 
 commended them to establish their independ- 
 ence. Thus, upon the ground of strict right ; 
 upon the footing of a mere legal question, gov- 
 erned by forensic rules, the colonies, being ab- 
 solved by the acts of the parent country from 
 the duty of subjection to it, had an indisputable 
 right to set up for themselves. But Mr. C. took 
 a broader and bolder position. He maintained 
 that an oppressed people were authorized, when- 
 ever they could, to rise and break their fetters. 
 This was the great principle of the English Kev- 
 
 olution. It was the great principle of our own. 
 Vattel, if authority were wanting, expressly 
 supports this right. We must pass sentence of 
 condemnation upon the founders of our liberty 
 say that they were rebels, traitors, and that 
 we are at this moment legislating without con- 
 petent powers, before we could condemn the 
 cause of Spanish America. Our Revolution was 
 mainly directed against the mere theory of tyr- 
 anny. We have suffered comparatively but 
 little; we had, in some respects, been kindly 
 treated ; but our intrepid and intelligent fathers 
 saw, in the usurpation of the power to levy an in- 
 considerable tax, the long train of oppressive 
 acts that was to follow. They rose; they 
 breasted the storm ; they conquered our free- 
 dom. Spanish America, for centuries, has been 
 doomed to the practical effects of an odious 
 tyranny. If we were justified, she -is more than 
 justified. 
 
 Mr. 0. said he was no propagandist. He 
 would not seek to force upon other nations our 
 principles and our liberty, if they did not want 
 them. He would not disturb the repose even 
 of a detestable despotism. But if an abused and 
 oppressed people willed their freedom ; if they 
 sought to establish it ; if, in truth, they had es- 
 tablished it, we had a right, as a sovereign 
 power, to notice the fact, and to act as circum- 
 stances and our interest required. He would^ay, 
 in the language of the venerated Father of his 
 Country : " Born in a land of liberty, my anx- 
 ious recollections, my sympathetic feelings, and 
 my best wishes, are irresistibly excited, when- 
 soever, in any country, I see an oppressed na- 
 tion unfurl the banners of freedom." * For his 
 own part, Mr. C. said, that whenever he thought 
 of Spanish America, the image irresistibly 
 forced itself upon his mind of an elder brother, 
 whose education had been, neglected, whose 
 person had been abused and maltreated, and who 
 had been disinherited by the unkindness of an 
 unnatural parent. And when he contemplated 
 the glorious struggle which that country was 
 now making, he thought he beheld that brother 
 rising, by the power and energy of his fine na- 
 tive genius, to the manly rank which nature and 
 nature's God intended for him. 
 
 If Spanish America were entitled to success 
 from the justness of her cause, we had no less 
 reason to wish that success from the horrible 
 character which the royal arms had given to 
 the war. More atrocities than those which had 
 been perpetrated during its existence were not 
 to be found even in the annals of Spain herself. 
 And history, reserving some of her blackest 
 pages for the name of Morillo, is prepared to 
 place him alongside of his great prototype, the 
 infamous desolator of the Netherlands. He who 
 has looked into the history of the conduct of this 
 war, is constantly shocked at the revolting 
 scenes which it portrays ; at the refusal, on the 
 part of the commanders of the royal forces, to 
 
 * Washington's answer to the French Minister's address, 
 on his presenting the colors of France, in 1T96.
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 141 
 
 MARCH, 1818.] 
 
 Spanish American Provinces. 
 
 [H. OP B 
 
 treat, on any terras, with the other side ; at the 
 denial of quarters; at the hutchery, in cold 
 blood, of prisoners; at the violation of flags, in 
 some cases, after being received with religious 
 ceremonies ; at the instigation of slaves to rise 
 against their owners ; and at acts of wanton and 
 useless barbarity. Neither the weakness of the 
 other sex, nor the imbecility of old age, nor the 
 innocence of infants, nor the reverence due to 
 the sacerdotal character, can stay the arm of 
 royal vengeance. On this subject he begged 
 leave to trouble the committee with reading a 
 few passages from a most authentic document, 
 the manifesto of the Congress of the United 
 Provinces of Rio de la Plata, published in Oc- 
 tober last. This was a paper of the highest 
 authority ; it was an appeal to the whole world ; 
 it asserted facts of notoriety in the face of the 
 whole world. It was not to be credited that the 
 Congress would come forward with a statement 
 which was not true, when the means, if it were 
 false, of exposing their fabrications, must be so 
 abundant, and so easy to command. It was a 
 document, in short, that stood upon the same 
 footing of authority with our own papers, pro- 
 mulged during the Revolution by our Congress. 
 He would add, that many of the facts which it 
 affirmed, were corroborated by most respectable 
 historical testimony, which was in his ownpos- 
 
 [Mr. C. here read the following passages from 
 the manifesto : ] 
 
 " Memory shudders at the recital of the horrors that 
 were then committed by Goyeneche, in Cochabamba. 
 Would to heaven it were possible to blot from remem- 
 brance the name of that ungrateful and blood-thirsty 
 American ; who, on the day of his entry, ordered the 
 virtuous Governor and Intendant, Antesana, to be 
 shot ; who, beholding from the balcony of his house 
 that infamous murder, cried out with a ferocious 
 voice to the soldiers, that they must not fire at the 
 head, because he wanted it to be affixed to a pole ; 
 and who, after the head was taken off, ordered the 
 cold corpse to be dragged through the streets ; and, by 
 a barbarous decree, placed the lives and fortunes of 
 the citizens at the mercy of his unbridled soldiery, 
 leaving them to exercise their licentious and brutal 
 sway during several days ! But those blind and cru- 
 elly capricious men (the Spaniards) rejected the me- 
 diation of England, and despatched rigorous orders to 
 all the Generals to aggravate the war, and to punish 
 us with more severity. The scaffolds were every- 
 where multiplied, and invention was.racked to devise 
 means for spreading murder, distress, and conster- 
 nation. 
 
 " Thenceforth they made all possible efforts to spread 
 division among us, to incite us to mutual extermina- 
 tion ; they have slandered us with the most atrocious 
 calumnies, accusing us of plotting the destruction of 
 our holy religion, the abolition of all morality, and oi 
 introducing licentiousness of manners. They wage a 
 religious war against us, contriving a thousand arti- 
 fices to disturb and alarm the consciences of the 
 people, making the Spanish bishops issue decrees ol 
 ecclesiastical condemnation, public excommunica- 
 tions, and disseminating, through the medium of some 
 ignorant confessor, fanatical doctrines in the tribunal 
 
 of penitence. By means of these religious discords 
 hey have divided families against themselves ; they 
 lave caused disaffection between parents and chil- 
 dren ; they have dissolved the tender ties which unite 
 msband and wife ; they have spread rancor and im- 
 jlacable hatred between brothers, most endeared, 
 and they have presumed to throw all nature into 
 discord. 
 
 ' They have adopted the system of murdering men 
 ^discriminatory to diminish our numbers ; and, on 
 their entry into towns, they have swept off all, even 
 the market people, leading them to the open squares, 
 and there shooting them one by one. The cities of 
 Ohnquisaca and Cohabamba have more than once 
 been the theatres of these horrid slaughters. 
 
 They have intermixed with their troops soldiers 
 of ours whom they had taken prisoners, carrying 
 away the officers in chains to garrisons where it is 
 impossible to preserve health for a year ; they have 
 [eft others to die in their prisons of hunger and misery, 
 nd others they have forced to hard labor on the pub- 
 lic works. They have exultingly put to death oar 
 bearers of flags of truce, and have been guilty of the 
 blackest atrocities to our chiefs, after they had sur- 
 rendered, as well as to other principal characters, in 
 disregard of the humanity with which we treated 
 prisoners ; as a proof of it, witness the deputy Mutes 
 of Potosi, the Captain General Pumacagua, General 
 Augulo, and his brother Commandant Munecas, and 
 other partisan chiefs, who were shot in cold blood, 
 after having been prisoners for several days. 
 
 " They took a brutal pleasure in cropping the ears 
 of the natives of the town of Villegrande, and sending 
 a basket full of them as presents to the headquarters. 
 They afterwards burnt that town, and set fire to 
 thirty other populous towns of Peru, and worse than 
 the worst of savages, shutting the inhabitants up 
 in the houses, before setting them on fire, that they 
 might be burnt alive. 
 
 " They have not only been cruel and unsparing in 
 their mode of murder, but they have been void of all 
 morality and public decency, causing aged ecclesias- 
 tics and women to be lashed to a gun and publicly 
 flogged, with the abomination of first having them 
 stripped, and their nakedness exposed to shame, in 
 the presence of their troops. 
 
 " They established an inquisitorial system in all 
 these punishments; they have seized on peaceable 
 inhabitants, and transported them across the seas to 
 be adjudged for suspected crimes, and they have put 
 a great number of citizens to death everywhere with- 
 out accusation or the form of a trial. 
 
 " They have invented a crime of unexampled hor- 
 ror, in poisoning our water and provisions, when they 
 were conquered by General Pineto at La Paz, and in 
 return for the kindness with which he treated them, 
 after they had surrendered at discretion, they had 
 the barbarity to blow up the headquarters, under 
 which they had constructed a mine, and prepared a 
 train beforehand. 
 
 " He has branded us with the stigma of rebels the 
 moment he returned to Madrid ; he refused to listen 
 to our complaints, or to receive our supplications ; 
 and as an act of extreme favor, he offered us a par- 
 don. He confirmed the Viceroys, Governors, and 
 Generals, whom he found actually glutted with car- 
 nage ; he declared us guilty of a high misdemeanor 
 for having dared to frame a constitution for our own 
 government, free from the control of a deified, ab 
 solute, and tyrannical power, under which we had
 
 142 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 Spanish American Provinces. 
 
 [MARCH, 1818 
 
 groaned three centuries a measure that could be 
 offensive only to a Prince, an enemy to justice and 
 beneficence, and consequently unworthy to rule over us. 
 
 " He then undertook, with the aid of his Minis- 
 ters, to equip large military armaments to be direct- 
 ed against us. He has caused numerous armies to be 
 sent out to consummate the work of devastation, fire, 
 and plunder. 
 
 " He has sent his Generals, with certain decrees of 
 pardon, which they publish to deceive the ignorant, 
 and induce them to facilitate their entrance into 
 towns ; whilst, at the same time, he has given them 
 other secret instructions, authorizing them, as soon 
 as they should get possession of a place, to hang, burn, 
 confiscate, and sack ; to encourage private assassina- 
 tions, and to commit every species of injury in their 
 power against the deluded beings who had confided 
 in his pretended pardon. It is in the name of Ferdi- 
 nand of Bourbon, that the heads of patriot officers, 
 prisoners, are fixed up in the highways, that they 
 beat and stoned to death a commandant of light 
 troops, and that, after having killed Colonel Camugo, 
 in the same manner, by the hands of the indecent 
 Centeno, they cut off his head, and sent it as a present 
 to General Pezuela, telling him it was a miracle of the 
 Virgin of the Carmelites." 
 
 In the establishment of the independence of 
 Spanish America, the United States have the 
 deepest interest. He had no hesitation in assert- 
 ing his firm belief, that there was no question, 
 in the foreign policy of this country, which had 
 ever -arisen, or which he could conceive as ever 
 occurring, in the decision of which we had so 
 much at stake. This interest concerned our 
 politics, our commerce, our navigation. There 
 could not be a doubt that Spanish America, 
 once independent, whatever might be the form 
 of the governments established in its several 
 parts, those governments would be animated by 
 an American feeling, and guided by an Amer- 
 ican policy. They would obey the laws of the 
 system of the New World, of which they would 
 compose a part, in contradistinction to that of 
 Europe. "Without the influence of that vortex 
 in Europe, the balance of power between its 
 several parts, the preservation of which had so 
 often drenched Europe in blood, America is 
 sufficiently remote to contemplate the new 
 wars Avhich are to afflict that quarter of the 
 globe, as a calm, if not a cold and indifferent, 
 spectator. In relation to those wars, the several 
 parts of America will generally stand neutral. 
 And as, during the period when they rage, it 
 would be important that a liberal system of 
 neutrality should be adopted and observed, all 
 America will be interested in maintaining and 
 enforcing such a system. The independence, 
 then, of Spanish America is an interest of pri- 
 mary consideration. Next to that, and highly 
 important in itself, was the consideration of 
 the nature of their governments. That was a 
 question, however, for themselves. They would, 
 no doubt, adopt those kinds of governments 
 which were best suited to their condition, best 
 calculated for their happiness. Anxious as he 
 was that they should be free governments, we 
 had no right to prescribe for them. They were, 
 
 and ought to be, the sole judges for themselves. 
 He was strongly inclined to believe that they 
 would in most, if not all, parts of their country, 
 establish free governments. We were their 
 great example. Of us they constantly spoke < 
 as of brothers, having a similar origin. They 
 adopted our principles, copied our institutions, 
 and, in some instances, employed the very 
 language and sentiments of our revolutionary 
 papers. [Here Mr. 0. read the following pas- 
 sage from the same manifesto before cited :] 
 
 " Having, then, been thus impelled by the Span- 
 iards and their King, we have calculated all the con- 
 sequences, and have constituted ourselves independ- 
 ent, prepared to exercise the right of nature to 
 defend ourselves against the ravages of tyranny, at 
 the risk of our honor, our lives, and fortune. We 
 have sworn to the only King we acknowledge, the 
 Supreme Judge of the World, that we will not aban- 
 don the cause of justice ; that we will not suffer the 
 country which he has given us to be buried in ruins, 
 and inundated with blood, by the hands of the ex- 
 ecutioner," &c. 
 
 But it is sometimes said that they are too 
 ignorant and too superstitious to admit of the 
 existence of free government. This charge of 
 ignorance is often urged by persons themselves 
 actually ignorant of the real condition of that 
 people. He denied the alleged fact of igno- 
 rance; he denied the inference from that 
 fact, if it were true, that they wanted capacity 
 for free government ; and he refused his assent 
 to the further conclusion, if the fact were true 
 and the inference just, that we were to be in- 
 different to their fate. All the writers of the 
 most established authority, Dep6ns, Humboldt, 
 and others, concur in assigning to the people of 
 Spanish America, great quickness, genius, and 
 particular aptitude for the acquisition of the 
 exact sciences, and others which they have been 
 allowed to culti vate. In astronomy, geol ogy, min- 
 eralogy, chemistry, botany, &c., they are allowed 
 to make distinguished proficiency. They justly 
 boast of their Abzate, Velasquez, and Gama, 
 and other illustrious contributors to science. 
 They have nine Universities, and in the city of 
 Mexico it is affirmed, by Humboldt, that there 
 are more solid scientific establishments than in 
 any city even of North America. He would 
 refer to the message of the Supreme Director 
 of La Plata, which he would hereafter have 
 occasion to use for another purpose, as a model 
 of fine composition of a State paper, challeng- 
 ing a comparison with any, the most celebrated 
 that ever issued from the pens of Jefferson or 
 Madison. Gentlemen would egregiously err if 
 they formed then* opinions of the present moral 
 condition of Spanish America, from what it 
 was under the debasing system of Spain. The 
 eight years' revolution in which it has been en- 
 gaged, has already produced a powerful effect. 
 
 Education had been attended to, and genius 
 developed. [Here Mr. 0. read a passage from 
 the Colonial Journal, published last Summer 
 in Great Britain, where a disposition to exag- 
 gerate on that side of the question could hardly 

 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 143 
 
 MARCH, 1818.] 
 
 Spanish American Provinces. 
 
 [H. OP R. 
 
 be supposed to exist] The fact was not, there- 
 fore, true, that the imputed ignorance existed ; 
 but, if it did, he repeated that he disputed the 
 inference. It was the doctrine of thrones, that 
 man was too ignorant to govern himself. Their 
 partisans assert this incapacity in reference to 
 all nations ; if they cannot command universal 
 assent to 'the proposition, it is then demanded 
 as to particular nations ; and our pride and our 
 presumption too often make converts of us. 
 Mr. C. contended that it was to arraign the dis- 
 positions of Providence himself, to suppose that 
 he had created beings incapable of governing 
 themselves, and to be trampled on by kings. 
 He contended that self-government was the 
 natural government of man, and he referred to 
 the aborigines of our own land. If he were 
 to speculate in hypotheses unfavorable to human 
 liberty, his should be founded rather upon the 
 vices, refinements, or density of population. 
 Crowded together in compact masses, even if 
 they were philosophers, the contagion of the 
 passions is communicated and caught, and the 
 effect too often, he admitted, was the overthrow 
 of liberty. Dispersed over such an immense 
 space as that on which the people of Spanish 
 America were spread, their physical, and he 
 believed, also, their moral condition, both favor- 
 ed liberty. 
 
 With regard to their superstition, he said, 
 they worshipped the same God with us. Their 
 prayers were offered up in their temples to the 
 same Redeemer, whose intercession we expected 
 to save us. All religions, united with Govern- 
 ment, were more or less inimical to liberty. 
 All, separated from Government, were compati- 
 ble with liberty. If the people of Spanish 
 America had not already gone as far, in religious 
 toleration, as we had, the difference in their con- 
 dition from ours should not be forgotten. 
 Every thing was progressive. And in time he 
 hoped to see them imitating, hi this respect, 
 our example. But grant that the people of 
 Spanish America are ignorant, and incompe- 
 tent for free government, to whom is that igno- 
 rance to be ascribed ? Is it not to the execrable 
 system of Spam, which she seeks again to 
 establish and to perpetuate? So far from 
 chilling our hearts, it ought to increase our 
 solicitude for our unfortunate brethren. It 
 ought to animate us to desire the redemption of 
 the minds and the bodies of unborn millions 
 from the brutifying effects of a system, whose 
 tendency is to stifle the faculties of the soul, 
 and to degrade man to the level of beasts. He 
 would invoke the spirits of our departed fathers. 
 "Was it for yourselves only that you nobly 
 fought ? No, no. It was the chains that were 
 forging for your posterity that made you fly to 
 arms, and, scattering the elements of those 
 chains to the winds, you transmitted to us the 
 rich inheritance of liberty. 
 
 Mr. 0. continued having shown that the 
 cause of the patriots was just, and that we had 
 a great interest in its successful issue, he would 
 next inquire what course of policy it became us 
 
 to adopt. He had already declared that to be 
 one of strict and impartial neutrality. It was 
 not necessary for their interest, it was not ex- 
 pedient for our own, that we should take part 
 in the war. All they demanded of us was a just 
 neutrality. It was compatible with this pacific 
 policy it was required by it, that we should 
 recognize any established Government, if there 
 were any established Government in Spanish 
 America. Recognition alone, without aid, was 
 no just cause of war. With aid it was, not 
 because of the recognition, but because of the 
 aid, as aid without recognition was cause of 
 war. The truth of these propositions he would 
 maintain upon principle, by the practice of 
 other States, and by the usage of our own. 
 There was no common tribunal among the na- 
 tions to pronounce upon the fact of the sover- 
 eignty of a new State. Each power must and 
 does judge for itself. It was an attribute of 
 sovereignty so to judge. A nation, in exerting 
 this incontestable right in pronouncing upon 
 the independence, in fact, of a new State, takes 
 no part in the war. It gives neither men, nor 
 ships, nor money. It merely pronounces that 
 hi so far as it may be necessary to institute any 
 relations, or to support any intercourse, with 
 the new power, that power is capable of main- 
 taining those relations and authorizing that in- 
 tercourse. Martens and other publicists lay 
 down these principles. 
 
 When the United Provinces formerly severed 
 themselves from Spam, it was about eighty years 
 before their independence was finally recognized 
 by Spain. Before that recognition, the United 
 Provinces had been received by all the rest of 
 Europe into the family of nations. It is true 
 that a war broke out between Philip and Eliza- 
 beth, but it proceeded from the aid which she 
 determined to give, and did give to Holland. 
 In no instance, he believed, could it be shown, 
 from authentic history, that Spain made war 
 upon any power, on the sole ground that such 
 power had acknowledged the independence of 
 the United Provinces. 
 
 In the case of our own Revolution, it was not 
 until after France had given us aid, and had de- 
 termined to enter into a treaty of alliance with 
 us a treaty by which she guaranteed our in- 
 dependence that England declared war. Hol- 
 land also was charged by England with favoring 
 our cause, and deviating from the line of strict 
 neutrality. And when it was perceived that 
 she was, moreover, about to enter into a treaty 
 with us, England declared war. Even if it 
 were shown that a proud, haughty, and power- 
 ful nation, like England, had made war upon 
 other provinces, on the ground of a mere recog- 
 nition, the single example could not alter the 
 public law, or shake the strength of a clear 
 principle. 
 
 But what had been our own uniform prac- 
 tice. We constantly proceeded on the prin- 
 ciple, that the government de facto was that 
 
 hich we could alone notice. Whatever from 
 of government any society of people adopt;
 
 144 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 Spanish American Provinces. 
 
 [MAKCH, 1818. 
 
 whoever they acknowledge as their sovereign, 
 we consider that government or that sovereign 
 as the one to be acknowledged by us. We have 
 invariably abstained from assuming a right to 
 decide in favor of the sovereign de jure, and 
 against the sovereign de facto. That is a ques- 
 tion for the nation in which it arises to deter- 
 mine. And, so far as we are concerned, the 
 sovereign de facto is the sovereign de jure. 
 Our own revolution stands on the basis of the 
 right of a people to change their rulers. He 
 did not maintain that every immature revolu- 
 tion every usurper, before his power was con- 
 solidated, was to be acknowledged by us ; but 
 that as soon as stability and order were main- 
 tained, no matter by whom, we always had 
 considered and ought to consider the actual as 
 the true Government. General Washington, Mr. 
 Jefferson, Mr. Madison, had all, whilst they 
 were respectively Presidents, acted on these 
 principles. 
 
 IQ the case of the French Republic, General 
 Washington did not wait until some of the 
 crowned heads of Europe should set him the 
 example of acknowledging it, but accredited a 
 Minister at once. And it is remarkable that he 
 was received before the Government of the Re- 
 public was considered as established. It will be 
 found, in Marshall's Life of Washington, that, 
 when it was understood that a Minister from 
 the French Republic was about to present him- 
 self, President Washington submitted a number 
 of questions to his Cabinet for their considera- 
 tion and advice, one of which was, whether, 
 upon the reception of the Minister, he should 
 be notified that America would suspend the 
 execution of the treaties between the two coun- 
 tries until France had an established Govern- 
 ment. General Washington did not stop to in- 
 quire whether the descendants of St. Louis 
 were to be considered as the legitimate sover- 
 eigns of France, and if the revolution was to 
 be regarded as unauthorized resistance to their 
 sway. He saw France, in fact, under the Gov- 
 ernment of those who had subverted the throne 
 of the Bourbons, and he acknowledged the 
 actual Government. During Mr. Jefferson's and 
 Mr. Madison's Administration, when the Cortes 
 of Spain and Joseph Bonaparte respectively 
 contended for the Crown, those enlightened 
 statesmen said, we will receive a Minister from 
 neither party; settle the question between 
 yourselves, and we will acknowledge the party 
 that prevails. We have nothing to do with 
 your feuds; whoever all Spain acknowledges 
 as her sovereign, is the only sovereign with 
 whom we can maintain any relations. Mr. 
 Jefferson, it is understood, considered whether 
 he should not receive a Minister from both 
 parties, and finally decided against it because of 
 the inconveniences to this country which might 
 result from the double representation of another 
 power. As soon as the French armies were 
 expelled from the Peninsula, Mr. Madison, still 
 acting on the principle of the Government 
 de facto, received the present Minister from 
 
 Spain. During all the phases of the French 
 Government Republic, Directory, Consuls, 
 Consul for life, Emperor, King, Emperor again, 
 King our Government has uniformly received 
 the Minister. 
 
 If, then, there be an established Government 
 in Spanish America, deserving to rank among 
 the nations, we were morally and politically 
 bound to acknowledge it, unless we renounced 
 all the principles which ought to guide, and 
 which hitherto had guided, our councils. Mr. C. 
 then undertook to show, that the united prov- 
 inces of the Rio de la Plata was such a Govern- 
 ment. Its limits, he said, extending from the 
 South Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific, embraced a 
 territory equal to that of the United States, cer- 
 tainly equal to it, exclusive of Louisiana. Its 
 population was about three millions, more than 
 equal to ours at the commencement of our Revo- 
 lution. That population was a hardy, enterpris- 
 ing, and gallant population. The establishments 
 of Montevideo and Buenos Ayres had, during 
 different periods of their history, been attacked 
 by the French, Dutch, Danes, Portuguese, Eng- 
 lish, and Spanish ; and such was the martial 
 character of the people, that, in every instance, 
 the attack had been repulsed. In 1807, General 
 Whitlocke, commanding a powerful English 
 army, was admitted, under the guise of a friend, 
 into Buenos Ayres, and, as soon as he was sup- 
 posed to have demonstrated inimical designs, ho 
 was driven by the native and unaided force of 
 Buenos Ayres from the country. Buenos Ayres 
 had, during now nearly eight years, been, in 
 point of fact, in the enjoyment of self-govern- 
 ment. The capital, containing more than sixty 
 thousand inhabitants, has never been once lost. 
 As early as 1811, the regency of Old Spain made 
 war upon Buenos Ayres, and the consequence 
 subsequently was, the capture of a Spanish army 
 in Montevideo, equal to that of Burgoyne. This 
 Government has now in excellent discipline, 
 three well-appointed armies, with the most 
 abundant materiel of war ; the army of Chili, 
 the army of Peru, and the army of Buenos 
 Ayres. The first, under San Martin, has con- 
 quered Chili ; the second is penetrating in a 
 Northwestern direction from Buenos Ayres, 
 into the vice-royalty of Peru ; and, according 
 to the last accounts, had reduced the ancient 
 seat of empire of the Incas. The third remains 
 at Buenos Ayres to oppose any force which 
 Spain may send against it. 
 
 Are we not bound, then, upon our own prin- 
 ciples, to acknowledge this new Republic ? If 
 we do not, who will ? Are we to expect that 
 Kings will set us the example of acknowledging 
 the only Republic on earth except pur own ? 
 We receive, promptly receive, a Minister from 
 whatever King sends us one. From the great 
 powers and the little powers we accredit Min- 
 isters. We do more : we hasten to reciprocate 
 the compliment ; and anxious to manifest our 
 gratitude for royal civility, we send for a Minister 
 (as in the instance of Sweden and the JTether- 
 lands) of the lowest grade, one of the highest
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 145 
 
 MARCH, 1818.] 
 
 Spanish American Provinces. 
 
 [H. OF E. 
 
 rank recognized by our laws. We were the 
 natural head of the American family. He 
 would not intermeddle in the affairs of Europe. 
 We wi<c-ly kept aloof from their broils. He 
 would not even intermeddle in those of other 
 parts of America, farther than to exert the in- 
 contestable rights appertaining to us as a free, 
 sovereign, and independent power ; and, he con- 
 tended, that the accrediting of a Minister from 
 the new Republic was such a right. We were 
 bound to receive their Minister, if we meant 
 to be really neutral. If the Royal belligerent 
 were represented and heard at our Government, 
 the Republican belligerent ought also to be 
 heard. Otherwise, one party would be in the 
 condition of the poor patriots who were tried 
 ex parte the other day in the Supreme Court, 
 without counsel, without friends. Give M. Onis 
 his conge, or receive the Republican Minister. 
 Unless you do so, your neutrality is nominal. 
 
 There was great reason, Mr. 0. contended, 
 from the peculiar character of the American 
 Government, in there being a perfect under- 
 standing between the legislative and Executive 
 branches, in relation to the acknowledgment 
 of a new power. Everywhere else the power 
 of declaring war resided with the Executive. 
 Here it was deposited with the Legislature. If, 
 contrary to his opinion, there were even a risk 
 that the acknowledgment of a new State might 
 lead to war, it was advisable that the step 
 should not be taken, without a previous knowl- 
 edge of the will of the war-making branch. He 
 was disposed to' give to the President all the 
 confidence which he must derive from the une- 
 quivocal expression of our will. This expres- 
 sion he knew might be given in the form of an 
 abstract resolution, declaratory of that will ; but 
 he preferred, at this time, proposing an act of 
 practical legislation. And if he had been so 
 fortunate as to communicate to the committee, 
 in any thing like that degree of strength in 
 which he entertained them, the convictions that 
 the cause of the patriots was just; that the 
 character of the war, as waged by Spain, should 
 induce us to wi#h them success ; that we had a 
 great interest in that success ; that this interest, 
 as well as our neutral attitude, required us to 
 acknowledge any established Government in 
 Spanish America ; that the united provinces of 
 the river Plata was such a Government ; that 
 we might safely acknowledge its independence, 
 without danger of war from Spain, from the 
 allies, or from England ; and that, without un- 
 constitutional interference with the Executive 
 power, with peculiar fitness, we might express, 
 in an act of appropriation, our sentiments, 
 leaving him to the exercise of a just and respon- 
 sible discretion, he hoped the committee would 
 adopt the proposition which he now had the 
 honor of presenting to them, after a respectful 
 tender of his acknowledgments for their atten- 
 tion and kindness, during, he feared, the tedious 
 period he had been so unprofitably trespassing 
 upon their patience. He offered the following 
 amendment to the bill 
 VOL. VL 10 
 
 For one year's salary, and an outfit to a Minister 
 to the United Provinces of the Rio de La Plata, the 
 salary to commence, and the outfit to be paid, when- 
 ever the President shall deem it expedient to send a 
 Minister to the said United Provinces, a sum not ex- 
 ceeding eighteen thousand dollars." 
 
 When Mr. CLAY had concluded, 
 
 Mr. FORSYTE said, that before entering into 
 the examination of the subject before the com- 
 mittee, he would detain them for a moment by 
 a remark or two on a suggestion that had fallen 
 from the Speaker, so remotely connected with 
 the question, that he should probably forget it 
 if he omitted to notice it then. It had been 
 said that Ministers were sent from the United 
 States to all the crowned heads in Europe who 
 had Ministers here. A Charge d' Affaires to 
 the United States was reciprocated by a Minis- 
 ter Plenipotentiary to the Court from whence 
 he came, and the Courts of Sweden, Holland, 
 and Prussia, had been particularly named. The 
 last is one to which a Minister was expected to 
 be sent, particular information of which fact 
 Mr. F. was supposed to possess. But for this 
 personal allusion he should not have felt him- 
 self compelled to refer to this subject. [Mr. 
 CLAY explained.] Mr. F. understood perfectly 
 well that there was no unfriendly spirit in the 
 remark, it was an allusion to an event which 
 was expected to occur, but upon what founda- 
 tion he had been at a loss to conjecture. Cer- 
 tain it was, he had no intimation that this or 
 any other diplomatic appointment would be 
 offered to him, and it was equally certain that 
 he had not solicited any. An idle rumor was 
 in circulation that he was to be sent abroad, 
 where, the persons circulating it, had not de- 
 termined. He hoped to be consulted as to the 
 place of exile, when he was to be sent into hon- 
 orable banishment. The Administration had 
 not, he believed, determined to send a Minister 
 to Prussia, of any grade. There was a mistake 
 as to the fact, in the case of Holland. The 
 Government of the Netherlands had sent a 
 Minister of the first grade to the United States, 
 before Mr. Eustis went to the Hague. At pres- 
 ent there was only a Charg6 here, and it was 
 altogether probable that the interest of the 
 United States would not require a representa- 
 tive of a different character in the Netherlands. 
 The appointments to the Hague and to Sweden, 
 had been made by Mr. Madison, under circum- 
 stances requiring them. With regard to Swe- 
 den, the motive for the original appointment 
 was well known. It was made at a period 
 when, from the peculiar situation of Europe, 
 Sweden was an important power. She was the 
 keystone of the arch of the great confederation 
 against France, and it was part of our policy at 
 that period to stand well with all the powers 
 in the north of Europe. The restoration of 
 peace certainly rendered this mission of minor 
 importance; and when the Minister of the 
 United States came home, it was not expected 
 that he would again return to fix his official 
 residence at Stockholm. Why he returned to
 
 146 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R] 
 
 Spanish American Provinces. 
 
 [MARCH, 1818. 
 
 Sweden was as well known to the honorable 
 Speaker as to any member of the House. Mr. 
 F. was confident that he would not remain 
 there. * 
 
 Was the importance of the amendment pro- 
 posed to be estimated by the interest it excited, 
 and the extraordinary manner in which it had 
 been presented, few subjects of equal magnitude 
 had ever been submitted to the decision of 
 the National Legislature. That the deep in- 
 terest felt in the fate of the measure, was not 
 confined to those who were to decide upon it, 
 was apparent from the crowded benches of the 
 Hall and the overflowing gallery. For our- 
 selves, the Throne of Grace had been that 
 morning addressed to purify our hearts and 
 enlighten our understandings for its correct 
 decision. Every one must be struck by the 
 whimsical contrast between the real and facti- 
 tious importance of the proposition. To judge 
 from the extraordinary exertions of the Speaker, 
 from the ground over which he travelled and 
 the variety of objects noticed by him, it would 
 seem he believed it worthy of the exertions of 
 all his industry, ability, and enthusiasm that 
 the freedom and happiness of eighteen millions 
 of people were, in truth, involved in its decision. 
 Mr. F. had in vain tasked his imagination to 
 discover that such consequences could follow 
 from it. He could not. perceive the miraculous 
 influence of appropriating eighteen thousand 
 dollars for an outfit and salary for a Minister to 
 La Plata, to commence when, in the discretion 
 of the President, a Minister should be sent to 
 that Government. All the facts stated by the 
 Speaker might be admitted, the arguments 
 founded upon them might be considered as con- 
 clusive, still the amendment proposed ought not 
 to be adopted. How obvious, then, must be 
 the propriety of rejecting it, when the facts 
 were disputable and the reasoning inconclusive. 
 Admitting the independence of La Plata to be 
 . established ; that it was the right and the duty of 
 the United States to recognize that independ- 
 ence ; that war with Spain or any other power 
 would not follow; that our interest and our 
 honor required this step to be taken still the 
 amendment ought to be rejected. If recogni- 
 tion is made, it is to be done in the United 
 States. We are to acknowledge their independ- 
 ence ; to send a Minister to La Plata is to ask 
 them to acknowledge ours. A Minister must 
 be sent to, and accredited by this Government. 
 It had not as yet appeared that the Govern- 
 ment of La Plata desired or expected us to 
 make such an acknowledgment; at least no 
 one with requisite authority was known to 
 have been sent to this country for the purpose 
 of asking such a favor. Another objection, not 
 less obvious, was presented by the constitu- 
 tional division of the powers of the Govern- 
 ment. Heretofore the President and Senate 
 were left to the exclusive management of the 
 foreign intercourse of the United States. Min- 
 isters were received from other powers, and 
 sent from this country to other Governments, 
 
 with whom political or commercial interest re- 
 quired us to negotiate, and the House of Repre- 
 sentatives contented itself with its constitu- 
 tional check upon the exercise of this authority ; 
 satisfied that they could at all times prevent its 
 improvident exertion, by withholding appropri- 
 ations from those missions the public interest 
 did not require. This, however, proposes a, 
 new system ; this House, instead of checking, 
 is made to stimulate the Executive to a further 
 extension of its patronage. This new system 
 might have its conveniency, but these would bo 
 found, on examination, to be personal conveni- 
 ences to aspiring and designing members of the 
 Legislative body, at the expense of the general 
 welfare. The suggestion that, under the pres- 
 ent extraordinary circumstances of the world, 
 the expression of the public opinion by the 
 Representatives of the people ought to precede 
 the movements of the Executive, was not enti- 
 tled to the weight which was given to it. The 
 President does not require to be told that the 
 Representatives of the people who selected him 
 to preside over their Government, are prepared 
 at all times, and at every hazard, to do their 
 duty. He dare not doubt that he will be sup- 
 ported in every measure the interest and honor 
 of the nation require him to adopt. Were it 
 really true that the Executive Magistrate had 
 discovered a criminal indifference on this sub- 
 ject, Mr. F. said he would be among the most 
 eager to express such an opinion in the only 
 form in which an opinion could be expressed, 
 by a resolution of the House boldly and openly 
 declaring its dislike of the course which had 
 been pursued, and recommending the necessary 
 change. The amendment to an appropriation 
 bill in the form proposed did not convey such 
 an opinion. The President might conjecture 
 that such was the intention of the Legislature ; 
 yet, even while forming this conjecture, it 
 would be necessary for him to look beyond the 
 act to the motives assigned to those who advo- 
 cated it. As a measure of ordinary policy the 
 proposition was inadmissible ; as an extraordi- 
 nary measure it was indefensible. It was re- 
 commended as a bold, independent, manly ex- 
 pression of the public sentiment, placing the 
 House of Representatives in the front rank in 
 the march of the Government on a dangerous 
 and untried field ; it was, in reality, unmeaning 
 and insignificant in its character; and while it 
 proceeds by hinting to the President the course 
 he should pursue, it warily shelters the House 
 from all responsibility for the consequences be- 
 hind the Executive discretion. If our inter- 
 ference is necessary, let us act effectually ; 
 marking the steps necessary to be taken, and 
 taking the responsibility for the result claim- 
 ing all the honor, and bearing all the disaster. 
 Let us not at least pretend to give the Execu- 
 tive a discretion already possessed, thus dimin- 
 ishing his responsibility without adding to our 
 own. 
 
 Mr. F. could not but remark an apparent 
 contradiction in the address of the Speaker on
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 147 
 
 MARCH, 1818.] 
 
 Spanish American Provinces. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 this subject of the declaration, made a few days 
 since in a discussion of the bill reported by the 
 Committee on Foreign Eolations. He had cen- 
 sured with much asperity the patience discov- 
 ered by the Government in its correspondence 
 with the Spanish Minister, and thanked his 
 God that he did not possess that Job-like attri- 
 bute. Jn the address of yesterday we were told 
 that he was opposed to war with Spain would 
 do no act which would give her just cause of 
 war would not violently seize any of her pos- 
 sessions. It would seem that, impatient as the 
 honorable Speaker may be at the situation of 
 the dispute with Spain, he is not disposed to 
 do any act calculated to bring it to an immedi- 
 ate determination. The difference between the 
 Administration and himself is, that they would 
 wait with patience, and he impatiently, the 
 change in the Spanish councils. The honora- 
 ble gentleman would pardon the notice of a 
 species of inconsistency in the course he wished 
 to pursue. He believed that Spain ought to be 
 pressed ; that the moment was peculiarly fortu- 
 nate, and ought not to be lost. How was this 
 pressing to be made? By argument? That 
 had been tried in vain. Certainly not. By 
 threats never intended to be executed ? The 
 character of the Speaker forbids such a suppo- 
 sition. Not by war ; that had been disclaimed. 
 Not by any means that would give Spain justi- 
 fiable cause of war. These also had been re- 
 jected. It was difficult to imagine how the 
 object was to be accomplished, unless a subse- 
 quent suggestion furnished a key to the mys- 
 tery. He would take the step in relation to 
 the Spanish colonies we might rightfully take, 
 and leave Spain to do as she thought proper. 
 If she continued to refuse to do us justice, the 
 important question of peace or war was then to 
 be decided. If Mr. F, understood the policy 
 recommended, it was to do rightfully all we 
 Could to tempt Spain to declare war against us ; 
 and if we failed in all these, then we would de- 
 clare war against Spain. Thus, while disclaim- 
 ing all idea of war, the Speaker looked con- 
 stantly to that issue. The sources of tempta- 
 tion were in the dispute with her colonies ; we 
 were first to recognize them, what follows is 
 easily foreseen. The motive for this abandon- 
 ment of our own quarrel, to engage in war on 
 account of Spanish American governments, was 
 the apprehension; if we moved in our own 
 case, we should be justly charged with a thirst 
 of aggrandizement excite the jealousy, perhaps 
 the hostility, of some other power, and enjoy 
 the sympathy of none. If an interference with 
 Spanish affairs is the ground of dispute, we shall 
 have the sympathies of the world on our side, 
 and excite neither jealousy nor hostility in any 
 of the nations of Europe, Mr. F. believed, with 
 the Speaker, that the present was an auspicious 
 moment for a settlement of the Spanish contro- 
 versy ; that it ought not to be suffered to es- 
 cape. He was not for war, but for such, a 
 movement, in our own dispute, as would place 
 the means of indemnity in our possession, as 
 
 should enable the Government to do justice to 
 its injured citizens, whatever might be the fu- 
 ture condition of the Spanish monarchy. It 
 was war if Spain chose to consider it so ; it 
 was short of war if she desired to remain at 
 peace. The jealousy or hostility of foreign pow- 
 ers could not be reasonably excited by such a 
 course. Sympathy was out of the question. 
 No European Government felt it for the United 
 States ; they do not fear our power, but they 
 dread our example; they do not apprehend 
 danger from our physical strength, bnt tremble 
 at the moral influence of our institutions. Tho 
 course of the Speaker was the one best calcu- 
 lated to excite all their jealousies and hostili- 
 ties ; to confirm an idea, Spain had been at all 
 times exerting herself to enforce, that we were 
 the cause of the disturbances in her possessions, 
 the aiders and abettors of her revolting subjects, 
 and on all occasions ready to sow discord among 
 the subjects of Princes, and to jeopardize the 
 safety of the colonial dependencies of European 
 powers. War with Spain was no bugbear to 
 him ; but, if it was commenced, it should be in 
 our own quarrel, and should not be mixed with 
 baser matter. The Administration occupied 
 the middle ground between the Speaker and 
 himself, probably the safest and most congenial 
 to the wishes and the interests of the people. 
 There was one point on which there would be 
 no dispute between them; the policy of the 
 Government was by each of them preferred to 
 the policy recommended by the other. Mr. F. 
 was, however, justified, by the opinion of the 
 Speaker, in believing that a war would not be 
 the consequence of either project. "Spain 
 would not, and could not, declare war against 
 us, from the state of her finances, and the ruin 
 of her resources." The wisdom of the two 
 plans was, therefore, tcTbe tested by the bene- 
 fits which, we would or should derive from com- 
 plete success, without the hazard of a contest 
 for either. 
 
 The amendment was advocated as a recogni- 
 tion of the independence of La Plata. The ar- 
 gument of the honorable mover was directed to 
 this point ; and Mr. F. was well aware that one 
 question was frequently argued, and another de- 
 cided, and that the vote on the decision was 
 sometimes determined on the merits of the 
 question discussed. Considering it as an open 
 proposition to recognize, he was content to 
 meet it, and that it should succeed or fail on 
 the propriety of refusing or making an imme- 
 diate recognition. Where was the motive for 
 this step? What beneficial consequences will 
 flow from it to La Plata or the United States ? 
 What benefits, commercial or political, will ac- 
 crue? The commerce between the people of 
 this Government and that of the revolutionary 
 La Plata, was free and unrestrained. Our citi- 
 zens enjoyed all that they asked in the ports of 
 Buenos Ayres, and the people of La Plata were 
 admitted to all the rights and hospitalities that 
 are shown to any foreigners hi the waters of the 
 United States. Arms, ammunition, all the pro-
 
 148 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R] 
 
 Spanish American Provinces. 
 
 [MABCH, 1818. 
 
 duct of our agriculture and industry, that their 
 wants may require, are freely purchased and 
 transported in their own or American vessels, 
 without delay or molestation. Their vessels, 
 armed and equipped for war, are admitted 
 without scruple into our ports, and treated with 
 a kindness they have but too frequently abused. 
 Are there any important political results to 
 proceed from this step to either party ? To us 
 there certainly are none; to them the only 
 possible advantage would be the probability 
 that our example would be followed by the rest 
 of the world. Mr. F. spoke on the supposition 
 that no war with Spain was produced by this 
 act. Our recognition was better calculated to 
 excite the jealousy and prejudice of despotic 
 Governments against this new power, than to 
 produce a similar recognition of their claims to 
 a place in the family of nations ; better calcu- 
 lated to produce a combination of despotic 
 power, to their ruin, than a friendly aid in the 
 accomplishment of their independence. This 
 acknowledgment was useless to them politically 
 and commercially. All the practical benefits 
 arising from it, were enjoyed so long as we con- 
 sidered their independence as existing without 
 pronouncing a decision upon that point disput- 
 ed by them with Spain. Where was the mo- 
 tive to be found to justify this improvident 
 hurry to the useless acknowledgment of a Gov- 
 ernment whose independence depended wholly 
 upon its own exertions? That could not be 
 aided in its progress by such a declaration, un- 
 less accompanied by substantial aid; an aid 
 even the sanguine gentleman from Kentucky 
 did not propose to give. It was said, however, 
 that we ought to be the first to acknowledge a 
 sister Republic. If we did not, who would? 
 "With more than ordinary diligence, Mr. F. had 
 endeavored to find the freedom and liberality in 
 the frame and institutions of this new Govern- 
 ment, which would entitle it to this name. He 
 had sought for them in vain. There was a Con- 
 gress and a Supreme Director ; a Congress, the 
 Speaker has said, chosen somewhat like our 
 own. Mr. F. would have rejoiced to learn in 
 what this resemblance consisted. If the Con- 
 gress were chosen by the people, he had been 
 deceived by the Outline of the Eevolution in 
 Spanish America ; a work to which he referred 
 on the recommendation of the Speaker. The 
 sole resemblance was in name. The Govern- 
 ment of La Plata was a military despotism, like 
 the Republic of France in the days of the Con- 
 sulate, but destitute of its order, strength, and 
 stability. If the resemblance was perfect, and 
 the Government and people of La Plata worthy 
 to be ranked by our side in the community of 
 nations, still the inutility of such an acknowl- 
 edgment is a satisfactory reason for refraining 
 from it. 
 
 Mr. F. thought he might safely leave the 
 question to the judgment of the committee, af- 
 ter showing that the most powerful recom- 
 mendations of the amendment were, that it was 
 unmeaning and harmless. But he considered 
 
 it a duty to examine more at large the various 
 inducements offered by the Speaker to insure 
 its success. Mr. F. knew and felt the danger 
 to which he exposed himself by this course 
 that he would be assailed as an enemy to lib- 
 erty, &c. Exertions had been made to prepare 
 the public mind for such impressions against 
 all those who thought with him on this subject. 
 Notice had been given from this city, and was 
 now ringing through the Western country, that 
 questions were to be brought into view, by 
 whose decision the people would be able to dis- 
 criminate between those who were just and un- 
 just to the patriot cause between the friends 
 and the enemies of freedom. Such considera- 
 tions had no influence upon his conduct. Ho 
 who was deterred by anticipated censure, or 
 threatened calumny, from the performance of 
 any duty, was not worthy to represent a free 
 people to preside even in the most subordi- 
 nate sphere over the movements of a mighty 
 empire. Careless of the motives which might 
 be imputed to him, he should proceed to show 
 that the Speaker had offered no sufficient in- 
 ducement to justify his proposal in the origin, 
 progress, or character, of the revolution in 
 Spanish America ; that it is not demanded by 
 our commercial or political interest in the great 
 struggle between Spain and her former depend- 
 encies; that while he admitted it was the 
 right of the United States, it was not a duty to 
 recognize the new Government ; that it could 
 not _ be done without the danger of war with 
 Spain ; and that it was not sufficiently demon- 
 strated that Buenos Ayres had established, and 
 would maintain, a free and independent Gov- 
 ernment. In tracing the origin of the revolu- 
 tion, the Speaker had carried us back to the 
 first invasion of Mexico and Peru, to the days 
 of Cortez and Pizarro, of Montezuma and Ata- 
 hualpa. From that period he had given a faint 
 outline of the cruel, selfish, monopolizing, and 
 debasing policy of Spain to her American de- 
 pendencies foreign and inter-colonial inter- 
 course forbidden to her subjects in those mag- 
 nificent and fertile regions of the earth ; the 
 pursuits of agriculture directed by the narrow 
 policy of an unjust Government ; the soul itself 
 debased to the purposes of oppression by muni- 
 cipal regulation. It was a gloomy picture of a 
 sad reality ; a faithful representation of nature, 
 drawn by a master's hand. The policy was 
 but too truly characterized, and its success was 
 as complete as its character was atrocious. It 
 had been pursued with undeviating steadiness, 
 until the horrible contrast was exhibited of a 
 people the most debased, in the midst of the 
 fairest regions of the globe ; man, the master- 
 work of creation, with intellect enervated by 
 despotism, and soul withered by superstition, 
 surrounded by the most sublime and stupendous 
 monuments of inanimated nature. Was the 
 origin of the revolution to be found in this sys- 
 tematic oppression? It would be looked for 
 here in vain. To use the language of the 
 Speaker, Spain would have succeeded in contin-
 
 DEBATES OF CONGKESS. 
 
 149 
 
 MARCH, 1818.] 
 
 Spanish American Provinces. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 ning this system but for the transactions of 
 Bayonne. The puerile ambition of Napoleon 
 was the foundation of the South American strug- 
 gle. The Old World was convulsed ; eighteen 
 millions of people were agitated in the new, by 
 his childish desire to have a King of the new 
 dynasty on the throne of Spain ; by his silly 
 anxiety to substitute the Bonapartes for the 
 Bourbons, over all nations dependent upon his 
 colossal power. "Was this great event hailed 
 with joy by the Spariish Americans ? Was the 
 glorious opportunity of breaking their chains 
 seized with avidity? Far, very far, from it. 
 They were stunned by this unexpected occur- 
 rence ; stupefied by the dreadful alternative of 
 self-government, or submission to French rule. 
 Like the unhappy man long immured in the 
 gloom of a prison, they had been so long de- 
 prived of his glorious light, that the beams of 
 the blessed sun were hateful to their eyes. This 
 fortunate event was considered a national ca- 
 lamity, to which there was no alleviation but 
 the opportunity it afforded to discover their 
 unshaken loyalty and blind devotion to the 
 cause of their adored King. Their resources 
 were devoted to his service. The sole difficulty 
 was to find, during his imprisonment, a substi- 
 tute for the royal authority. The laws, and 
 customs, and frame of Government, in other 
 respects, remained without change ; the muni- 
 cipalities, haciendas, audiencias, &c., all the 
 subordinate machinery, continued in its accus- 
 tomed place, and performed its accustomed ope- 
 rations; and, although the necessity of addi- 
 tional exertion produced a greater vigor of 
 character and boldness of thought in the heads 
 of the Government, the great mass remained 
 unaltered in habits, opinions, and desires. 
 England, covering the peninsula of Spain and 
 Portugal with her armies, and, the enemy of 
 France, procuring, without difficulty, the great 
 object of her long- con tinned solicitude a free 
 commerce with Spanish America. Juntas were 
 established upon the same principles as the 
 Juntas of Spain, and war with the Junta of 
 Spain was occasioned by the refusal of Spanish 
 America to acknowledge that they were the le- 
 gitimate repository of the royal power in both 
 hemispheres. The unhappy land was rent by 
 internal factions, in which the people were the 
 instruments of designing ambition. The lead- 
 ing men disputed for the honor of being the 
 royal substitute, none for the glory of establish- 
 ing a free Government, founded upon the prin- 
 ciples of justice and equality, whose basis was 
 the power, whoso object was the happiness of 
 the people. The most bold, and successful, and 
 honorable exertion, for the formation of a lib- 
 eral Government, was made in Venezuela. But 
 this new Government was overturned by an 
 earthquake in 1812. The misguided people 
 were induced to believe that this awful visita- 
 tion was the immediate consequence of their 
 conduct, the just judgment of an angry God 
 upon the revolution, and those who promoted 
 or favored its success. 
 
 It might be imagined that the principles of 
 political, civil, and religious freedom had been 
 developed in the progress of the revolution ; the 
 present state of it would discover how far the 
 people of Spanish America had improved in the 
 knowledge of their personal rights, and their 
 determination to maintain them. In Mexico 
 the contest was at an end ; at all times of a 
 doubtful issue, the last ray of hope was extin- 
 guished by the death of the gallant and unfortu- 
 nate Mina. This disastrous termination of the 
 struggle was not produced by the successful ex- 
 ertion of Old Spain ; it was effected by the ef- 
 forts of a people who formed a large portion of 
 the eighteen millions of men who were repre- 
 sented as contending in the glorious cause of 
 freedom. In Caraccas, a sanguinary, and dread- 
 ful, and, at least, a doubtful contest was main- 
 tained with the modern Alva, by the imitator 
 of his cruelty, Bolivar. La Plata and Chili had 
 better prospects of success ; and all our sanguine 
 hopes are fixed upon them. Thus, of the 
 eighteen millions of people, for whom our sym- 
 pathy is demanded, more than thirteen millions 
 are the contented slaves of the Spanish author- 
 ity; and it was the madness or stupidity of 
 Ferdinand, that prevented the voluntary return 
 of all to their ancient thraldom. A decree of 
 oblivion for the past would have reinstated the 
 Spanish power, if it had been promulgated by 
 Ferdinand on his restoration to the throne. 
 Mr. F. rested this opinion upon the authority of 
 a work to which he had before referred, the 
 Outline of the Revolution in South America. 
 In the conclusion of that work it is said, " the 
 return of Ferdinand might have brought with 
 it the return of peace. The people were tired 
 of war; the leaders of the revolution disap- 
 pointed in their views; a large body of the 
 people in a state of apathy or indifference; 
 and what was still more important, the vene- 
 ration attached to the name of Ferdinand 
 still existed, though, in some degree, dimin- 
 ished." This veneration was converted into 
 a dread of his resentment, by the mission of 
 Morillo and his sanguinary suite. Mr. F. trust- 
 ed in Heaven that this act of royal madness 
 would meet with its appropriate punishment, in 
 the total subversion of his western empire ; 
 that thus compelled to continue a resistance to 
 the Spanish yoke, that the people would ac- 
 quire what experience and suffering had not yet 
 taught them, the knowledge of their strength, 
 and the means of using it to the establishment 
 of a Government similar to ours. Such were 
 his ardent wishes, not his confident expecta- 
 tions. That the independence of all, or por- 
 tions of the southern continent would, at no 
 distant day, be achieved, could not be doubted ; 
 to what extent civil liberty would be established, 
 was matter of speculation. Opinions, more or 
 less favorable, would be formed, according to 
 the sanguine or cautious temper of the judge. 
 In the origin and progress of the revolution, 
 there was no inducement to an act of doubtful 
 policy. But our sympathy was demanded for
 
 150 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 Spanish American Provinces. 
 
 [MARCH, 1818. 
 
 this great cause, in character so like that of our 
 Eevolution. Sympathy for the people of the 
 South was universally felt, and might he in- 
 dulged, without scruple, in wishes and in hopes ; 
 but, when it was made the foundation of an at- 
 tempt to precipitate the adoption of a favorite 
 measure, it was necessary to examine how far it 
 was justly inspired. That the cause of the colo- 
 nies was just, and that they were entitled to 
 the good wishes of all mankind in their contest 
 with Spain, was unquestionable; but we are 
 expected to feel and indulge a deeper sympathy, 
 arising from the alleged similarity of their situa- 
 tion and that of the United States in 1Y76, from 
 a congeniality of feeling, opinions, and pursuits, 
 between the Spanish Americans and our prede- 
 cessors. The honorable member from Ken- 
 tucky had solemnly invoked the departed spirits 
 of our ancestors to give him strength and ability 
 to vindicate a people contending in a cause as 
 glorious as that in which they had been engaged. 
 An invocation to those illustrious shades to 
 pardon a profanation of their ashes, by this 
 odious comparison, would have better become 
 him ; and if the inhabitants of the other world 
 are permitted to interest themselves in the trans- 
 actions of this life, they would, no doubt, find, 
 in the purity of his intentions, the motive 
 for this forgiveness. Was not the comparison 
 odious ? In what consisted this boasted resem- 
 blance? They are colonies, contending to be 
 independent of the parent country so were 
 we ; here the resemblance ceases. In the mo- 
 tives of the contests, in the causes which pro- 
 duced them, in their means, nnd in their ends, 
 there is contrast, not resemblance. We assert- 
 ed, vindicated, maintained, and improved our 
 rights, political, civil, and religious. We saw 
 oppression as it approached us ; remonstrated 
 with firmness against injustice; discussed with 
 calmness the extent of our obligations and the 
 nature of our rights. With a perfect knowledge 
 of the doubtful issue of a contest with our pow- 
 erful, proud, and ambitious stepmother, we en- 
 countered its perils and pursued it with virtu- 
 ous steadiness, until our triumph was as signal 
 as our moderation had been conspicuous. They 
 were oppressed and contented, manacled and 
 reconciled to their chains, until accident com- 
 pelled them to involuntary exertions. Political 
 independence was cast upon them, and is now 
 the sole object of continued resistance. If 
 human rights are secured by success, it is an 
 unlocked for, unexpected consequence ; an un- 
 known good, a result not desired by those who 
 were to derive its benefits. Political independ- 
 ence was, with us, the means for the accom- 
 plishment of our objects. With us it was em- 
 phatically a war of the people. The Govern- 
 ment organized to conduct it was established 
 by them. In the numerous changes of the per- 
 sons in power, it was the immediate and regu- 
 lar expression of their will, that elevated or 
 depressed the candidates for their confidence. 
 The Confederation, a rope of sand, had tenacity 
 and strength enough to bind them together, 
 
 while union was necessary to success. During 
 the contest, the military was completely subor- 
 dinate to the civil power. With them, the 
 first and the last movements in the contest 
 were made without consulting the will of the 
 people, and no means have yet been afforded 
 by which it can be effectually expressed. They 
 have neither agency in the management of, nor 
 control over, the acts of the Government, cre- 
 ated for them. Revolution has succeeded revo- 
 lution. Every change of rulers has been pro- 
 duced by a change in the form of substitution 
 for the royal authority. The civil has been at 
 all times subordinate to the military power. 
 There was an equally striking dissimilarity in 
 the manner in which the wars were conducted. 
 With us, with the exception of some personal, 
 intestine, and bloody feuds between Whig and 
 Tory, it was carried on with the strictest regard 
 to the laws of honorable and civilized warfare ; 
 no instance occurred of the death of the unre- 
 sisting by the command of any officer in the 
 public service. It must not be forgotten that 
 ample justification was given by the Britjsh 
 armies for a contrary system. The massacre of 
 Paoli and the murder of Hayne were still fresh 
 in the recollection of all. But, while burning 
 with resentment for these atrocious deeds, we 
 did not forget what was due to our character, 
 and dishonor our reputation by following a 
 horrible example. The cold-blooded massacre 
 nerved the arms and steeled the hearts of our 
 soldiers in the hour of conflict, but the cry of 
 mercy never was raised in vain by a vanquished 
 foe. When the gallant Hayne was barbarously 
 executed by a British officer, whose present 
 rank and subsequent achievements could not 
 remove the stain of this sanguinary act from his 
 character, the deep indignation of the nation 
 was excited. A gallant officer was selected to 
 pay with his life for the cruelty of his country. 
 But the sacrifice was never made, and the gal- 
 lant and generous officer was reserved to perish 
 in defending the reputation of that people, by 
 whose forbearance his life, forfeited by the in- 
 justice of his country, was spared. Mr. F. 
 would not be understood to call in question the 
 justice of the retaliatory system of extermina- 
 tion adopted by the Spanish Americans. He 
 believed that the dreadful example was set by 
 the Eoyalists, and the resort to it was justifi- 
 able, and perhaps essential to security and suc- 
 cess. All he proposed by this examination was 
 to show, what was highly honorable to his 
 own countrymen, that a resort to such a system 
 was not made by them under the strongest 
 temptations, and 'under circumstances which 
 would have fully justified it. The comparison 
 was' made to show the exalted character of our 
 own contest, not excite prejudice against that 
 of neighboring nations. 
 
 Splendid political consequences were antici- 
 pated from the expected change. The freedom 
 of the commerce of the Mississippi the safe 
 navigation of the Gulf of Mexico the power 
 and effect we should derive, from being the
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 151 
 
 MARCH, 1818.] 
 
 Spanish American Provinces. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 head of a confederation of republics. In case of 
 necessity, the new world of republics was to be 
 arrayed against the old world of despotisms. In 
 the event of European wars, we shall have 
 powerful auxiliaries in the assertion of neutral 
 rights. And was it really apprehended we 
 should ever want aid to maintain the free com- 
 merce- of the Mississippi or the Gulf of Mexico ? 
 these might be safely trusted to our gallant tars 
 and the people of the West. Suppose this great 
 change to have taken place. Overleap in im- 
 agination the progress of centuries, and see the 
 United States connected with Eepublican Gov- 
 ernments to the southern extremity of the New 
 "World; the first, if you please, in wealth and 
 power ; overcoming the disadvantages of situa- 
 tion and climate, by her superior skill and su- 
 perior industry. What superior advantages will 
 the people enjoy that are not possessed by our- 
 selves ? Will they be more free, more happy, 
 more virtuous, and less exposed to the danger 
 of internal commotion and external violence ? 
 The power of the Government to destroy other 
 nations would be increased ; the power of the 
 Government to promote the welfare of the peo- 
 ple, the object for which it exists, would remain 
 the same. Connected with the people, active, 
 intelligent, and jealou as ourselves, our rivals 
 in commerce, in agriculture, in science, and in 
 the freedom of their institutions; will these 
 elements of strife be composed to harmony by the 
 tender names of sister Republics? Men do not 
 change their nature with their Governments ! 
 Brooding avarice, malignant revenge, daring 
 ambition, will find their place under all forms 
 of government, in all ages and in every cliine. 
 Mr. F. would not look further into the conse- 
 quences which might be anticipated from the 
 working of these passions among the affiliatedna- 
 tions. As in the days of ancient Greece the ground 
 of quarrel would be, who should be the first ; 
 and some Eastern Satrap might again be found, 
 to foment the quarrels and distract the councils 
 of the Western World. There was one remedy 
 for these dangers; instead of many, but two 
 Republics should be created of the North and 
 South Americas. Mr. F. was not yet prepared 
 to risk the happiness and the security of the 
 people of the United States, by such a sublime 
 but hazardous extension of their political system. 
 Nations, like individuals, were, under God, the 
 fabricators of their own fortunes. Of this na- 
 tion this was undeniably true. We want no 
 power which we cannot acquire, since we desire 
 none but for our own protection. We ask no 
 aid, since we will not invade the rights of others ; 
 to defend ours, our own strength is amply suffi- 
 cient. We are free, independent, and happy, so 
 long as the people are true to themselves. Unit- 
 ed, combined Europe would be arrayed against 
 them in vain. No man need look beyond our 
 own borders for the means of securing and per- 
 petuating all that is valuable in life and liberty. 
 In the assertion of neutral rights it was but too 
 fashionable to look beyond our own resources ; 
 the experience of the late war satisfactorily de- 
 
 monstrated that it was unnecessary. It dis- 
 covered to us, that aid was not to be found 
 where it was expected ; it demonstrated that it 
 was not required. He rejoiced that that con- 
 test was commenced and terminated without an 
 ally, and he most heartily thanked the English 
 Government for refusing the proffered mediation 
 of the Emperor of all the Russias. The obliga- 
 tion of that offer would weigh upon his spirit, 
 had not the load been removed by the non- 
 chalance with which the refusal of the other 
 power had been received, and the equivocal 
 treatment experienced by our Ministers from 
 the Court of St. Petersburg. We want no aid 
 and no ally for asserting any of our rights. The 
 experience of the late contest was not less use- 
 ful to ourselves than to others ; it taught them, 
 too, the secret of our power ; trust to its effect ; 
 the impression was deep, and the remembrance 
 will be lasting. Mr. F. would not press this in- 
 quiry, lest he should be suspected of desiring to 
 produce a wish that Spanish America should 
 remain dependent. All he desired was, by 
 bringing other objects into view, to save the 
 committee from the seducing enthusiasm of the 
 Speaker. If the question of Spanish American 
 independence depended upon our selfish con- 
 siderations of interest, it never would be achiev- 
 ed. If we were governed by the ordinary policy 
 of nations, we should desire the re-establish- 
 ment of the Spanish power, since it impeded 
 the progress of our neighbors, and left us un- 
 disputed masters of the world of western enter- 
 prise. But our policy was as liberal as our 
 institutions. We looked anxiously for the 
 emancipation and improvement of the Spanish 
 Americans, however formidable their compe- 
 tition and dangerous their rivalship. We de- 
 sired it for their good, and not for our ad- 
 vantage. That the United States had a right to 
 acknowledge any Government, was a political 
 axiom. That it was our duty to recognize the 
 Government of La Plata, remains to be proved. 
 If our interest and our honor require it ; if it is 
 demanded by our obligations to that Govern- 
 ment, it was a duty. What interest have we in 
 this independence, which should induce us, first 
 among the nations of the earth, to welcome this 
 stranger ? Was it commercial ? The fact that 
 we had not more than twenty vessels in the 
 commerce of La Plata, and that number dimin- 
 shing, while the English had more than two 
 hundred, was a proof of the extent of our com- 
 mercial interest in this region of the world. 
 Separated at a distance so remote, where was 
 the political consideration to demand it from us ? 
 There was none. We are asked to do what 
 France did for us. Mr. *F. said, the United 
 States had already done more, openly, for La 
 Plata, than France ever did for the United 
 States, prior to her determination to go to war 
 with England. The United States were now in 
 advance of all the nations of the earth, except 
 the Government of Brazil, in kindness to Buenos 
 Ayres. France, prior to the capture of Bur- 
 goyne, forbade her subjects to supply us with
 
 152 
 
 ABHIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 Spanish American Provinces. 
 
 [MABCH, 1818. 
 
 arms and munitions of war ; would not suffer 
 our vessels of war to enter her ports, but, ac- 
 cording to the provisions of the Treaty of 
 Utrecht, when driven in hy stress of weather, 
 and their stay was limited to the duration of the 
 danger. "We openly permit the exportation of 
 every necessary for the use of the people of La 
 Plata. Their vessels enjoy every privilege en- 
 joyed by Spanish vessels, or the armed vessels 
 of any other nation, in our harbors. We wish 
 them success : they know it well ; we do not 
 conceal, or affect to conceal, it from Spain. 
 These privileges are denied them by all the 
 powers of Europe, or if granted, are yielded to 
 them in secret by England. 
 
 We have proclaimed a strict neutrality ; regu- 
 lated our conduct by the rule of the national 
 law. " In civil wars foreigners are not to inter- 
 fere in the internal government of an independ- 
 ent State. It belongs not to them to judge 
 between the citizens whom discord has roused 
 to arms, nor between a Prince and his subjects. 
 Both parties are equally foreigners to them, and 
 equally independent of their authority." The 
 circumstance to which the Speaker referred, if 
 correctly stated, is the most certain evidence that 
 our conduct has been consistent with our pro- 
 fessions. We have pleased neither party, while 
 more fortunate England has succeeded in pleas- 
 ing both parties. Honorable neutrality is never 
 grateful or pleasing to either of the belligerents ; 
 pretended neutrality and secret assistance is 
 grateful to that power to whom aid is given. 
 England may have been artful enough to per- 
 suade Spain that her four hundred thousand 
 pounds was intended for this purpose, while her 
 secret supplies of arms have satisfied the United 
 Provinces that England desired only to promote 
 their success. Our duty cannot require us to 
 do what is useless what is calculated to con- 
 firm a charge made against us, of fomenting the 
 disturbances in Spanish America; a charge to 
 which probable evidence is already afforded by 
 the expeditions of Miranda, of Carrera, of Mi- 
 na; all of whom sailed from these States to 
 their places of respective destination. It is the 
 duty and the interest of England to stand forth 
 as the protector or first friend of the new Gov- 
 ernment. She enjoys the fruits of their separa- 
 tion from the parent country; she fomented 
 the quarrel. Then let her take the risk, as she 
 will take the honor and the profits of the re- 
 cognition of the new power. Mr. F. was at a 
 loss to conjecture why it had not already been 
 done by England, unless she feared the unde- 
 fined and undefinable obligations of the Holy 
 League, or was content to reap the present 
 profits, reserving to herself the power to secure 
 the future, either by recognizing tho new peo- 
 ple on favorable conditions, or by restoring 
 them by her mediation to their former master, 
 on conditions equally favorable to her commer- 
 cial interest. 
 
 At what risk, it may be asked, will this re- 
 cognition be made ? At the hazard of a war 
 with Spain. The gentleman from Kentucky 
 
 says it is not justifiable cause of war. Does he 
 mean in the eye of reason, or in the opinion of 
 nations? In the opinion of nations it certainly 
 is justifiable cause of war; and it is not to be 
 doubted that, were situations reversed, such a 
 recognition of the independence of one of these 
 States of the Union Louisiana, for example 
 by Spain, would be instantly followed by war. 
 The Speaker seemed, indeed, to doubt the 
 soundness of this position, as he pressed princi- 
 pally the want of ability in Spain to make war, 
 not the deficiency of just motive for declaring 
 it. That war would follow with England, 
 should Spain venture upon a contest with us, 
 Mr. F. did not believe. She would have the 
 most powerful motives for neutrality. The 
 glorious opportunity of ruining our commerce 
 would be afforded, and would be seized with 
 avidity. The increased expense of shipments 
 in American vessels would throw the whole of 
 our trade into British bottoms, and our flag 
 would be driven from the ocean, except where 
 it floated over our public or private armed 
 ships. Mr. F. would encounter this danger of a 
 war with Spain, with all its consequences, for 
 an adequate motive ; but he would not, by hur- 
 rying to do an act useless at best, and which 
 might hereafter be performed without hazard- 
 ing any thing. At all events, he was unwilling 
 to encounter it until La Plata had shown, by 
 indisputable testimony, that she was independ- 
 ent, and had the power and the will to main- 
 tain it. 
 
 Was there a free Government in La Plata, for 
 whose existence we ought to encounter any 
 hazard ? Was there a Government independent 
 of Spain, and which could not be compelled by 
 the power or seduced by the cajolements of 
 Spain to its former vassalage? The character 
 of the Government might be read in the history 
 of its formation, in the changes which preceded 
 it, and in acts since it was established. The 
 disturbances in the Peninsula induced the Vice- 
 roy of Buenos Ayres (Oissneros) to call a Junta 
 in May, 1810, composed of the officers' of the 
 Royal Government. ' In April, 1811, a new 
 Government was formed by the inhabitants of 
 the city of Buenos Ayres, having been called 
 together for that purpose by the municipality 
 of the city. This Government which, like the 
 other, was but a name for a new organization 
 of the regal power was composed of three 
 members and two secretaries. According to 
 the El Estatuto, one member, exercising the Ex- 
 ecutive power, was to vacate his seat at the ex- 
 piration of six months, and his place was to be 
 supplied by election. The deputies of the mu- 
 nicipalities of the provinces were to form the 
 electoral college. The first assembly for the 
 election of one of the members of the Executive 
 authority met on the 5th day of April, 1812, 
 and nominated Puerrydon for one member of 
 the Government. They proposed to form a 
 constitution, but were dissolved by the existing 
 authority Puerrydon deriving no power from 
 this nomination. The second assembly met on
 
 DEBATES OF CONGKESS. 
 
 153 
 
 MARCH, 1818.] 
 
 Spanish American Provinces. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 the Gth of October, 1813, and elected Medrano ; 
 but, pursuing the track of their predecessors, 
 they met a similar fate. The municipality, peo- 
 ple of the city, and troops, opposed their meas- 
 ures, and the assembly was dissolved by military 
 force. 
 
 A meeting of the inhabitants of Buenos 
 Ayres, Cabildo Abierto, was convened on the 
 8th day of October, 1812, .and the administra- 
 tion was vested in Pena, Passo, and Johnte. 
 Thus perished the first constitution, after exist- 
 ing twelve months, and being violated in all its 
 provisions. In January, 1813, a new assembly 
 met ; the Constituyente, composed of deputies, 
 nominated by the electoral colleges of the towns 
 and cities of Kio de La Plata. The chief acts 
 of the new assembly was the change of the title 
 of the Government from Gobierno Superior to 
 Supremo Poder Executive, and the decree of 
 freedom to the children of slaves. The same 
 decree compelled a sale of every third male slave 
 to be enrolled in the army, the price being a debt 
 due to the owners by the State. In December, 
 1813, the government of those persons was an- 
 nulled by the assembly, and Pozados was cho- 
 sen Supreme Director, to give strength by con- 
 centrating the Executive powers. In January, 
 1815, Pozados having resigned, Alviar was ap- 
 pointed Supreme Director. In April, 1815, 
 there was a new revolution. A meeting of the 
 inhabitants of Buenos Ayres was convened, and 
 the authority of Alviar and the Assembly dis- 
 owned. The municipality was vested with the 
 supreme command. The municipality formed a 
 junto called De Observation, by whom a new 
 constitution was published. Rondeau was 
 named Director, but being in military command 
 with the army, Colonel Alvarez, a ringleader in 
 the revolt, was made his substitute. Alvarez 
 convoked a Congress, but before it assembled 
 he was dispossessed by another commotion of 
 the power he held in the absence of Rondeau. 
 Belcora was then appointed Supreme Director, 
 but was soon after removed, and the adminis- 
 tration placed in the hands of a committee. 
 The Congress of Tucuman met in 1816, chose 
 Puerrydon Supreme Director, and declared the 
 independence of the Provinces of La Plata on 
 the 3d of July ; proposed to publish a manifes- 
 to, which was published in 1817, and to form a 
 constitution that has not yet been matured. In 
 this hasty sketch of the events which led to the 
 establishment of the Government as it now 
 existed, it must have occurred to the members 
 of the committee that there was no agency of 
 the people in its organization, except the com- 
 motions in the city of Buenos Ayres ; they seem 
 to have been the idle spectators of the move- 
 ments of the constituted authorities and the 
 military. For aught that appeared, the ancient 
 institutions below the head of the Government 
 remained as formerly. Mr. F. would not detail 
 the accusations, trials, executions, and banish- 
 ments which were the consequences of these 
 chants. That the people were not deeply in- 
 terested in the successive changes, and did not 
 
 appear to have derived essential benefits from 
 them, was sufficiently obvious, and all he desired 
 to establish. The conduct of Puerrydon to 
 Carrera, since this declaration of independence, 
 may serve further to illustrate the character of 
 this new power. Carrera was a Chilian, the 
 author of the revolution there ; in the decline 
 of his fortune he came to the United States, and 
 after procuring resources for renewed efforts, 
 returned to La Plata to execute his designs ; he 
 carried with him the hopes and good wishes of 
 all the friends of freedom in the United States. 
 Unfortunately, he expected assistance from La 
 Plata, and sailed with confidence into her ports. 
 An expedition having been prepared in La 
 Plata against Chili, instead of receiving aid from 
 Carrera, in the deliverance of his country from 
 slavery and oppression, the ostensible motive 
 for this expedition, he was seized, imprisoned, 
 and finally banished; the only satisfaction he 
 received is to be found in that part of Puerry- 
 don's expose that has been read by the Speaker, 
 in which he deplores the rudeness which he 
 has been compelled to show, so contrary to the 
 politeness and urbanity of his own nature and 
 that of his Government. The motives for this 
 course may be collected from the recent ac- 
 counts from Chili. A letter of the 7th of Octo- 
 ber says, " More than eighty persons of the first 
 distinction have been seized and thrown into 
 dungeons by the military, on the ground of at- 
 tachment to General Carrera, and the treasures 
 of Chili were exhausted by contributions to 
 Buenos Ayres, and the people of Chili are ex- 
 periencing the benefits of that kind of deliver- 
 ance from the Royal Spaniards, by O'Higgins 
 and the army of Buenos Ayres, that France has 
 experienced under the Bourbons, supported " by 
 the armies of Wellington and Alexander." The 
 power of Spain had not been exerted against 
 this new Government not a Spanish soldier or 
 bayonet had been sent from Old Spain since the 
 restoration of Ferdinand. Was the new Gov- 
 ernment possessed of the physical and moral 
 strength to resist her efforts when they should 
 be made? Gentlemen should not deceive them- 
 selves. Spain, inert and powerless as she was, 
 was. a formidable power to Spanish America, 
 by the nature of the Government and the su- 
 perstition of its inhabitants. She had ample 
 resources for the purchase of assistance, should 
 she be driven to this resort. The time had not 
 arrived when the Spanish Monarch asked him- 
 self the important question What part of my 
 dominions will I surrender for the preservation 
 of the rest? When he is willing to make great 
 sacrifices he can procure ample assistance. 
 Those who sold him ships for money will sell 
 him men for territory. His European territo- 
 ries may tempt Russia his possessions in the 
 West Indies, England to assist him in the 
 subjugation of his rebellious subjects. He may 
 sell La Plata for Portugal, and the parties to 
 the holy league may guarantee their respective 
 cessions to each other. Shall we find in La 
 Plata the unanimity, energy, and virtue to re-
 
 154 
 
 ABEIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 Spanish American Provinces. 
 
 [MARCH, 1818. 
 
 sist such arrangements, where Province is ar- 
 rayed against Province, under Puerrydon and 
 Artegas, viewing each other with a hostility 
 more deadly than the proverbially mutual ha- 
 tred of Spaniard and Portuguese? A still 
 more fatal course may be pursued. The King 
 of Spain may choose to try persuasion, giving 
 to England the promise of free commerce with 
 the Spanish Main ; may he not easily procure 
 another mediation, the condition of which shall 
 be the conditional return of La Plata to her 
 dependent state ? England knew well how to 
 make such a mediation effectual. Let it not be 
 said her honor forbids it, or her interest. Her 
 interest is promoted by the commercial monop- 
 oly such an arrangement will give. Her honor 
 always bows obedient to the dictates of her 
 commercial interest; if she should feel some 
 qualms of conscience, the island of Cuba will 
 calm her scruples. But has she ever promised 
 more than to secure the commercial independ- 
 ence of Spanish America ? What a contempti- 
 ble figure should we make in the eyes of all 
 mankind how degraded in our opinions if we 
 should recognize La Plata, and the Government 
 should shortly after voluntarily return to the 
 Spanish yoke I That the committee might not 
 be deceived by the supposed attachment felt by 
 the new Government for the United States 
 by the profession of an anxious desire to follow 
 our example and imitate our virtue, Mr. F. 
 would mention a few facts, at once illustrating 
 the ardor of their attachment to the United 
 States, and the justice and honor of the Govern- 
 ment in its dealings with individuals. The 
 American brig Savage, of Baltimore, sailed to 
 Buenos Ayres with a cargo of military stores ; 
 they there sold them to Government, to be de- 
 livered in Chili. The voyage was performed ; 
 four months elapsed, under various pretences, 
 before the cargo was received, and after this 
 delay the payment was made, not according to 
 contract, but at the discretion of the Govern- 
 ment. The owner was thus plundered of his 
 property, and Injured by this delay of his plun- 
 derers. The ship Enterprise, of Philadelphia, 
 Captain Coffin, was employed, by contract, to 
 carry three hundred exiles from Juan Fernan- 
 dez to Valparaiso, from whence they had been 
 formerly banished by the royal party. He was 
 to have received $7,200. He performed his 
 contract restored the exiles to their country 
 and their homes. After a detention of two 
 months, he was paid $2,500 St. Martin, the 
 "Washington of America, as he is called, alleging 
 that this was enough. 
 
 In the armies of La Plata, English and French 
 officers are employed without scruple ; Ameri- 
 cans seldom, if ever. Our countrymen do not 
 suit their manners, opinions, or Government. 
 Juett, formerly of the army of the United 
 States, and Kennedy, formerly of the marine 
 corps, sought in Valparaiso, in 1817, commis- 
 sions in the army of St. Martin. He suspected 
 them of attachment to the Carreras, and threw 
 them into a dungeon, and whence they were 
 
 not released until the captain of a vessel, who 
 procured their liberation, entered into an en- 
 gagement to take them immediately from a soil 
 they were deemed unworthy to tread. To 
 judge of the character of the nation from the 
 cruelty and harshness or injustice of an indi- 
 vidual, was not reasonable; but when that in- 
 dividual was the theme of universal admiration 
 in his own country, it could not be considered 
 as improper to make him the standard by which 
 to estimate the opinions and character of his 
 countrymen. 
 
 Every arrival from this land of promise 
 brings us the history of the oppressions of the 
 existing Government, and the fearful forebod- 
 ings of our countrymen, that the people for 
 whom our anxious wishes are hourly expressed 
 will derive no benefits from the change of their 
 governors ; that the Spanish power will be re- 
 stored in all its rigor ; or that the new authori- 
 ties will ever be exercised with the same con- 
 tempt of the principles of justice and of freedom, 
 that distinguished the ancient tyranny. It 
 might be urged that this was newspaper infor- 
 mation, derived from persons of doubtful au- 
 thority. This objection was of the same force, 
 in its application, to all the information pos- 
 sessed of that country. It was of such materi- 
 als its history was composed. A powerful, an 
 irresistible argument, to induce the committee 
 to refrain from the commission of an act of 
 doubtful propriety, might be drawn from this 
 source; but Mr. F. would not trespass longer 
 npon their patience, exhausted as it must be by 
 attending to the long and animated address of 
 the Speaker, and his own desultory reply. 
 
 And the House adjourned. 
 
 THURSDAY, March 26. 
 Spanish American Provinces. 
 
 Mr. RoBEBTSOir, of Louisiana. I should not 
 have risen to express my opinion on the present 
 occasion, if I had not, at an early period of the 
 session, indicated my intention to do so, when- 
 ever a proper opportunity should occur; but 
 for this circumstance, I should have been con- 
 tented to give a silent vote, for I am well aware, 
 from my more than usual ill health, that there 
 will be nothing in either the manner or the 
 matter of my address to compensate the com- 
 mittee for that attention which their indulgence 
 may induce them to bestow. 
 
 I unite with the gentleman from South Caro- 
 lina in considering the proposition of the Speak- 
 er as involving in its decision the views of this 
 House, in respect to the independence of the 
 Government of Rio de la Plata, and as to the 
 expediency of acknowledging it. On both these 
 points my opinions are formed, and I shall give 
 them utterance, without equivocation or hesita- 
 tion, notwithstanding certain cabalistic words, 
 of great efficacy with old women and men of 
 weak minds, of the use of which the gentleman 
 from South Carolina (Mr. LOWNDES) has availed 
 himself. I allude, sir, to his remarks on the
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 155 
 
 MARCH, 1818.] 
 
 Spanish American Provinces. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 danger of war, and the impropriety of casting I freely or too frequently. Now, I dissent from 
 censure on the conduct of the Executive. all such doctrine I look uon it to be the dut 
 
 I beg leave to assure the committee that I 
 have no wish to involve the country in war ; 
 that I agree in every thing my friend from South 
 Carolina Las said as to the inappreciable advan- 
 tages of peace. I would even go further; I 
 almost think that peace is necessary to the ex- 
 istence of liberty. Rarely indeed does the free- 
 dom of nations survive the expensive and bloody 
 contests in which they are too prone to indulge ; 
 liberty, morals, prosperity, all depend upon 
 peace ; they are too precious to be wantonly 
 hazarded; I would sanction no measure that 
 would endanger them but under the most im- 
 perious circumstances. Nothing, too, is further 
 from my intention than to censure the conduct 
 of the Executive ; so far from it, I wish to give 
 to the President the strongest proof of my 
 agreeing with him in opinion, by furnishing 
 him with the means of executing his wishes in 
 regard to the people of South America. Has 
 he not told us, sir, that he feels the sincerest 
 sympathy in their behalf, and has he not told 
 us further that they were a people engaged in 
 civil war, and entitled to equal rights with their 
 enemies ; and can it be otherwise than gratify- 
 ing to him, that this House should concur in his 
 views, and enable, nay more, encourage him 
 with the cheering influence of its approbation, 
 to give effect to his benevolent and kind feel- 
 ings, and to do justice to the revolutionists, 
 by acknowledging their independence, sending 
 them an ambassador, and placing them in that 
 situation of equality which, he says, they are 
 entitled to enjoy ? Sir, it cannot be otherwise 
 than agreeable to the President to know the 
 opinion of Congress on so momentous a subject ; 
 if that opinion, independently expressed, shall 
 concur with his own, he will act conformably 
 to it ; on the other hand, if, from the position 
 he occupies in the Government, from his better 
 information, or from any other circumstances, 
 unknown to the public, he shah 1 think it best to 
 continue, unchanged, the state of our relations 
 with South America, he will do so. For one 
 I shall not object, if he does but exercise his 
 right to judge and decide for himself; and I 
 am too much in the habit of pursuing my own 
 opinion to blame others, whether in public or 
 private stations, for exhibiting a like independ- 
 ence. 
 
 But the gentleman from South Carolina seems 
 to contend that it is the exclusive right of the 
 Executive to manage our foreign relations ; that 
 he is better informed on these subjects, and that 
 this House ought not to interfere so far as to 
 suggest an opinion or a wish, unless it is meant 
 to be understood that strong disapprobation is 
 felt towards the course which has been pursued. 
 I think, too, it may be inferred from the re- 
 marks of the gentleman, that the President is 
 not only better informed on all questions of this 
 kind than Congress or the nation, but that it is 
 right and proper that he should keep his infor- 
 mation to himself, and not part with it too 
 
 all such doctrine ; I look upon it to be the duty 
 of Congress to express its opinion freely upon 
 all questions which concern pur domestic or 
 foreign affairs, and I consider it as the solemn 
 duty of the Chief Magistrate of a popular Gov- 
 ernment to disseminate among the people all 
 information that can instruct them on points so 
 important as their situation in regard to other 
 Governments. 
 
 I would ask, sir, how else can the wise meas- 
 ures of a virtuous administration receive ra- 
 tional approbation, or how a vicious Govern- 
 ment be arrested in its mad career? Shall it 
 be justified in managing in secret the whole in- 
 terests of the public, in plunging into war after 
 a long concatenation of events, which, if known, 
 might have been prevented, or in allowing the 
 nation to repose in security, when, from its own 
 acts, or those of other Governments, it stands 
 on the brink of a precipice? Ought there not 
 rather, in such a Government as ours, to be the 
 most unreserved and frank communication of 
 facts, of whatever kind they may be ? Ought 
 there not to be felt and evidenced, towards the 
 people, the most entire and unaffected confi- 
 dence ? Will the people long continue to con- 
 fide in those who manifest distrust, by covering 
 their proceedings, whether of an external or 
 internal nature, with a veil of mystery and se- 
 crecy ? 
 
 I cannot approve of the observations of the 
 gentleman from South Carolina, and I do hope 
 that the present Administration will act on no 
 such principles. In the examination of th'e 
 present subject, I shall 'not indulge myself in so 
 wide a range as some of the gentlemen who 
 have preceded me. I will endeavor to show 
 that the Government of Rio de la Plata is inde- 
 pendent, and that it is expedient to acknowledge 
 that independence. To establish the fact of its 
 independence, let us inquire whether it has de- 
 clared itself independent ? Of this there is no 
 doubt ; this fact is not disputed by any one. I 
 state it thus specifically, because it is far from 
 being Itself an unimportant circumstance. In 
 our own case it was not so considered. In the 
 language of one historian, Ramsey, after that 
 event " we no longer appeared in the character 
 of subjects in arms against their sovereign, but 
 as an independent people, repelling the attacks 
 of an invading foe." And Marshall says, " we 
 changed our situation by the Declaration .it' In- 
 dependence, and were no longer considered as 
 subjects in rebellion." From that time, too, we 
 date pur actual independence. It has not been 
 permitted to be deferred till its acknowledg- 
 ment by other nations, nor until the peace; 
 and so has the fact been established, as well by 
 political as judicial decisions, both in England 
 and in the United States. Buenos Ayres re- 
 mained faithful to Spain under circumstances 
 extremely favorable to her throwing off the 
 yoke. When the Peninsula was overrun by a 
 foreign army and torn by domestic faction, the 
 people of Buenos Ayres submitted to be gov-
 
 156 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OP R.] 
 
 Spanish American Provinces. 
 
 [MARCH, 1818. 
 
 erned as a colony ; they were willing to con- 
 tinue their former connection, while the Gov- 
 ernment was in the hands of Charles, or Ferdi- 
 nand, or Juntas, having the semblance of power; 
 but, when the whole of the Peninsula, except 
 Cadiz, fell into the possession of France, they 
 declared themselves independent ; this was done 
 by the Viceroy Cissneros. But the final and 
 great act of 1816 flowed from the people ; they 
 then declared themselves independent of Spain 
 and the Bourbons ; established a Government 
 for themselves, and have ever since enjoyed the 
 most perfect exemption from every thing like 
 foreign control. They now appoint their own 
 Executive Magistrate, their legislators, their 
 judges, lay taxes, raise armies, and build navies, 
 with which they not only secure their own in- 
 dependence, but diffuse that blessing over the 
 neighboring Governments of Chili and Peru. 
 They .are more independent than we were at 
 any one moment previously to the peace of 1783. 
 Their soil is free from the pollution of a foreign 
 hostile foot ; and, if it be said that they have 
 their factions, so had we ours. We had, in ad- 
 dition to our foreign foes, our tories and domes- 
 tic traitors. But it is objected that the prov- 
 inces are not all united under one Government, 
 and that Artigas is in possession of the province 
 of Montevideo. But the possession of Artigas 
 is not the possession of Ferdinand ; the whole 
 of the Banda Oriental is as free from his au- 
 thority as Buenos Ayres itself; and the sole 
 question at present is as to the independence of 
 Rio de la Plata of its former European master. 
 T"he freedom of Venezuela, New Grenada, and 
 Mexico, is, unhappily, less assured; but they, 
 too, have declared themselves absolved from 
 the tyrant's yoke. Many years ago the Execu- 
 tive of the United States laid before this House 
 the constitution of Venezuela, and a resolution 
 was adopted by the committee to whom it was 
 referred, declaratory of the interest this House 
 felt in their success, and promising to recognize 
 them as independent when they should take a 
 stand among the nations of the world. In re- 
 gard to Buenos Ayres, that happy period has 
 arrived ; and it becomes us to realize the hopes 
 to which our promises have given rise. The 
 fate of New Grenada has been various ; it has 
 sometimes enjoyed self-government, and has 
 been again subject to the temporary control of 
 the usurpers of its rights. The gentleman from 
 Georgia tells us that Mexico has been preserved 
 to the royal cause by its own native population ; 
 that it has not been found necessary to send 
 over foreign troops to secure its allegiance to 
 its sovereign. But the gentleman forgot to in- 
 form us that Mexico has been always filled, with 
 European troops, and that the number already 
 there rendered any augmentation unnecessary. 
 But for the Europeans in Mexico, a dissolution 
 of its connection with Spain would long ago 
 have taken place. 
 
 But, sir, for what purpose has the gentleman 
 from Georgia dwelt so long and so earnestly on 
 the motives of the people of South America for 
 
 declaring themselves independent, and on the 
 manner in which the struggle has been con- 
 ducted? The only question is, whether they 
 are or are not independent. But the gentleman 
 is as mistaken in his views on these subjects, as 
 it is unkind in him, professing, as he does, to 
 wish success to their cause, to pass their con- 
 duct, distorted as it is, in review before us, when 
 nothing renders such investigation necessary. 
 The gentleman says that their revolution did 
 not begin on principles favorable to individual 
 liberty ; but I would ask, sir, what revolution 
 ever did? What revolution ever stopped at 
 the point to reach which it commenced ? What 
 revolution, at its origin, ever advanced the prin- 
 ciples on which, in its progress, it was conduct- 
 ed? What revolution ever terminated where 
 the particular grievances were removed which 
 gave it birth? A candid examination of our 
 own history will sufficiently elucidate these 
 views. We did not commence our contest with 
 the mother country with any avowal, whatever 
 might have been the intention of the intelligent 
 and virtuous, of a wish to throw off colonial 
 subjection ; far from it ; our professions of at- 
 tachment and fidelity to the monarch were 
 never before so frequent nor so strong. We 
 complained of trifling grievances: proceeded 
 cautiously to remonstrances, then to resistance ; 
 declared ourselves, after a lapse of some years, 
 independent, and ultimately overturned the en- 
 tire fabric of that Government, which, in the 
 beginning, we so often praised, and merely af- 
 fected to disapprove in some comparatively im- 
 material points. So the South American pa- 
 triots act cautiously in regard to their former 
 masters ; profess, for a convenient time, entire 
 devotion to their will, and take advantage of 
 circumstances to effect the liberation of their 
 country. But I acknowledge that individual 
 freedom does not seem to be with their leaders 
 a subject of sufficient concern, and perhaps on 
 this point it is no more difficult to excuse them 
 than on that connected with their national in- 
 dependence. Let it be kept in view that they 
 have two great objects to attain the one, ob- 
 noxious to Spain, their national independence 
 the other, hateful to all Governments except 
 our own, individual liberty. As they, in com- 
 mon with all revolutionists, have found it ne- 
 cessary to mask their designs on the first point, 
 so may it be politic in them to be as silent as 
 possible in regard to the other. Where, 
 throughout this enslaved world, are they to 
 look for countenance or support, if they should 
 dare to announce too openly their attachment 
 to democratic forms of government ? Will the 
 combined despots of Europe smile upon their 
 efforts ? Can they look across the Atlantic for 
 the cheering influence of approbation, when 
 even here, in this Republic, they meet with cold 
 indifference? Do they not perceive that the 
 nations of Europe, although friendly to their 
 independence, are hostile to their freedom? 
 And may not this account, if it be true indeed, 
 for the carelessness exhibited by them, accord-
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 157 
 
 MARCH, 1818.] 
 
 Spanish American Provincet. 
 
 [H. OK R. 
 
 ing to the gentleman from Georgia, on the sub- 
 ject of individual rights? 
 
 Mr. Chairman, the combined despots of Eu- 
 rope cannot, as formerly, indulge themselves in 
 the royal sport of arms; they cannot wage 
 wars of amusement or ambition ; they are suf- 
 ficiently employed in keeping their own sub- 
 jects in subordination. Admirable as their 
 Governments may be, something like coercion 
 seems necessary to impress that opinion on the 
 iniuds of their people. The armies of Europe 
 are not now intended to guard against, or to 
 make foreign conquests ; they are to keep their 
 inhabitants in slavery, and the kings on their 
 thrones ; three millions of soldiers in arms are 
 all necessary for that purpose ; they have no 
 occasion to look abroad for employment ; they 
 need not come across the Atlantic. Sir, the 
 impulse given to the human character by the 
 American and French Revolutions still survives ; 
 the principles of despotism and superstition are 
 dead they do not suit the age ; they may be 
 sustained a little longer by the force of bayo- 
 nets, but the love of liberty lives in the heart, 
 will again before long have utterance, and ulti- 
 mately succeed and triumph. Blind, indeed, 
 must that man be, who does not see in the 
 large standing armies of the Governments of 
 Europe, the fear the just fear in which they 
 stand of those whom they rule and oppress. 
 Sir, we may manage our own affairs in our own 
 way, without the fear of kings before our eyes. 
 They have enough to do to keep things in order 
 at home ; their vigilance is more and more ne- 
 cessary every day; if they relax, they are 
 hurled from their usurped dominion. I rejoice 
 in this state of terror and alarm, and I most 
 seriously wish that many years may not pass 
 away before sufficient proof may be given that 
 their fears are not unfounded and visionary. 
 
 But, sir, admitting, as is, on the main, gener- 
 ally admitted, that war would not be the con- 
 sequence of sending a Minister to Buenos Ayres, 
 yet it is contended that we have no interest, 
 commercial or political, in their independence 
 indeed, it is pretended that it would be better 
 for us, that they should continue in a state ot 
 colonial subjection. Sir, I feel an aversion seri- 
 ously tp combat so vile a proposition. I can- 
 not believe that the happiness of others is in- 
 compatible with our own such a principle 
 does not enter into the great scheme of nature 
 it is the pitiful emanation of counting-house 
 calculation, and is as untrue, as it is unworthy 
 of any thing but contempt. Sir, the independ- 
 ence of South America is the common cause of 
 all commercial powers for the question is, 
 whether its trade, by the subversion of its in- 
 dependence, will be agtin monopolized by 
 Spain ; or, by the establishment of it, laid open 
 on equal terms to all the world ; whether it is 
 our interest to participate in the commerce of 
 the colonial possessions of Spain, amounting in 
 exports and imports to two hundred millions 
 of dollars, or to be excluded from it entirely. 
 This is the view of the subject; for it must not 
 
 be forgotten that a return of these countries to 
 the state of colonies, brings along with it the 
 concomitant effects of the monopoly enjoyed 
 by the Metropolitan Government. The com- 
 merce which we now enjoy would be lost to us ; 
 and when we take into consideration the num- 
 ber of our vessels already engaged hi trade with 
 the Atlantic ports, as well as those with, and 
 without licenses, interchanging then- cargoes 
 with those on the Pacific, we cannot even now 
 doubt of its importance. Our navigation would 
 be benefited by carrying for them a portion of 
 their valuable productions to Europe, and re- 
 turning to them the manufactures of that 
 quarter of the world in exchange. In carrying 
 our productions too, wherever we might obtain 
 the means of purchasing commodities suited to 
 their markets, our manufactures, too, if we be- 
 come a manufacturing people, will then find 
 additional demand; and I believe it may be 
 also established, that our agriculture would re- 
 ceive essential benefit. It may be fairly assum- 
 ed, that the price of the raw material will be 
 enhanced in the proportion of the demand for 
 the manufactured article ; and the demand for 
 the manufactured article depends upon the 
 number, the wants, and the wealth of the con- 
 sumers. "Who can, then, deny that these facts 
 depend materially upon the independence of 
 South America? Independence will bestow 
 upon the people every blessing it will add to 
 their numbers, to their industry, to their wealth, 
 to then* disposition and their ability to consume 
 commodities, many of which will be manufac- 
 tured from our raw materials thus giving en- 
 couragement to agriculture ; and, being convey- 
 ed to them by our vessels, adding to the pros- 
 pects of commerce, and the prosperity of navi- 
 gation. An estimate of the value of a free 
 commerce ought not to be made from the pres- 
 ent situation of this interesting and unfortunate 
 people, depressed and poor, from the combined 
 effects of superstition and despotism, habituated 
 to privations, and ignorant of the importance 
 of the world to them, or of themselves to the 
 world. Their present value in the scale of na- 
 tions is comparatively inconsiderable, yet their 
 imports and exports exceed our own, and, when 
 we reflect, under the colonial system, on the 
 necessarily enormous price of imports purchased 
 exclusively from Spam ; or, if obtained in any 
 other country, burdened and clogged with 
 heavy dutie^ payable into the King's treasury, 
 we may arrive at something like just conclu- 
 sions. When looking into futurity, we find 
 millions of slaves converted into freemen their* 
 industry, their wealth, and their wants increas- 
 ed, the products of their labor augmenting in 
 value, and the articles of their consumption di- 
 minishing in price. But I do not consider the 
 direct pecuniary advantages to our country, 
 however great and certain they may be, as of 
 so much importance as the political and moral 
 effects growing out of a liberal and manly 
 policy towards that people. It will have a ten- 
 dency to give us confidence in the firmness and
 
 158 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 Spanish American Provinces. 
 
 [MARCH, 1818. 
 
 virtue of Government it will prove that it is 
 not forgetful of the high character which be- 
 longs to us as a powerful and free people that 
 the reputation we have acquired, at the expense 
 of so much blood and treasure, is not to be sac- 
 rificed by timidity, or an undue spirit of ac- 
 commodation towards the rnonarchs of Europe 
 that we will do what our principles require, 
 in spite of imaginary terrors, artfully excited by 
 the enemies of freedom in fine, that, cautious 
 of giving just cause of offence, wo will pursue 
 the path of fidelity .and honor, in defiance of 
 the views and wishes of those whose political 
 institutions make them necessarily hostile to 
 human happiness and human rights that we 
 dare at least do, what we are sustained in by 
 . right and truth, in favor of the liberties of man- 
 kind, without being deterred by those who pro- 
 mote, with unhallowed violence, at the expense 
 of every sacred^obligation, the dogmas of priest- 
 craft, and the 'doctrines of despotism. And if 
 we are asked by the officious and intermeddling 
 representatives of kings, why it is that we not 
 only feel, but manifest sympathy for a people 
 struggling to be free, let us refer them to their 
 own unholy combinations, in support of the 
 execrable principles of their Government let 
 us tell them of their wars for thirty years past 
 against liberty that if the safety of monarchies 
 in Europe depends on the annihilation of re- 
 publics, the security of a republic in America 
 will not be injured by other republics growing 
 up by its side ; and that, if they have presump- 
 tuously broken down, by force, whatever stood 
 in the way of the establishment of tyranny, we 
 may at least hope to be forgiven for going so far 
 as to assert an abstract proposition in favor of 
 freedom ; for, sending or receiving a Minister 
 from La Plata, is no more. 
 
 Mr. FLOYD, of Virginia, rose, for the purpose 
 of offering his view of this interesting subject, 
 to the consideration of the committee, in sup- 
 port of the amendment proposed by the hon- 
 orable Speaker ; and said, as he knew the 
 House must be weary at this late hour of the 
 day, the only apology he could make was, that 
 he would not detain them long. I, am, said he, 
 strongly impressed with a belief that an appro- 
 priation of this kind would well comport with 
 the disinterested views of this Government, and 
 would enable the President at any time to do jus- 
 tice to this Republic, which has achieved an ob- 
 ject so glorious to itself, and of such signal bene- 
 fit to mankind. The present is a favorable 
 moment, when our affairs are prosperous and 
 'quiet the world calm, and no political ebul- 
 litions to distract us. This would be the safe 
 course the dignified course dictated by the 
 true policy of the United States, and one calcu- 
 lated to free them from the odious doubts and 
 suspicions of partiality which have been cast 
 upon them, and would place their conduct in a 
 high point of view, both for magnanimity and 
 justice. 
 
 The spectacle presented to our view is sub- 
 lime and wonderful ; a brave people, disdaining 
 
 the shackles of a foreign despot, wading through 
 rivers of blood to erect their constitution upon 
 a firm basis, which will secure to them the en- 
 joyment of personal liberty, and give them a 
 stand among the nations of the earth, as free 
 and independent. Through the storms of revo- 
 lution, their institutions have been purified. 
 Warring now to maintain their freedom, they 
 appealed to this nation for justice, and ought 
 to have demanded our attention. This nation, 
 free as air, cannot envy the enjoyment of the 
 world besides, will bestow a part of its deliber- 
 ations upon that appeal ; nor now refuse to lis- 
 ten to the dictates of justice, of policy, or to 
 the cries of suffering humanity, in adopting 
 this amendment ; that the appropriation may 
 be made ; that justice be dealt out with an even 
 hand as I should be sorry to believe the 
 United States could at any time so far forget 
 the great principles of equal rights, equal liber- 
 ty, and equal law, as to give the smallest grounds 
 for complaint to any nation, and surely the 
 situation of these people entitles them to this 
 appellation. 
 
 The civil dissensions which for some time so 
 convulsed the Spanish monarchy, have at length 
 assumed a determinate shape,"and war is now 
 no longer the war of revolution, or a civil war, 
 but the efforts of contending Governments. 
 This young Eepublic, powerful in its resources, 
 recovering with renewed vigor from every dis- 
 aster, believes herself justified by^ the law of 
 nations, in demanding a recognition of her 
 rights as a free and independent nation. 
 
 Spain, bloated with pride, inherited through a 
 long line of ancestors, is incapable of imitating 
 the noble and magnanimous conduct of Great 
 Britain, who, after seven years of war with us, 
 came forward as Great Britain ought to have 
 done, and acknowledged our independence. 
 Yet that Monarch, who boasts the sun never 
 sets upon his dominion, parts with reluctance 
 from the smallest piece of soil, and wars by 
 withholding his assent to independence, when 
 hostilities have ceased, through inability to 
 prosecute them. Miserable as she is,' without 
 resources, without finances, bankrupt at home, 
 that monarchy still lingers, like the gamester, 
 upon the delusive hope that a fortuitous con- 
 currence of circumstances may again bring 
 under her dominion half a revolted world. 
 
 And now we are told by the honorable chair- 
 man of the Committee of Foreign Affaire, (Mr. 
 FOESYTH,) that he is unwilling to make the re- 
 cognition, because it will interfere with our 
 dispute with Spam. Surely that ought not to 
 weigh with him from whom, recollecting his 
 declaration a few days ago on this floor, it is 
 expected some strongineasure will be proposed 
 with regard to Spain. Is it a declaration of 
 war ? then why should he oppose this recog- 
 nition ? Is it a proposition to take possession of 
 Florida ? Why in that case should he oppose 
 it ? rather ought it to be a cogent reason for 
 adopting this measure. Yet, inadequate as 
 Spam is, to a task so unequal as that of reduc-
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 159 
 
 MARCH, 1818.] 
 
 Spanish American Provinces. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 ing a Government fully organized since their 
 revolution, and exercising the rights of sover- 
 eignty for years, building fleets, raising and 
 equipping armies, and marching them to dis- 
 tant provinces to finish there a work which 
 themselves had consummated notwithstanding 
 these strong and decided proofs of independ- 
 ence, exhibited in the fullest powers of govern- 
 ment, unmolested by hostile troops within 
 their territory, still we hear of Europe ; as if, 
 to measure justice, we should consult the 
 frowns or smiles of another continent ! 
 
 From some cause or other, lively apprehen- 
 sions have arisen in the mind of the honorable 
 chairman of the Committee of "Ways and Means, 
 (Mr. LOWITDES,) that an acknowledgment of this 
 kind migh involve us in national difficulties. 
 Can he, of all others, who is so well acquainted 
 with laws of nations, hint this result of an ac- 
 knowledgment, admitted by ah 1 the writers on 
 that law, to be no cause of war ? Whilst I 
 would, with the most scrupulous care and ex- 
 actness, avoid what might endanger the tran- 
 quillity of my country, I would likewise avoid 
 whatever might give a pang to this budding 
 Republic ; and if to pursue the right, and ad- 
 minister strict impartiality and justice, cannot 
 secure to this nation her amicable relations nn- 
 disturbed, it would be madness or folly in the 
 extreme, to believe any course free from the 
 dangerous tempests which as often arise from 
 mistaken policy as conflicting interests. I am 
 sorry that gentleman (Mr. LOWNDES) has insin- 
 uate'd that the proposed measures was in hos- 
 tility to the Executive ; it is to be lamented 
 that any such opinion should have escaped him ; 
 from his usual benevolence it was not expected, 
 and if any thing has been contemplated of that 
 kind, he might have spared those who advocate 
 the measure from honest convictions. But 
 against any such motive for myself I utterly 
 protest, nor do I believe any such motive to 
 have actuated the honorable mover of the 
 proposition. I have been impelled by the con- 
 victions of my own mind, and, whilst ever I 
 have the honor of a seat ' in this House, such 
 only will govern me. 
 
 In this fear of giving offence, and this zeal to 
 convince the nations of Europe of the rectitude 
 of our intentions, are we not bound to take 
 care of the interests of America, that she should 
 not complain ? As she has already been con- 
 sidered, and that too by high authority, as en- 
 gaged in civil war, a situation in which all 
 know, that in justice each party is entitled to 
 equal rights and respect ; and, as seems mani- 
 fest, warring to maintain an independence 
 which she has already wrested from the iron 
 grasp of oppression, and ought to be regarded 
 by the world as the germ of general emancipa- 
 tion. Clear as these facts seem to be, we are 
 told, with a doubtful inquiring look, as if listen- 
 ing for danger, that we are observed by Europe, 
 and that we should not excite tbeir jealousy or 
 distrust, as if the justice of nations was the 
 result of fear ; I know, too, there are many ex- 
 
 cellent men whose feelings are enlisted for these 
 brave patriots, struggling against a power 
 which still annoys them, who pause in their 
 decision because this Hydra Europe is constant- 
 ly presented to their view. Sir, it will be a 
 black and sorrowful day to this Republic, when 
 this imaginary course of Europe is to be held 
 over its deliberation like a lash of scorpions to 
 goad it on to any thing, or stop it in its course. 
 Can that alarm the nations of Europe which is 
 bottomed upon the law of nations, since they 
 have been so lately engaged in apportioning 
 that plundered continent without consulting 
 our jealousies or our fears ? For my own part 
 I cannot imagine such fears radically inimical 
 as I am to an interest which of late had nearly 
 involved us in ruinous difficulties ; I have too 
 high an opinion of the quick sagacity of the 
 British cabinet, not to believe they would dis- 
 cern their own unequivocal interest in doing 
 this act of justice. The fears of Europe! 
 What can the petty States of Italy fear from 
 our acknowledging the independence of the 
 Republic of La Plata ? These wretched Gov- 
 ernments, enveloped in the legitimate fogs of 
 Europe, are unseen in the scale of nations. 
 What can Russia fear? Surely none can be so 
 politically bewildered, as to believe she can 
 fear any thing ; she has her views neirer home ; 
 with a boundless extent of territory, compris- 
 ing one-twenty-eighth part of the whole surface 
 of this huge globe a population so vast as. to 
 overturn, like a resistless torrent, every thing 
 which opposes it ; still anxious to extend her 
 dominions to the south, and acquire territory 
 on the Mediterranean ; she will before long 
 give employment to her neighbor there, and 
 it were well for the powers of Europe to look to 
 their own safety in time. Could England view 
 a measure of this kind with jealousy or suspi- 
 cion, when at this very instant efforts are mak- 
 ing throughout Europe, not loud, but deep 
 and dangerous, to exclude from their markets 
 every species of her manufactures? Witness 
 the conduct of France, Holland, Sweden, Rus- 
 sia, and other powers, as it regards the cotton 
 manufactures. Witness the large private asso- 
 ciations in these countries, binding themselves 
 by the solemn obligation of an oath, to use their 
 every effort to exclude from their country the 
 use of British fabrics of every description. This, 
 sir, is a continental system more terrible to 
 England, or soon will be, than all the colossal 
 power of the Great Napoleon, enforcing the 
 same object. Is it not rather her true interest 
 to support this infant power, even with arms, 
 where she will find a tenfold market for her 
 merchandise, unrivalled, and increasing perhaps 
 for one hundred years? These then are the 
 only powers which have any concern in these 
 events. The rest of Europe is a mere mockery 
 upon the independence of nations. Germany 
 and Sweden, with her Bernadotte, any thing 
 Russia pleases, and Prussia almost an append- 
 age Holland and Portugal at the disposal of 
 England; and Spam, reposing in the embroi-
 
 160 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 Spanish American Provinces. 
 
 [MARCH, 1818. 
 
 dered arms of the adored Ferdinand, dissolving 
 by a political hectic, unpitied by the world ; 
 and France, lately the gaze of admiring millions, 
 guided by the overwhelming genius of her Em- 
 peror, is now little else than the great garrison 
 of Europe, with a pageant King in splendid 
 misery in the midst of it. 
 
 But Kussia, true to her own interest, has not 
 been inattentive to the great events which have 
 been evolving themselves in South America ; 
 her attempt to acquire territory on the Gulf of 
 California, and even, if the news be true, upon 
 our very borders, is a proof of this ; she is will- 
 ing to acquire territory by every change, and 
 every event, for territory has been the heredi- 
 tary mania of her monarchs. Unwilling to com- 
 mence hostilities at all tunes, disappointment 
 only results in new efforts on new objects, at 
 distant and different points, which must even- 
 tuate, if permitted by the powers of Europe 
 silently to progress, in her controlling the com- 
 merce of the world. England, actuated by dif- 
 ferent motives, has approved, by her conduct, 
 and fostered those brilliant successes, by which 
 the patriots of South America have raised to 
 fame a column of glory so bright, as to shed a 
 blaze of renown over half the world, and has 
 embalmed forever the name of her heroes. 
 
 What haire we done? The honorable chair- 
 man of the Committee of Foreign Affairs (Mr. 
 FOBSYTH) tells us that the patriots captured a 
 vessel belonging to a citizen of the United 
 States, and refused others employment in their 
 service ; that the only sympathy felt is felt by 
 us ; that the sympathy is all on our side. Then, 
 sir, I must say they are languid indeed ! for in- 
 stead of those vivid sympathies which should 
 have watered with our tears the rosy bed of 
 immortality, on which sleep many of the heroic 
 defenders of that Eepublic, we passed an act, 
 like a one-eyed warder upon the watchtower, 
 who sees only on one side, and calls out " all is 
 well," whilst danger and rum nearly approaches 
 on the other. Sir, if our apprehensions prevent 
 us from doing them justice, let them not induce 
 us to do injustice ; let us not impede their high 
 destinies by a law which operates unequally, 
 since that wonderful wisdom which willed the 
 destiny of empires, hath willed it so, for the 
 happiness of America and the safety of Europe ; 
 else if Spain, a few little years ago, had seen on 
 her throne a monarch such as he who now 
 sways the ponderous sceptre of Eussia a man 
 whose talents and sagacity were equal to the 
 population, the wealth, and the extent of her 
 dominions the crash of falling thrones would 
 have resounded throughout Europe, and their 
 legitimacy, instead of a protocol, would have 
 been thundered from her cannon's mouth. If, 
 Mr. Chairman, the United States shall turn from 
 this question, other nations will not ; England, 
 more generous than we, will do them justice, 
 and reap the fruits of their grateful benedic- 
 tions. These colonies, for a long^ time settled 
 for the purposes of commerce, had no political 
 existence, or any part in the great agitations of 
 
 the world too distant from the mother country 
 to feel any thing of national prejudices or pre- 
 dilections, they have become a new people, 
 under the influence of a different climate, where 
 the productions, the scenery, the physical con- 
 formation of the country, and even the very 
 sky and the stars of heaven are so different, that 
 nothing of the Spaniard is left but the name, 
 and that now no more. 
 
 In vain has the fond remembrance of their 
 forefathers endeavored to cherish the recollec- 
 tions of their youth, by giving to the hills, the 
 valleys, the rivers, and mountains, of their 
 adopted country, the names of the places of 
 their childhood. These names no longer pro- 
 duce a forceful feeling ; the heart has ceased to 
 vibrate at the sound; the meaning unknown to 
 the present generation. Under this different 
 climate, new habits, new wants have been 
 generated, national remembrances have been 
 obliterated ; all is new, all is changed. 
 
 Heretofore the young American, accustomed 
 to hear his country contemned and despised, 
 had no incentive to action. He had been told 
 that in America all was degeneracy, all was 
 savage, barbarous ignorance ; and grave phi- 
 losophers and naturalists have written books to 
 prove the fact. Notwithstanding, he was pro- 
 hibited from going to the mother country to 
 enlighten his mind by an education, and by 
 their inexorable laws forbidden to go even from 
 one province to another. Thus, like a vegetable 
 fastened to the soil, was he doomed to live, to 
 die, and disappear forever, not even leaving a 
 trace of his ever having existed. 
 
 Unable to govern himself, all officers of the 
 Government, of every rank and condition, have 
 been sent to him from Europe, to administer 
 justice to him hi his peaceable repose ; but, sir, 
 at the very sight of those officers they turned 
 pale, and trembled at the sound of Spanish 
 justice. 
 
 Thus have they lingered on, a listless life of 
 acquiescence and patient resignation, for three 
 hundred years, until this bright beam of liberty 
 broke through the dark cloud of royalty, which 
 had nearly overshadowed them for ever ; but 
 which, I trust, will light them to peace and to 
 happiness as it has to independence. 
 
 If there are any doubts about their independ- 
 ence, from the circumstance of a part of Chili 
 being still occupied by the royal forces, and a 
 force of native Americans under Artigas opposed 
 to the Republic, as stated by the gentleman from 
 Georgia, let those doubts be dissipated when 
 it is remembered, that, late in our own Revo- 
 lutionary war, when the chances in the minds 
 of many good men nearly poised between inde- 
 pendence and subjugation, the celebrated battle 
 of King's Mountain was fought between Whigs 
 and Tories a battle which has crowned the 
 names of Campbell and Shelby with immortal 
 glory a battle which measurably decided the 
 fate of this Republic nor let us longer doubt, 
 when we reflect, that, by nature, every man in 
 America is a General for enterprises like these.
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 161 
 
 MARCH, 1818.] 
 
 Spanish American Provinces. 
 
 [H. OF R 
 
 American wiles and stratagems, quick advance, 
 attack, and fight, insure success ; the slow and 
 expensive formalities of European warfare, de- 
 feat. 
 
 These unfortunate people, sunk in despotism, 
 have borne the contumely of all nations for 
 their Spanish gravity, jealousy, and suspicion ; 
 but had even this been examined with indul- 
 gent kindness, it would have been found to be 
 the mark which distinguished the slave of every 
 country. This national gloom stamps itself 
 upon the face of every Spaniard as soon as he 
 is capable, from his own reflections, to distin- 
 guish that the tyranny of his Government, 
 haunted continually by the phantoms of the 
 imagination, has environed him with racks, and 
 tortures, and the inquisition, where a living 
 death of sufferance awaits more terrible than 
 all. He dare not speak he knows not but 
 that every one who hears him is a spy upon his 
 conduct silence is his only retreat his liberty, 
 his property, at the disposal of any clandestine 
 informer his life, his reputation, his honor, 
 at the disposal of an implacable priest, who 
 knows no mercy or forgiveness. Well might 
 they exclaim, with a rapturous fervor, Oh ! for 
 a revolution it were celestial happiness com- 
 pared with this ! 
 
 If, in the commencement of this conflict, 
 many bloody and revengeful acts have been 
 committed, the noble spirits who direct the 
 revolution cannot be implicated, or their cause 
 condemned, nor ought it in justice to be used 
 as an argument against them. The horrors of 
 our own Revolution afford us proof of this, 
 where the father and the son have been armed 
 against each other where cold-blooded mur- 
 ders have been perpetrated, butcheries and in- 
 discriminate massacres of men, women, and 
 children, because they were Whigs, or because 
 they were Tories. These things, it is true, 
 happened only in certain sections of the coun- 
 try, but they did take place ; we have heard 
 but little of them ; the English historians seem 
 disposed to cast a veil over them, and the 
 American at this time is not disposed to tear it 
 aside ; then, in such a state of things, can we 
 wonder if, in the fury of contending armies, 
 these generous patriots should have left un- 
 punished crimes, which, in other times, their 
 gentler natures would have wept at with tears 
 of the bitterest sorrow ? These things should 
 not be attributed to them, but to their true 
 source. Attribute them to that frenzied power 
 which sees nothing but the bloody dagger be- 
 fore it, and drives the most unresisting temper 
 to madness and despair. The South Americans 
 are now free, and long may the blessings of a 
 republic attend them ; for I am happy in being 
 one of those who believe the liberties of a re- 
 public can be enjoyed by a Spaniard, or by any 
 body ; the enjoyment of freedom is not pecu- 
 liar to any nation ; all will admit that the 
 Greeks once had it; the Romans, the Dutch, 
 and many others, as dissimilar in their national 
 character as the English and the French. Con- 
 Vou VL 11 
 
 suit the annals of the world, and I believe it 
 will be found, that, wherever men are capable 
 of making an effort to obtain their freedom, 
 they are capable of enjoying it. Then why not 
 have the benevolence to allow these brave pa- 
 triots at least a capacity for freedom, since they 
 have given so strong a proof of it us to establish 
 their Government through revolution and main- 
 tain it in war? 
 
 If, Mr. Chairman, the law of nations is to be 
 regarded by a just people ; if the political whirl- 
 winds which, for some time back, so desolated 
 the civilized world, has left them any thing but 
 a wreck, or the hopeless resort of the weak and 
 the impotent, I would say, that, whenever a 
 contest became doubtful between contending 
 powers, without any regard whatever to the 
 manner, cause, or origin of that contest, the 
 world at large has a right to consider them 
 equal, and even decide between them, if neces- 
 sary, and is bound to extend to the one all the 
 other had a right to expect. The case of 
 James II., King of England, is a clear illustra- 
 tion of this position, and is acknowledged by 
 all the writers on the law of nations as correct ; 
 and if a case more strong were necessary, as 
 being a parallel in all respects to the present, I 
 would cite that of the revolt of the Low Coun- 
 tries against Philip II., King of Spain, of '* exter- 
 minating" memory, already spoken of by others, 
 but with different impressions. Their independ- 
 ence, they declared, was acknowledged by Queen 
 Elizabeth, of England, the wisdom, moderation, 
 and justice of whose government, is celebrated 
 and acknowledged by all, even at this distant day, 
 and places her among the most illustrious mon- 
 archs of the world. Philip remonstrated ; her 
 answer was the law of nations gave her the 
 right, and her interest prompted her to ac- 
 knowledge their independence. Philip was 
 content ; nor did he even require his Ambas- 
 sador to leave London. And is not England 
 now precisely situated as she was then the same 
 necessity, nay, stronger inducements of interest? 
 And will the present monarch, instructed by 
 history, be less wise? 
 
 An honorable gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
 SMITH) has told us that the trade of the United 
 States would receive no benefit fronl that coun- 
 try. He has told us that the article of wheat 
 has been brought from Chili round to Brazil, or 
 the West Indies, and sold at a lower rate than 
 it could be taken from the United States. I 
 would ask what the price of wheat has to do 
 with the acknowledgment of the independence 
 of those Republics ? The inquiry has, too, been 
 made with an air of triumph, what the United 
 States would gain by an acknowledgment of 
 this kind? I will not retort the question by 
 asking what wo could possibly lose by the ac- 
 knowledgment ; but I would ask, if it is a thing 
 they, by the law of nations, have a right to 
 give, without doing injustice to Spain, or any 
 power whatever, why not grant the request? 
 
 But,, sir, I contend that the United States 
 would gain, and gain essentially, too. Certainty
 
 162 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 Spanish American Provinces. 
 
 [MARCH, 1818. 
 
 nothing could be more desirable to this nation, 
 so full of enterprise, than a free and direct trade 
 to those countries, the most luxuriant and ex- 
 tensive in the world ; so rich in every thing we 
 want, and containing such inexhaustible abun- 
 dance of the precious metals, and needing many 
 things we have to spare. There is the strongest 
 probability that our exports, instead of sixty or 
 seventy millions, would be increased very many 
 millions, and would be much benefited, were it 
 only from the advantages of our contiguous 
 situation. Nor can I perceive the force of the 
 remarks of the honorable member from South 
 Carolina, (Mr. LOWNDES,) luminous as he is on 
 all subjects, when he tells us that injury will 
 result to us, as our trade to that country, when 
 compared with the trade of Great Britain to 
 the same place, is according to the little book 
 from Philadelphia, in the ratio of one hundred 
 thousand to seven millions. Surely, if we can- 
 not receive all or most of the benefit, it cannot 
 be a reason why we should not receive some 
 benefit. 
 
 But the grand object and advantage would be 
 in systematizing a policy for America ; that we 
 might be disenthralled that we might not feel 
 the effects of that political plexus which has so 
 entangled the nations of Europe, by producing 
 those intimate connections and combinations by 
 which the movements and operations of one 
 power are so felt by all, as to influence their 
 councils, and produce corresponding motions. 
 "When now we negotiate, it is in Europe ; when 
 we are inconvenienced here, we send off an 
 Ambassador there ; they are governed by the 
 principles and policy of continental Europe, and 
 not by any thing here. Do difficulties arise in 
 Canada, they are adjusted in London. Do the 
 same difficulties arise in Mexico, the province 
 of Texas, or in Florida, it is settled in Madrid. 
 Thus are we compelled to negotiate all our 
 affairs upon the basis of European policy, be- 
 cause even the best interests of the colonists 
 must give way to the policy of the mother 
 country. 
 
 But when the independence of the Sonth 
 Americans shall be acknowledged, and they take 
 their stand among the great nations of the earth, 
 there will then be an American policy, and a 
 European policy, which may, in negotiation 
 upon just and honorable principles, be fairly 
 opposed to each other. Nor does it militate 
 against this position, whether, in the end, these 
 Governments shall be imperial or royal, instead 
 of republican, which they now are. The great 
 interests of America will be the same ; and if, 
 unhappily, difficulties should arise exclusively 
 on this side the ocean, there will be no European 
 convenience to consult, delay, or obstruct their 
 adjustment in terms of complete reciprocity. 
 
 FBIDAY, March 27. 
 Spanish American Provinces. 
 The House having resolved itself into a Com- 
 mittee of the Whole on the general appropria- 
 
 tion bill to which an amendment had been 
 moved by Mr. CLAY to introduce an appropria- 
 tion for the outfit of a Minister to Buenos Ayres 
 
 Mr. A. SMYTH, of Virginia, said, that he was 
 opposed to the proposition under consideration, 
 and should contend, in the first place, that the 
 measure proposed is an act of usurpation, an in- 
 vasion of the Executive authority. Secondly, 
 he would contend, that the conduct of the Exec- 
 utive branch of the Government, as respected 
 Spain and her American provinces, has been 
 perfectly impartial and honorable, and such as 
 was required by the interest and honor of the 
 United States; that, therefore, no interference 
 on our part was necessary. And, thirdly, he 
 would contend that the measure proposed was 
 pregnant with evil, and may jeopardize the 
 safety of the United States. 
 
 The constitution, said Mr. S., grants to the 
 President, by and with the consent of the Sen- 
 ate, power to appoint Ambassadors and public 
 Ministers, and to make treaties. According to 
 
 who receives all foreign Ministers, and deter- 
 mines what foreign Ministers shall or shall not 
 be received. It is by the exercise of some one 
 of these powers, in neither of which has this 
 House any participation, that a foreign power 
 must be acknowledged. Then the acknowledg- 
 ment of the independence of a new power is an 
 exercise of Executive authority ; consequently, 
 for Congress to direct the Executive how he 
 shall exercise this power, is an act of usurpa- 
 tion. 
 
 To give such direction must be an act of usur- 
 pation, if it shall have any effect. Should the 
 direction be given, by adopting the proposition 
 under consideration, and have effect, then the 
 President will send a Minister to Buenos Ayres, 
 not according to his own opinion, but according 
 to the opinion of Congress. Then the Presi- 
 dent will perform his proper constitutional duties 
 as Congress shall be pleased to direct. Will not 
 this be changing the constitution, by usurpa- 
 tion? It is for the Executive branch of the 
 Government to decide to whom, and when, a 
 public Minister shall be sent. Congress under- 
 take to decide when and to whom a public 
 Minister shall be sent; is not this usurpation? 
 
 You possess the power of impeachment, and, 
 consequently, may discuss, and, by resolution, 
 express, an opinion on any past act, either of 
 the Executive or of the Judiciary ; but you have 
 no right to give a direction to either. 
 
 The President is responsible for the proper 
 execution of his constitutional powers ; he may 
 be punished for abusing them, or for neglect of 
 his duty. This House is the proper body to 
 prosecute him, if he shall fail to do his duty. 
 We are not, in like manner, responsible and 
 punishable. If we direct the President to do 
 an act, however injurious to the nation it may 
 prove, we cannot make him responsible. Is it 
 proper thus to deprive the people of the security 
 which they have reserved to themselves, in the 
 President's constitutional responsibility ?
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 163 
 
 MARCH, 1818.] 
 
 Spanish American Provinces. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 The President is re-eligible at the end of four 
 years; it is, therefore, fair that he should be 
 left free to execute his constitutional powers ; 
 that the people may be enabled to judge the 
 manner in which he has executed them. If 
 you undertake to direct the President in the 
 performance of his duties, you deprive him of 
 the merit of those acts which the people might 
 approve. Let it be supposed that the President 
 intends to do the act which it is proposed that 
 we shall direct him to do, and that the act is 
 one which deserves, and -will receive, the ap- 
 probation of the people. If you shall direct 
 him to do the act, his performance of it will be 
 ascribed to your direction, and all the credit 
 due to the act will be given to you, and with- 
 held from the President. On the contrary, 
 should the President disapprove of the proposed 
 measure, resist the usurpation, and maintain 
 his constitutional rights, the consequence must 
 be, that either the President or Congress must 
 sink in the estimation of the people. 
 
 By adopting the proposition under considera- 
 tion, you will pronounce to the world, that the 
 President will not voluntarily do his duty ; and 
 that it has become necessary that you, by 
 directing, should compel him. You certainly 
 intend that your direction shall have effect, and 
 it can have no effect, unless it compels the 
 President to do an act which otherwise he would 
 not have done. You do not intend merely to 
 place Congress in collision with the President ; 
 to raise an opposition to him, in case he shall have 
 firmness enough to maintain his constitutional 
 rights, and to act according to his own views of 
 the interests of the United States. 
 
 The people have, by the constitution, distrib- 
 uted distinct powers to the several departments 
 of the Government : the Executive power they 
 have confided to the President, either alone, or 
 by and with the advice and consent of the Sen- 
 ate; they have adopted a particular mode of 
 electing the President, intended to secure to 
 the office of Chief Magistrate the greatest wis- 
 dom, knowledge, patriotism, and integrity. 
 They have .1 right to the free and voluntary 
 services of the citizen whom they have selected, 
 as possessing those qualities, to fill the Presi- 
 dential Chair ; a right to all the advantages to 
 be derived from his talents and his information. 
 And at no time has the Executive department 
 of this Government more deserved the public 
 confidence than at present. At no moment 
 since the formation of the constitution, did the 
 Cabinet possess, in so great a degree, the quali- 
 ties which a Cabinet ought to possess, viz: 
 talents, knowledge, political information, and 
 harmony. 
 
 Yet, at the very moment when the President 
 has his agents in those countries, which claim 
 to be admitted to the rank of nations, for the 
 purpose of ascertaining their true situation, and 
 to discover what order of things will probably 
 be ultimately established, it is proposed that you 
 shall prematurely interfere, and that, before the 
 desirable information has been obtained in sucl 
 
 a mode as may be relied on, you shall, on such 
 information as the Speaker (Mr. CLAY) has 
 gleaned from newspapers and pamphlets, direct 
 the President to send a Minister to Buenos 
 Ayres. Should your interference be at any 
 ;ime expedient, certainly this is the most im- 
 proper time to interfere. The want of informa- 
 tion on this subject has been fully shown by 
 this discussion. No one will pretend that the 
 members of this House generally are "well in- 
 formed concerning the actual and political state 
 of the Spanish provinces, and the contradictory 
 nature of the information given to the com- 
 mittee, by those members who have taken pains 
 to procure information, proves that we have 
 none that is worthy of being relied on. 
 
 It is by the President only that the United 
 States communicate, negotiate, and treat, with 
 foreign nations. To them, as has been properly 
 observed by the gentleman from. South Caroli- 
 na, (Mr. LOWNDES,) we should present a single 
 front. The measure proposed seems, in itself, 
 of little importance ; but it will be understood 
 by the speeches of the honorable mover, and 
 others by whom it is supported. Thus under- 
 stood, the proposition goes to degrade your 
 President in the eyes of foreign nations. If 
 Congress shall assume power to direct the Pres- 
 ident, this House becomes the efficient Execu- 
 tive. "Who would be President on such condi- 
 tions? 
 
 I proceed to show that the conduct of the 
 Executive, as relates to Spain and the provinces, 
 has been impartial, honorable, and such as com- 
 ported with the true interest of the United 
 States. 
 
 The honorable Speaker has been pleased to 
 say, that the conduct of the Executive towards 
 Spain and the provinces was calculated to irri- 
 tate both parties, and conciliate neither. This 
 brings to our recollection what he said on a for- 
 mer occasion that the acts of the Executive 
 had been all on one side, and bearing entirely 
 against the colonists. This charge, which has 
 never been answered, was made by a gentle- 
 man whose assertion will be respected as au- 
 thority throughout Europe, as well as through- 
 out this country, by those who do not examine 
 for themselves. 
 
 If we examine those acts of the Executive 
 which have any bearing on the contest between 
 Spain and the colonies, it will be found, that the 
 greater number was favorable to the patriots ; 
 and those were the result of the free will and 
 discretion of the Executive, while the acts com- 
 plained of, which have had a bearing against 
 the patriots, were performed by the Executive 
 in obedience to the laws, and were not the re- 
 sult of the exercise of discretion. 
 
 The acts of the Executive of the United States 
 favorable to the Spanish provinces, I will notice 
 in the order of time. 
 
 In Mr. Madison's Message of November, 1811, 
 we find this passage: "An enlarged philan- 
 thropy, and an enlightened forecast, concur in 
 imposing on the National Councils an obligation
 
 164 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 Spanish American Provinces. 
 
 [MARCH, 1818. 
 
 to take a deep interest in their destinies; to 
 cherish reciprocal sentiments of good will ; to 
 regard the progress of events ; and not to be 
 unprepared for whatever order of things may 
 be ultimately established." Here is a voluntary 
 act, favorable to the cause of the provinces ; 
 and this recommendation was followed by an 
 act of Congress giving a considerable sum to 
 the people of Venezuela. 
 
 The next act favorable to the provinces, was 
 the issuing by Mr. Madison to the collector of 
 the customs instructions to admit the flag of 
 the provinces; by which their ships became 
 entitled, in the ports of the United States, to 
 every privilege granted to the ships of other 
 foreign powers. The President was at liberty 
 to have considered the patriots as rebels against 
 their Sovereign, and to exclude their flag from 
 our ports ; or to consider them as a party in a 
 civil war, and as such to admit their flag into 
 our ports ; he decided favorably to the patriots, 
 and admitted their flag. 
 
 The next act of the Executive, favorable to 
 the Spanish provinces, was the declaration by 
 the present Chief Magistrate, that those prov- 
 inces are parties to a civil war, in which their 
 rights, as relates to neutrals, are equal to the 
 rights of Spain ; the President thus looking on 
 the independence of the provinces as actually 
 existing. 
 
 The next Executive act which has a bearing 
 favorable to the provinces, was the construc- 
 tion given by the President to the law of March, 
 1817", respecting the neutral duties of the United 
 States. That act, in consequence of the omis- 
 sion of the words " district, colony, or people," 
 in one of its sections, perhaps admitted of a con- 
 struction that would have denied to the patriots 
 equal rights with the subjects of Spain in the 
 ports of the United States. We have employed 
 some time on a bill intended to remedy the de- 
 fect ; but the construction given by the Presi- 
 dent to the act of March, 1817, had rendered its 
 operation perfectly equal as related to Spain and 
 the provinces, so far as the Executive authority 
 is concerned. In a letter written by the Secre- 
 tary of the Treasury, which may be considered 
 as official, is this paragraph : " Having declared 
 that the flags of Spain and of independent Gov- 
 ernments established in Spanish America should 
 be treated in the same manner in the ports of 
 the United States; the Executive authority 
 would not hesitate to consider the flag of Ven- 
 ezuela that of a foreign State, within the mean- 
 ing of the fourth section of the act." 
 
 The last act that I shall mention, manifestly 
 favorable to the provinces, is the act of sending 
 commissioners to ascertain what is their situa- 
 tion; to prevent misunderstandings; to correct 
 errors ; perhaps to redress past grievances, and 
 prevent tiueir recurrence in future. 
 
 These various acts of the Executive, having a 
 bearing favorable to the patriots, and all of 
 them resulting from the discretion of the Ex- 
 ecutive, were overlooked by the Speaker, when 
 he said that the acts of the Executive were all 
 
 on one side, and bearing entirely against the 
 colonists. 
 
 Let us now examine those acts of the Execu- 
 tive of which the Speaker complains as having 
 so unfavorable a bearing against the patriots. 
 These are, the proclamation of Mr. Madison, 
 issued for the purpose of dispersing the armed 
 force collected under Toledo, in violation of the 
 law of the United States ; and the suppression 
 by the President of the establishment at Amelia 
 Island, made by McGregor, with a force unlaw- 
 fully prepared within the United States, and 
 maintained by Aury, who pretended to act un- 
 der the authority of Mexico, New Grenada, and 
 Venezuela. 
 
 As to the proclamation which was issued for 
 dispersing the armed force collected under To- 
 ledo, it will be remembered that President Mad- 
 ison was sworn faithfully to execute his office, 
 the chief duty of which is to take care that the 
 laws be faithfully executed. An act provides 
 that when the execution of the laws of the Unit- 
 ed States is opposed or obstructed by combina- 
 tions too powerful to be suppressed by the or- 
 dinary course of judicial proceedings, the Pres- 
 ident may call forth the militia ; but he shall 
 by proclamation command those who thus op- 
 pose or obstruct the laws, to retire peaceably to 
 their respective abodes, within a limited time. 
 The force collected by Toledo came within the 
 meaning of the law ; and Mr. Madison had no 
 discretion to exercise. The law pointed out his 
 duty, and he performed it. 
 
 The suppression of the establishment made 
 by McGregor, and continued by Aury at Amelia 
 Island, was required by the interests and the 
 honor of the United States. The world knew 
 that the Executive was authorized to take East 
 Florida against any foreign power. Those who 
 follow the profession of arms, must either be 
 robbers or pirates, or they must have some 
 power. The friends of Aury will not admit 
 that he was a pirate; then they must contend 
 that he served a foreign power. Let us admit 
 that Aury served the Republic of Venezuela, a 
 power whose flag is admitted into the ports of 
 the United States, under the laws respecting 
 the vessels of foreign powers. If Venezuela 
 had been formally acknowledged as an independ- 
 ent State, the act of 1811 authorizes the Pres- 
 ident to occupy Florida against the attempt of 
 Venezuela to take possession of it; and the 
 want of such formal acknowledgment cannot 
 diminish the rights of the United States. It 
 being the duty of the President to execute the 
 laws, and the case contemplated by the act of 
 1811 having happened, a foreign power having 
 attempted to take possession of Florida, and 
 having in execution of that attempt made an 
 establishment at Amelia Island, the President 
 was bound to suppress the establishment main- 
 tained there by Aury. 
 
 Had no such law existed, the conduct of the 
 President would have been worthy of approba- 
 tion. A nation has a right to protect itself 
 from the evils of bad neighborhoods. Upon
 
 DEBATES OP CONGRESS. 
 
 165 
 
 MARCH, 1818.] 
 
 Spanish American Provinces. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 this principle it was that the act for taking pos- 
 session of East Florida was passed. So when 
 Louisiana was transferred from Spain to France, 
 our Minister at Paris most seriously remon- 
 strated against the occupation of that country 
 by the forces of Napoleon ; and many of our 
 distinguished politicians urged the expediency 
 of taking Louisiana by war, rather tban admit 
 a dangerous neighbor to come there. Perhaps 
 Louisiana might have been obtained by war, at 
 an expense of one hundred and fifty millions ; 
 but the wisdom and moderation of Mr. Jefferson 
 obtained it by purchase for the tenth part of the 
 sum. It was to preserve herself from the evils 
 of bad neighborhood that Prussia involved her- 
 self in war, first with Great Britain and after- 
 wards with France, rather than have French 
 troops in possession of Hanover. Is there any 
 nation more interested in avoiding neighbors 
 of a certain description than the United States ? 
 Would it be safe to allow Florida to be revolu- 
 tionized by black troops ? We have said, and 
 I presume will continue to say, that no power 
 except Spain shall come there. 
 
 I have shown that the conduct of the Execu- 
 tive, as respects Spain and her American pos- 
 sessions, has been impartial. The honorable 
 member did not indeed say that it was partial ; 
 but he could not be understood as meaning 
 any thing else, when the acts of the Executive 
 were all on one side, bearing entirely against 
 the colonists. I will now proceed to show that 
 the conduct of the Executive, as respects those 
 parties, has been most honorable. 
 
 I have said, sir, that the measure proposed is 
 pregnant with evil, and may jeopardize the 
 safety of the United States. I hope and trust 
 that we are able to resist any combination that 
 may be formed against us, even at this time. 
 I am confidently certain, that in twenty years 
 we shall be able to set at defiance the power 
 of the world: and in a century we shall be 
 able to give it laws. I therefore, deem it most 
 important, that we should let the present mo- 
 ment of peril pass away ; that we should gain 
 time, and go on to improve our resources by 
 the acts of peace. 
 
 If any event can jeopardize our safety, it is a 
 war with the combined powers of Europe at 
 this time. Sir, if a hundred measures were de- 
 vised for the purpose of destroying our national 
 existence, and this was among them, it would 
 be the very measure that I should deem most 
 likely to succeed. If there is a measure, the 
 adoption of which can produce such an event, 
 it is one which shall amount to a declaration 
 that we are the patrons of revolutions ; one, by 
 which we shall proclaim, that, wherever a prov- 
 ince shall make insurrection against the au- 
 thority of the parent country, we will consider 
 it our business and duty to take the new people 
 by the hand and introduce them into the family 
 of nations. 
 
 Sir, the coalition still hangs together. And 
 what is their common bond of union ? It is the 
 cause of legitimacy the cause of hereditary 
 
 thrones. The combined powers have proven, 
 that they do not mean to confine their views to 
 Europe, by interfering in the controversy be- 
 tween the Courts of Spain and Brazil. Is it 
 not the object of their holy leagues to bring 
 back mankind to the state of mental darkness 
 in which they were for ages subsequent to the 
 reign of Constantino? Has not Great Britain 
 signified to you, that the Mississippi ought to 
 be your boundary ? Has not France done the 
 same ? Has not Spain claimed that boundary ? 
 Do not these circumstances indicate concert be- 
 tween those powers? Shall we then, at such a 
 time, do an act utterly useless to us, equally 
 useless to Buenos Ayres, (for the Speaker ad- 
 mits, that there can be no concert between us, 
 and that we have not the means to aid her ;) an 
 act, the effect of which will be to bring Con- 
 gress and the President into collision ; which 
 act may by any possibility, however remote, 
 involve us in a contest with the combined 
 European powers? 
 
 Mr. TUCKER, of Virginia, said, that at this 
 late period of the discussion, he could only 
 claim the indulgence of the committee upon a 
 principle, which never failed to secure to those 
 who asked it their patient attention. He found 
 that upon this occasion, he should be in a small 
 minority of the delegation from his own State, 
 and was, therefore, peculiarly solicitous of ex- 
 plaining the reasons of his differing from his 
 honorable colleagues, for whose opinions he 
 felt the greatest respect and deference. There 
 was, indeed, another reason of no tless impor- 
 tance. This proposition had been supported 
 upon a variety of principles, and by various ar- 
 guments : nor would gentlemen be surprised to 
 learn that his own views of a subject, which 
 had so many aspects, had not been exactly pre- 
 sented, when they recur to the fact, that 
 scarcely any two persons, who had spoken on 
 this occasion, had entirely coincided. The 
 honorable Speaker had declared himself for 
 this proposition, but was opposed to war or the 
 occupation of Florida. The gentleman from 
 Georgia is against this proposition, but is in 
 favor of the occupation of Florida. My friend 
 from Louisiana is in favor of both ; and my 
 friend from South Carolina (Mr. LOWXDES) is in 
 favor of neither. Among these various opin- 
 ions, I am inclined to the adoption of this pro- 
 position, though I coincide otherwise entirely 
 in the pacific policy of the chairman of the 
 Committee of Ways and Means; an opinion 
 which I shall probably endeavor to support 
 upon grounds considerably different from those 
 which have been advanced by the Speaker. 
 
 Sir, I have said, on a former occasion, that I 
 am opposed to involving the nation in war, un- 
 less a great and important occasion shall re- 
 quire it. I have said, that I am unwilling to 
 entangle ourselves in the contest now raging 
 between Spain and the provinces of South 
 America, but, that I would maintain an honor- 
 able, impartial, and dignified neutrality. I am 
 opposed to war, because I see no adequate ad-
 
 166 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 Spanish American Provinces. 
 
 [MARCH, 1818. 
 
 vantages to be derived from it ; because the oc- 
 casion does not seem to justify so important 
 and momentous a measure ; because the amount 
 of the losses for which we seek indemnity, and 
 of the property we wish to get possession of, 
 bears no comparison with the hazards which 
 we must encounter, whenever we engage in 
 war; and, because I conceive a state of war al- 
 ways replete with danger to the principles of 
 our constitution. It has long been my settled 
 and deliberate opinion, that nothing is so apt to 
 sap the foundation of our liberties as frequent 
 wars. Every laurel that we gain is at the haz- 
 ard of some principle of free government ; every 
 field that we win endangers some part of our 
 constitution. The urgency must, therefore, be 
 pressing, the necessity imperious, which drives 
 us to war ; and, were I less convinced than the 
 gentleman from South Carolina, of the unprofit- 
 able results of a Spanish war in other respects, 
 the consideration I have mentioned would suf- 
 fice to dissuade me from giving my voice for 
 waging it in the present state of things. 
 
 But, sir, while opposed to war ; while averse 
 to every measure which will probably lead to it, 
 and which the honor and interest of the nation 
 does not require, I have said tiiat I would pre- 
 serve a strict, impartial, and dignified neutrality ; 
 and I do most sincerely believe, that, in the pur- 
 suit of this end, the measure under considera- 
 tion ought to be adopted. 
 
 I cannot but regret, Mr. Chairman, the man- 
 ner in which this proposition has been discussed, 
 and the remarks that have been introduced by 
 its opposers. I allude to the harsh expressions 
 that have been used in speaking of these un- 
 happy people, who have long been struggling 
 to throw off the most galling yoke, the most 
 hateful slavery that has ever yet tortured and 
 degraded man. The honorable gentleman from 
 Georgia tells ns, that he sympathizes in their 
 cause, and earnestly wishes for their success. 
 I doubt not his sincerity. Yet I would appeal 
 to every member of the committee, whether 
 the harsh colors in which he has represented" 
 them, and the dark picture he has drawn of 
 their ignorance and depravity, is calculated to 
 transfuse into other bosoms the sympathy of 
 his own. I will appeal to himself whether his 
 glowing language is likely to win us to their 
 cause, and to disseminate, through the nation, 
 an interest in their prosperity, when he repre- 
 sented them as having lit the torch of revolu- 
 tion, without possessing a sentiment of liberty ; 
 with conducting it by massacres and enormities, 
 which render them unworthy of freedom ; and 
 with terminating it in a tyranny, not inferior to 
 that which they have overthrown. According 
 to this view of the subject, their Revolution has 
 commenced in ignorance; its course has been 
 stained by murder ; its end has been the sub- 
 jugation of the people; and we should feel not 
 one emotion of pity for their sufferings, or of 
 solicitude for their welfare. Sir, I am aware 
 that this course of remark was, in some meas- 
 ure, drawn from the gentleman by the observa- 
 
 tions of the Speaker. But, while he protests 
 against the comparison of the patriots with the 
 heroes of our Revolution, he might have spared 
 them, at least, the contrast which he has so 
 vividly drawn. He tells us that they hugged 
 their chains, and loved the tyranny ; and that 
 the origin of their Revolution had no founda- 
 tion in the principles of freedom. He does not 
 attend sufficiently, I think, to the nature of rev- 
 olution, or sufficiently consider the situation of 
 this people. "What would be said of that man, 
 who, turning over the pages of our history, 
 should charge the sages and patriots of our 
 Revolution with hugging their chains and lov- 
 ing their tyranny, because of the repeated and 
 loyal remonstrances and memorials presented 
 to the Crown ? What should we think of the 
 statesman, who, looking only to the surface of 
 things, should attribute our glorious struggle to 
 a mean and mercenary spirit, which revolted 
 only at a twelvepenny stamp, or a trivial duty 
 on a pound of tea? Sir, those who sat at the 
 helm were men of profound wisdom and politi- 
 cal sagacity ; deeply versed in the knowledge 
 of their rights as freemen, and intimately ac- 
 quainted with the principles of human action ; 
 and, in conducting us over the tempestuous 
 ocean of revolution, they looked with a steady 
 eye to the liberties of their country, while they 
 availed themselves of all these popular breezes, 
 to waft the vessel of state into the haven of 
 freedom and independence. Such may be the 
 case with the Revolution of the Spanish prov- 
 inces. We are too imperfectly acquainted with 
 the facts which led to their convulsion to pro- 
 nounce them destitute of the noble principles of 
 liberty. 
 
 Nor are sufficient allowances made for the 
 situation of these unhappy people for many cen- 
 turies. Two or three hundred years have they 
 been groaning under a tyranny the most op- 
 pressive that has ever overwhelmed a wretched 
 people. Nothing parallel to the misery and 
 slavery of Spanish America can be found in the 
 annals of the inhabitable globe. It has been 
 governed with an iron rod, by monarchs who 
 have been most distinguished always by what- 
 ever is most horrible in tyranny, most detesta- 
 ble in bigotry, and most contemptible in imbe- 
 cility. They have been involved, for centuries, 
 in the deepest gloom of ignorance and super- 
 stition, into which it is the interest of tyrants 
 forever to plunge the victims of their power. 
 And when, at length, a beam of liberty has 
 pierced the cloud which has so long benighted 
 them, shall we be surprised that it has not, in a 
 moment, dispelled the darkness, and spread 
 abroad, throughout their land, the splendor of 
 the meridian sun ? Let us rather rejoice that 
 light hath broken in upon them, and look with 
 confidence to yet brighter moments. Let us 
 remember that the throes of revolution are 
 most violent where the mind has been least en- 
 lightened, nor wonder that, in the struggle to 
 throw off the Spanish yoke, greater outrages 
 should be committed than in our own Revolu-
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 167 
 
 MARCH, 1818.] 
 
 Spanish, American Provinces. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 tion. We are told of the massacres of their 
 enemies, and the enormities of their Revolution. 
 Unfortunately these are evils, too, necessarily 
 connected with civil war. Even we were not 
 without them. The Carolinas were the scene, 
 during our Revolution, of events that we shud- 
 der to recollect. Brother was armed against 
 brother neighbor against neighbor. Our foe, 
 too, was generous and merciful, compared with 
 the cruel and unrelenting tyrants of those 
 wretched and struggling people. Yes, sir, the 
 cruelties perpetrated on the Spanish patriots by 
 the inhuman monsters who seek their subjuga- 
 tion, cannot find a parallel in the annals of na- 
 tions, if you except the history of Spain herself. 
 Tear but away the page in which her bloody 
 deeds are recorded, and you will find no paral- 
 lel to her late enormities. She is, indeed, " her 
 only parallel." And is it to be expected that, 
 in u war like this, forbearance can be found 
 among those who are goaded into madness by 
 treachery and cold-blooded massacre? It is 
 impossible ! 
 
 Sir, it is for these struggling people that I 
 own my sympathies are excited. I am not 
 ashamed to avow them. I know it is not very 
 fashionable to declaim in favor of liberty, and 
 had I the disposition and the talent I should be 
 saved the effort by the nervous eloquence of the 
 gentleman who spoke on yesterday, (Mr. ROB- 
 ERTSON.) I always listen to him with pleasure, 
 but on yesterday with delight. His speech was 
 dictated by a Roman spirit and a genuine re- 
 publicanism a republicanism that knows no 
 change ; which, during the lapse of nearly thirty 
 years that I have known him, has remained un- 
 altered and unimpaired. 
 
 There is, Mr. Chairman, another course of re- 
 mark that I cannot but regret on this occasion. 
 It has been said that this proposition implies a 
 censure on the Executive. I am well aware 
 that the gentleman from South Carolina did not 
 mean to intimate any thing personal by the re- 
 mark. Yet it cannot but have its effect. 
 
 [Mr. LOWNDES rose and explained, saying 
 that, as he frequently differed from the Execu- 
 tive himself, he could not disapprove a similar 
 freedom of opinion in others.] Mr. TUCKEB 
 continued 
 
 The explanation of the gentleman was unne- 
 cessary. His uniform urbanity furnished a suf- 
 ficient assurance that the remark was not in- 
 tended with any personal view. But, though 
 this is the case, yet the intimation that the pro- 
 position is not in consonance with Executive 
 opinion is not without effect. The high stand- 
 ing and commanding talents of the gentleman 
 may render it personally unimportant to him, 
 whether his course conflicts with Executive 
 opinion or not. It is not always so with others. 
 The Executive branch of the Government, 
 though it possesses not a very extensive direct 
 influence, is vastly powerful iu its indirect and 
 reflected influence over this body. Elected by 
 the suffrages of the whole nation, there are 
 many who look upon him as the Northern Star 
 
 of the political firmament, which alone preserves 
 its place in the heavens, " fixed and unshaked 
 of motion ; " and by him they discern the aber- 
 rations of the lesser constellations of the system. 
 I will not pretend to say that to a certain extent 
 this may not have its advantages ; but this I 
 can venture to advance, that he who acts with 
 candor and frankness, and with a sole view to 
 the honor and interest of the nation, will not 
 fail to receive approbation rather than censure 
 for his frankness and independence. Our con- 
 stituents will deal liberally by us so long as our 
 motives are pure ; and by this standard I am 
 willing to bo tried whenever I am found in col- 
 lision with the Executive. But to whom are 
 we to look on the present occasion in order to 
 discern its opinions ? To either of the two hon- 
 orable chairmen, from whom we might most 
 reasonably expect such information ? No ; they 
 differ with each other. And the occupation of 
 Florida, which one of them proposes, seems 
 generally to be supposed at variance with the 
 Cabinet opinion. Thus situated, I beg leave not 
 only to disregard the intimation that this meas- 
 ure implies censure, but I utterly disavow and 
 disclaim, on my part, any such idea. So far 
 from it, that, according to my notion of things, 
 the vote which I shall give will be founded on 
 principles that confirm the propriety of the 
 course pursued by the Government. What is 
 the character of the proposition ? It appropri- 
 ates the usual sum for the outfit and salary of a 
 Minister, for the purpose of sending a represent- 
 ative of this Government to Buenos Ayres, 
 whenever the Executive, in the exercise of its 
 constitutional discretion, shall think it advisa- 
 ble. It commands nothing, but it intimates, in 
 a proper and constitutional manner, the readi- 
 ness of this House to go hand in hand with the 
 Executive in the interesting measure of opening 
 an intercourse with the Government of La 
 Plata, by sending and receiving Ministers. It 
 is in this way, and in this way only, that I un- 
 derstand the proposition. Is there any direct 
 censure of the Executive here ? Not at all. Is 
 there any implied? A construction which 
 would give to it this character must be forced 
 and unnatural. It is only upon the hypothesis 
 of the gentleman from South Carolina that such 
 a construction has the air of plausibility. He 
 tells us that, as the Executive have the power, 
 this House ought not to interfere, unless there 
 has been culpable negligence in its exercise; 
 unless there has been unreasonable delay in 
 sending a Minister to a foreign power. If his 
 doctrine be admitted as a general rule, yet cases 
 like the present must form an exception to it. 
 There is an evident distinction between sending 
 Ministers to old-established Governments, and 
 sending a Minister for the first time to a new 
 Government, separating itself from one to which 
 it had formerly been attached. The one leads 
 to no dangerous results ; the other, we are told 
 by gentlemen, will put to hazard the peace of 
 the country. You may send a Minister to Tur- 
 key or to Italy, to Denmark or to Austria,
 
 168 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R] 
 
 Spanish American Provinces. 
 
 [MARCH, 1818. 
 
 without offending any one. But we are told 
 that if we send a Minister to La Plata, we shall 
 involve ourselves in a quarrel with Spain. Be 
 it so. Is it not, then, a sufficient reason for the 
 expression of the opinion of this House, the im- 
 mediate representative of the people the con- 
 stitutional organ for declaring war that a con- 
 templated measure may lead to a state of war ? 
 Is it fair to expect the Executive branch of the 
 Government to assume, alone, the responsibility 
 of a measure involving such momentous conse- 
 quences, while we stand silently by, unwilling 
 to share the hazard of expressing an opinion ? 
 Or, is it consistent with the spirit of our consti- 
 tution, that the Executive should pursue a 
 course which leads to hostilities, without an in- 
 timation of the opinion and wishes of the nation, 
 expressed through the legislative body, on so 
 important a concern ? I think not, sir ; and so 
 far from censuring the forbearance of the Exec- 
 utive, hitherto to send a Minister to La Plata, 
 I applaud it ; because, although I do not think 
 it would give just cause of war, yet, as it might 
 lead to a rupture with Spain, a proper respect 
 for the rights of this body required that they 
 should await its opinion on the subject. Nor 
 ought they to send a Minister, or to receive one, 
 without the sanction of the legislative body, 
 until the lapse of time or the acquiescence of 
 Spain shall have removed every hazard of hos- 
 tility. It is, then, with a view of expressing, 
 at this time, our willingness to go hand in hand 
 with the Executive in this affair, whenever it 
 shall think it advisable to act, that I shall give 
 my support to this proposition. 
 
 But, gentlemen seem to consider this an in- 
 terference with the constitutional powers of 
 the Executive. I do not think so. This House 
 has at all times, and on all subjects, a right to 
 declare its opinions, leaving to the Executive to 
 act upon them or not, according to its pleasure. 
 Nay, it has often done more. Wherever the 
 act to be done by the Executive has been inti- 
 mately connected with the constitutional pow- 
 ers of this body, it has always deemed itself 
 competent to act. Thus, before the treaty for 
 the purchase of Louisiana was made, $2,000,000 
 were put at the disposal of the Government for 
 a purchase of Southern territory. Here there 
 was an act perfectly analogous. This body had 
 no right to make a purchase, or to command 
 the President to do so ; but, as the purchase, if 
 made, would have called upon the legislative 
 body for an appropriation, it was thought ad- 
 visable to make it beforehand, and thus indicate 
 a correspondence of views on a subject, where 
 correspondence was necessary. Could it have 
 been said at this time, that the Executive were 
 censured by Congress for delaying to make a 
 purchase the interest of the nation called for ? 
 Could it then have been objected that we were 
 trenching upon the constitutional powers of the 
 Executive ? Could it have been alleged to be 
 useless and frivolous, because the Executive 
 could make the purchase without a law ? If 
 not, neither can it be said now. The act of the 
 
 Executive there would only have called for a 
 small appropriation. The act of the Executive 
 here might have the effect of a declaration of 
 war, which it is within the constitutional pow- 
 ers of the legislative body alone to make. It 
 would appear to me indeed of the utmost im- 
 portance, that this correspondence of viewa 
 should be preserved between these two branches 
 of the Government. How embarrassing to the 
 Executive must it be, if, after a treaty has been 
 made calling for a large appropriation, this 
 body should refuse to make it, and to sanction a 
 contract entered into with a foreign State. How 
 much more embarrassing if, in the exercise of 
 its constitutional powers, the Executive should 
 involve the nation in a war against the wishes 
 of its Representatives. The jarring and confu- 
 sion, and inefficiency that would result, might 
 have the most fatal influence on the national 
 success. No, sir, frankness and candor, and a 
 free and unreserved communication of the feel- 
 ings and opinions of each by the other, can 
 never have any other than the happiest influ- 
 ence upon the National Councils. 
 
 The propriety of an expression of an opinion 
 by this House on important occasions being es- 
 tablished, it behooves us to consider the neces- 
 sity of an interference at this time. Although 
 we cannot perhaps speak very certainly of the 
 situation of the Spanish provinces, yet no doubt 
 can exist that a civil war is at this time raging 
 between the colonies and the mother country. 
 Nor can there be more reason to doubt that the 
 power de facto in the Spanish province of Bue- 
 nos Ayres is in the hands of the revolutionary 
 patriots. And what is the principle of the law 
 of nations applicable to this state of things? 
 It is, that all foreign nations have a right to 
 consider the two contending parties as two in- 
 dependent nations in all respects ; that foreign 
 nations have no right to judge which party is in 
 the right, are justified in looking no farther 
 than to the possession of the power, and in con- 
 sidering those who are possessed of the power, 
 de facto, as the Government of the country. It 
 is a wise and natural principle of the law of na- 
 tions. It flows from the source of all national 
 law : the rights of nations to protect themselves 
 and to seek their own advantage without injury 
 to others. Nations, it is said, treat and com- 
 municate with each other to procure commer- 
 cial and other benefits; to obtain redress for 
 injuries sustained, or to provide against their 
 occurrence. It matters not to the neutral na- 
 tion whether the parties at war are right or 
 wrong ; it may be its interest to make arrange- 
 ments with both ; it may be necessary to treat 
 and communicate with each, to obtain satisfac- 
 tion for wrongs, or to regulate their intercourse 
 so as to prevent those infractions of neutral 
 right so common in a state of war. In this 
 view, it is only important to the neutral that 
 the parties are possessed of the physical power 
 of doing injuries or conferring benefits. With a 
 people possessed of the physical power, or power 
 defaclo, though in a state of civil war, the laws
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 MARCH, 1818.] 
 
 History of Congreu. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 of nations admit the neutral to communicate as 
 with an independent power. They consider 
 them in all respects as sovereign for the time 
 being, and of course they justify communications 
 with them by Ministers. If it were otherwise, 
 nations at peace might suffer the direst wrongs 
 from the parties in a civil war, without the 
 possibility of redress, since the only way of de- 
 inanding'it is by Ministers. 
 
 An application of these principles to our own 
 case will show the reasonableness of the rule. 
 Spain and her colonies are at war ; should they 
 continue hostile (as Spain did with the Nether- 
 lands for half a century, without acknowledg- 
 ing their independence, though they were com- 
 pletely sovereign) can it be believed that, 
 according to the laws of nations, all other pow- 
 ers are to be debarred of the advantages of 
 trade and commerce which they hold out? 
 And how shall treaties of commerce be made 
 without Ministers? Or, suppose the Republic 
 of La Plata cruises on our commerce, or takes 
 our shipping under illegal blockades, or attempts 
 to enforce improper laws of contraband, or 
 throws our citizens into dungeons, (as Spain 
 has done with Mr. Meade,) shall we have no re- 
 dress ? Can we not demand satisfaction ; the 
 release of our property ; the discharge of our 
 citizens; and compensation for the injury? 
 And how is this to be done without a Minister ? 
 And if through a Minister you make this de- 
 mand, is it not a demand upon them as sover- 
 eigns for the time being? You have sent 
 agents, or whatever they are called (for gen- 
 tlemen do not seem to agree by what name 
 they are to be styled ; they seem to be consid- 
 ered at present a sort of nondescripts) and it 
 is contended that they are not Ministers, nor 
 invested with the mantle of ministerial inviola- 
 bility suppose they are seized and confined as 
 spies ? will you have no right to send and de- 
 mand their release ? And if you send another 
 representative, shall he, too, be unprotected by 
 the laws of nations ? or will you send a Minis- 
 ter whom, on the principles of all civilized peo- 
 ple, they will be bound to respect ? The latter 
 assuredly the laws of nations would justify 
 you, and Spain would have no right to com- 
 plain ; because, although the mission would ac- 
 knowledge the existence of civil war, and that 
 the power to whom you sent, held for the time 
 being the power de facto, it would decide noth- 
 ing as to the rights of the parties or the j ustice 
 of their cause ; and so long as the neutral avoids 
 this, so long is the belligerent without just cause 
 of complaint. 
 
 The debate here terminated ; and, the ques- 
 tion being taken, by yeas and nays, on agreeing 
 to the proposition of Mr. CLAY to insert in the 
 general appropriation bill a provision for an out- 
 tit and one year's salary for a Minister to the 
 United Provinces of La Plata, it was decided in 
 the negative. For the motion 45, against it 
 115. 
 
 MONDAY, March 30. 
 History of Congress. 
 
 Mr. ROBERTSON, of Louisiana, from the 
 committee appointed on the petition of Gales 
 & Seaton, made a report thereon, which was 
 read ; when Mr. R. reported a bill authorizing 
 a subscription to the History of Congress, which 
 was read twice, and committed to the Commit- 
 tee of the Whole, to which is committed the 
 bill to provide for the publication of the laws 
 of the United States, and for other purposes. 
 The report is as follows: 
 
 The committee to whom was referred the memorial 
 of Gales & Seaton, report : That the memorialists 
 are engaged in publishing a history of the Congress of 
 the United States, from the commencement of the 
 Government to the present day, and a continuation of 
 the same history, to keep pace with the present and 
 future transactions of that body. The memorialists 
 solicit the aid of the Government in this their labori- 
 ous and expensive undertaking. The committee are 
 fully impressed with the importance of this work. 
 Nothing can be more useful than a correct legisla- 
 tive history of the United States. It is a source of 
 much regret that one has not heretofore existed ; and 
 now, that it is proposed to be published, there can 
 be no hesitation in giving it encouragement. The 
 views and opinions of the great actors on the theatre 
 of government, are not less necessary to be known 
 than their acts themselves. The utility of judicial 
 reports is very generally admitted ; and if the reasons 
 of the judge ought to accompany his exposition of 
 the law, how much more proper is it that this should 
 be the case in respect to the views of the legislator, 
 the author of the law itself. To a right understand- 
 ing of statutes, nothing is more essential than a 
 knowledge of the causes and motives which produced 
 their enactment ; and this can in no way be so satis- 
 factorily obtained as by a resort to contemporaneous 
 debate. 
 
 That the aid of Congress is necessary to this work, 
 arises out of the great labor and expense attending 
 it, whilst, at the same time, no adequate remunera- 
 tion can be expected from its sale. The agricul- 
 turist, the merchant, the mechanic, and the physician, 
 who purchase other books, will feel comparatively 
 but little interest in this, however useful it may be 
 to the politician, the historian, and the law-giver. 
 The work will not afford amusement to the general 
 reader ; but without it the archives of the nation 
 are defective. 
 
 Congress has not been backward in giving aid to 
 publications of a similar character. Of the new edi- 
 tion of the laws of the United States, a subscription 
 was directed of one thousand copies, before the work 
 was commenced. Three or four hundred have been 
 since purchased of that work, and it is now proposed 
 to purchase eight hundred copies more. A subscrip- 
 tion was, in like manner, authorized to Wait's edition 
 of the public documents, and it is further proposed to 
 purchase an equal number of copies of an additional 
 volume of that work, about to be published. Tho 
 policy is not less just than liberal, which provides for 
 the widest attainable diffusion of whatever concerns 
 the development of thp springs and principles of our 
 Government. 
 
 With such views it is, that at the present session, 
 the publication of the journals of the Convention, and
 
 170 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OP R.] 
 
 Sword to Colonel Johnson. 
 
 [ APRIL, 1818. 
 
 of the secret journal of the old Congress has been i to pay the claims now due at the Treasury ; 
 authorized; and, with such views, the committee ask and the second, of $200,000, to meet the de- 
 leave to report a bill " authorizing a subscription to mands that will be made under existing con- 
 
 ave to report 
 the History of Congress." 
 
 Spanish American Provinces. 
 
 Mr. ANDERSON, of Kentucky, then rose and 
 renewed the proposition unsuccessfully made in 
 Committee of the Whole by Mr. CLAY, to ap- 
 propriate a sum not exceeding $18,000 " for an 
 outfit and one year's salary of a Minister to the 
 United Provinces of the River Plata, the out- 
 fit to be paid and the salary to commence when- 
 ever the President shall deem it expedient to 
 send a Minister to the Government of the said 
 
 pro vinces. 
 
 The question was taken on the motion, and 
 decided in the negative, by yeas and nays, by 
 
 exactly the same vote as decided the question _ 
 
 in Committee of the Whole, viz: yeas 45, nays mittee of" the Whole,"on the above bill." 
 115, as follows: 
 
 existing 
 
 tracts, towards completing the Cumberland 
 road 
 
 Mr. SPENCER, of New York, rose, and moved 
 that the Committee of the whole House be dis- 
 charged from the consideration of the bill, and 
 it be postponed indefinitely. 
 
 This motion brought on a short debate on the 
 merits of the bill ; in which the postponement 
 was advocated by the mover, by Mr. BASSETT, 
 and Mr. LIVERMORE ; and opposed by Messrs. 
 TUCKER of Virginia, HARRISON, TARR, PINDALL, 
 BEECHER, TRIMBLE, MERCER, and SMITH of 
 
 Maryland. 
 
 The question on postponing the bill was final- 
 ly negatived yeas 56, nays 82. 
 
 The House then resolved itself into a Com- 
 
 YEAS. Messrs. Anderson of Pennsylvania, Ander- 
 son of Kentucky, Barber of Ohio, Bellinger, Bloom- 
 field, Blount, Boden, Claiborne, Comstock, Cook, 
 Crawford, Desha, Drake, Earle, Floyd, Gage, Har- 
 rison, Hcrkimer, Herrick, Holmes of Massachusetts, 
 Johnson of Virginia, Johnson of Kentucky, Jones, 
 Kinsey, Merrill, Murray, New, Ogle, Owen, Patter- 
 son, Porter, Quarles, Robertson of Kentucky, Robert- 
 son of Louisiana, Rogers, Shaw, Spencer, Tarr, 
 Townsend, Trimble, Tucker of Virginia, Upham, 
 Walker of North Carolina, Walker of Kentucky, and 
 Whiteside. 
 
 NAYS. Messrs. Abbott, Adams, Allen of Massa- 
 chusetts, Allen of Vermont, Austin, Baldwin, Ball, 
 Barbour of Virginia, Bassett, Bateman, Bayley, 
 Beacher, Bennett, Boss, Burwell, Butler, Campbell, 
 Clagntt, Cobb, Colston, Crafts, Cruger, Culbreth, 
 Cushman, Darlington, Edwards, P^llicott, Ervin of 
 South Carolina, Folger, Forney, Forsyth, Garnett, 
 Hall of Delaware, Hall of North Carolina, Hasbrouck, 
 Herbert, Hitchcock, Hogg, Holmes of Connecticut, 
 Hopkinson, Hubbard, Hunter, Huntington, Irving of 
 New York, Kirtland, Lawyer, Linn, Little, Livermore, 
 Lowndes, W. P. Maclay, McCoy, Marr, Mason of 
 Massachusetts, Mason of Rhode Island, Mercer, Mid- 
 dleton, Moore, Morton, Mosely, Mmnford, Jeremiah 
 Nelson, H. Nelson, Ogden, Palmer, Parrott, Pawling, 
 Pindall, Pitkin, Pleasants, Poindexter, Kead, Rhea, 
 Rice, Rich, Richards, Ringgold, Ruggles, Sampson, 
 Savage, Schuyler, Scudder, Sergeant, Settle, Sey- 
 bert, Sherwood, Silsbee, Simkins, Slocumb, S. Smith, 
 Ballard Smith, Alexander Smyth, J. S. Smith, Speed, 
 Stewart of North Carolina, Strong, Stuart of Mary- 
 land, Tallmadge, Taylor, Terrill, Terry, Tompkins, 
 Tucker of South Carolina, Tyler, Wallace, Wendover, 
 Westerlo, Whitman, Williams of Connecticut, Wil- 
 liams of New York, Williams of North Carolina, 
 Wilkin, Wilson of Massachusetts, and Wilson of 
 Pennsylvania. 
 
 The bill was then ordered to be engrossed for 
 a third reading. 
 
 TUESDAY, March 31. 
 The Cumberland Road. 
 The orders of the day being announced, on the 
 bill making appropriations \ the first, $52,984, 
 
 WEDNESDAY, April 1. 
 
 Cumberland Road. 
 
 An engrossed bill, entitled " An act making 
 further appropriations, for the construction of 
 the Cumberland road," was read the third time. 
 And on the question, u Shall it pass ?" it was de- 
 termined in the affirmative yeas 74, nays 56. 
 
 Sword to Colonel Johnson. 
 
 A resolution awarding a sword to Col. Eich- 
 ard M. Johnson, in consideration of his valor 
 and good conduct at the battle with the com- 
 bined English and Indian forces on the river 
 Thames, in Upper Canada, on the 5th of Octo- 
 ber, 1818, was read twice and put on its passage. 
 
 Mr. CLAIBORNE rose to offer an amendment to 
 the resolution. While the House was dispens- 
 ing rewards, he said, for meritorious services, he 
 wished to introduce to attention the names of 
 two other characters. One was Major General 
 Carroll, of Tennessee. That officer was engag- 
 ed in the public service from the commence- 
 ment of the late war to its glorious termination 
 at New Orleans. Mr. C. briefly recapitulated 
 some of the distinguished services which this 
 officer had rendered. He had organized the 
 force which repaired from Tennessee to the de- 
 fence of New Orleans, and which by its rapid 
 march under the direction and exertion of Gen. 
 C., had reached that place in time to save the 
 city from the enemy; and he had rendered 
 other services too prominent to need being men- 
 tioned, and which would not permit him to be 
 overlooked on this occasion. Mr. C. next men- 
 tioned Brigadier General Coffee, whose name 
 was familiar to every one. At the commence- 
 ment of the war that officer volunteered his 
 services, and by his zeal and influence induced 
 a great many others to enter the service. For 
 his merit he was promoted from captain of a 
 mounted company to the command of a bri- 
 gade ; and his gallant conduct in the Creek war, 
 at Talladega, at New Orleans, &c., had proved 
 him worthy of the distinction. Mr. C. con-
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 171 
 
 APRIL, 1818.] 
 
 Honors to the Brave. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 eluded by moving to insert the names of these 
 officers in the resolution. 
 
 Mr. POIXDEXTEB rose to second the motion 
 of the honorable member from Tennessee. The 
 distinguished services of General Carroll, from 
 the commencement of the Creek war to the 
 close of the late contest with Great Britain, 
 Mr. P. said, were known to the nation, and ap- 
 preciated by all who witnessed his meritorious 
 conduct. At the critical and interesting period, 
 when a powerful and well-disciplined army of 
 the enemy invaded the State of Louisiana, and 
 menaced the city of New Orleans, the exertions 
 of General Carroll were particularly conspicu- 
 ous, and eminently contributed to the glorious 
 result which gave security to that city and re- 
 nown to the arms of our country. The divi- 
 sion of militia from the State of Tennessee, 
 under his command, destined to participate in 
 the defence of the Southern frontier, descended 
 from Nashville to New Orleans with unexampled 
 rapidity, and arrived at a moment the most 
 auspicious to the safety of that important point. 
 "Without this reinforcement General Jackson 
 would have been destitute of the force called 
 for by that great emergency. The consequences 
 of such deficiency might be imagined. During 
 that memorable campaign, the gallantry of this 
 corps and of its intrepid commander elicited 
 the thanks of a grateful people, and of the illus- 
 trious General under whom they fought and con- 
 quered. I accord my hearty assent, said Mr. 
 P., to the proposition made by the gentleman 
 from Tennessee to reward these services by a 
 suitable manifestation of the national gratitude. 
 But Mr. P. suggested to him the propriety of 
 presenting it in a distinct resolution, properly 
 digested and matured. 
 
 Mr. DESHA made a few remarks in support of 
 the expressions of the resolution, as to the gal- 
 lant conduct of Colonel Johnson, on the occa- 
 sion referred to. He was present when those 
 services were performed, and could bear testi- 
 mony to the intrepidity displayed by Col. J. 
 
 Mr. CLAIBORNE, according to the suggestion 
 of Mr. POIXDEXTER, withdrew his proposition 
 for the present ; and the resolution then passed 
 
 THURSDAY, April 2. 
 Honors to the Brate. 
 
 Mr. CLAIBORNE, agreeably to the intimation 
 which he had yesterday given, to submit a res- 
 olution for awarding to certain officers testimo- 
 nials of the respect of Congress for their dis- 
 tinguished services, offered the following joint 
 resolution : 
 
 JResolred, by the Senate and House of Representatives 
 of the United States of America in Cungress assembled, 
 That the President of the United States be requeued 
 to cause gold medals to be struck, with suitable em- 
 blems and devices, and presented to Major General 
 "William Carroll and Brigadier General John Coffee, 
 in testimony of the high sense entertained by Con- 
 
 gress of their gallantry and good conduct in the 
 several conflicts during the late war, at Talashatchie, 
 Taladega, Enotochopko, Emuckfaw, Teliopeka, and 
 New Orleans. 
 
 Resolved, That the President be requested to cause 
 a gold medal to be struck, with suitable emblems 
 and devices, and presented to Major General Joseph 
 Desha, in testimony of the high sense entertained by 
 Congress of his gallantry and good conduct in the 
 conflict of the river Thames, in Upper Canada. 
 
 Mr. CLAIBOENE said he had not yesterday 
 named General Desha, in the remarks he then 
 made ; it escaped his recollection at the mo- 
 ment ; but that officer was well entitled to the 
 notice of the House. General Desha, it would 
 be recollected, had left his seat in Congress, in 
 the Summer of 1813, when the Northwestern 
 campaign was a subject of great anxiety, and 
 joined the Northwestern army, as commander 
 of a division of Kentucky troops, and to his 
 intrepidity and good conduct was in a great de- 
 gree owing the result of the battle on the 
 Thames. On that occasion he occupied, with 
 his division, a situation of imminent danger; 
 and at a moment when the enemy pressed with 
 great force on that part of the line, it was by 
 General Desha's courage and example, and de- 
 nouncing death to the first man that broke, that 
 the ground was maintained, the tide of victory 
 turned, and the day crowned with success. Mr. 
 C. next turned to the services of Generals Car- 
 roll and Coffee, and enforced what he had yes- 
 terday said of them, by referring again to the 
 various instances of the zeal, activity, and brav- 
 ery which had characterized their conduct, 
 and which, under the Almighty, had saved the 
 city of New Orleans from a ferocious enemy. 
 
 Mr. HARBISON said, that with regard to the 
 conduct of General Desha, in the action on the 
 Thames, he had mentioned it with approbation 
 in his official report of the action, and he now- 
 repeated that he there performed his duty, and 
 did every thing that he could do. But, so did 
 General Henry, who was third in command, 
 whilst General Desha was fourth ; they stand 
 in that respect, perfectly on an equality. 
 
 Mr. H. moved, therefore, that the name of 
 General William Henry be inserted in the sec- 
 ond resolution. Mr. H. gave some explanations 
 of the positions occupied by the two divisions 
 in the action, and stated that it was the division 
 of General Henry which occupied the front 
 line, and was most pressed by the enemy ; that 
 of General Desha formed with it a right angle, 
 and though less exposed, yet General Desha 
 himself, he believed, was at the point of junc- 
 tion where the fire was most heavy. 
 
 Mr. CLAIBORXE had not called to mind the 
 particular circumstances of the affair, or doubt- 
 less he should have recollected the name of 
 General Henry, and would have included him 
 in the resolutions which ho had offered. These 
 were honorary rewards that cost the nation 
 little, and he was always willing to bestow them 
 upon gallant services. He had intended to pro- 
 pose swords on this occasion, but he found, by
 
 172 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 Honors to the Brave. 
 
 [APRIL, 1818. 
 
 the precedents, that medals were more custom- 
 ary, though the cost of the latter was perhaps 
 not less. 
 
 Mr. OGLE suggested a doubt whether, if these 
 resolutions passed, it would not be proper also 
 to seek out the meritorious officers of the Revo- 
 lution. He had no objection to voting a medal 
 to each of the gallant officers named, but pro- 
 tested against selecting the officers of the late 
 army, and passing by those of the Revolution, 
 for, if the former merited one medal, those of 
 the latter deserved two, and he moved that the 
 subject be referred to the Military Committee, 
 that resolutions might be reported conformably 
 to his ideas ; or at least that the distinguished 
 officers of the Revolutionary Army might be 
 included in these honorary rewards. 
 
 Mr. COLSTON, though feeling the highest re- 
 spect for the officers mentioned, and for their 
 eminent services, yet objected to these resolu- 
 tions on the ground that it was neither custom- 
 ary nor proper, in voting these rewards, to go 
 below the commander of an army who had to 
 bear the disgrace of defeat, and who it was 
 right should reap the rewards of success ; that 
 to pursue a different course would involve the 
 necessity of awarding the same to numerous 
 other cases, as there were at least fifty others 
 who had rendered important services and were 
 entitled to notice ; and it was better to stop, or 
 Congress would be overwhelmed with cases of 
 this kind, &c. Mr. C. referred to the evils 
 which he had witnessed in Virginia, of making 
 these rewards too common ; and referred to the 
 circumstance of the Legislature of that State 
 being called on to appropriate fifteen thousand 
 dollars, at one time, for the purchase of medals, 
 &c., which had been voted to gallant officers 
 from that State. He had opposed the practice 
 then, and felt himself bound, however high his 
 sense of the merits of the distinguished officers in 
 question, to do it here. 
 
 Mr. SMITH, of Maryland, said a few words to 
 Mr. CLAIBORNE, to show that the vote of a gold 
 medal had always been considered a higher honor 
 than to bestow a sword, and that medals had, 
 therefore, been generally given to the Command- 
 er-in-chief of any army, and swords to the in- 
 ferior officers. 
 
 Mr. CLAIBORNE observed, in reply to Mr. COL- 
 STON, that the services of the officer named in the 
 first resolution were as important and valuable 
 as those of any Commander-in-chief in the na- 
 tion ; and if these distinctions had been granted 
 in numerous other instances, as he could show 
 they had been, it was highly proper they should 
 be in this case, particularly when some who had 
 received the honor had not served so long, nor 
 rendered services half so important as the officers 
 he now brought forward in the first resolution. 
 Mr. C. then referred, severally, to the resolu- 
 tions voting thanks and medals to General 
 Brown, to General Scott, to Generals Ripley, 
 Miller, and Porter, to General Gaines, and to 
 General McConib, accompanied by thanks to 
 their officers and men, and relied on these reso- 
 
 lutions to show that the honors of Congress had 
 not been confined to the Commanders-in -chief, 
 but, on the contrary, they were nearly all sub- 
 ordinate officers, and some not higher than the 
 rank of Colonel. Generals Carroll and Coffee, 
 if they had not the reputation of Commanders- 
 in-chief, deserved the applause of saving a city 
 from a merciless enemy, whose rallying words 
 were " Beauty and Booty." Mr. C. adverted to 
 the circumstances under which these officers re- 
 ceived the news of the danger of New Orleans, 
 and the great exertions which enabled them to 
 reach it in time. Coffee was returning home 
 from the Creek war, with an exhausted army, 
 when information of the danger of New Orleans 
 reached him at Baton Rouge. With his ex- 
 hausted men and worn-down horses he instantly 
 started for the scene of action. No rest did he 
 permit himself, day or night, but hastened with 
 a celerity unexampled and astonishing, and ar- 
 rived just in time to save the city, and win a 
 conquest .which will ever be regarded as a most 
 important and most glorious one. Would the 
 House deny to such men as these the poor and 
 pitiful reward now proposed ? Carroll had been 
 twice wounded in the Creek war, and was call- 
 ed on, at a moment's warning, to repair to New 
 Orleans. He hastily collected his troops, or- 
 ganized them for the field in less time than was 
 ever known, and with a rapidity never witness- 
 ed before, by his unwearied exertions reached 
 the city just in time to insure the victory and 
 share in its glory. Mr. C. agreed to what had 
 been said about the Revolutionary veterans, but 
 hoped, if it was thought proper to reward them 
 in this way, that gentlemen would bring them 
 forward in a separate proposition, and he would 
 cheerfully support it. If he asked for what was 
 not given to others, turn them away. If he 
 asked for what they did not deserve, turn them 
 away. But if he asked for them what others 
 had received, and which they deserved much 
 more than some who had received this distinc- 
 tion, he hoped it would not be denied to them. 
 Mr. HOPKINSOX made a few remarks to dis- 
 suade the House from adopting these resolu- 
 tions. It was a pninful task to urge this course ; 
 but, he said this House had no wealth to be- 
 stow; these honors were all it had to give; 
 they ought, therefore, to be given sparingly, 
 and not wasted. The honors of Congress ought 
 not to be given, he said, for fidelity, for dili- 
 gence, and bravery, because these were to be 
 expected, and belonged to every American 
 officer; but were intended for some signal ac- 
 tion above all, to be rewarded above all. Instead 
 of confining these marks of distinction to prop- 
 er occasions, all history did not furnish as 
 many of them as the history of this country for 
 the last two or three years, and the practice was 
 so common that it would cease to be any dis- 
 tinction at all. Mr. H. did not make these ob- 
 jections from any insensibility to the gallant 
 services of the officers referred to by Mr. CLAI- 
 BORNE ; but, besides his opposition on national 
 grounds, he thought that delicacy towards these
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 173 
 
 APKIL, 1818.] 
 
 State of Illinois. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 officers themselves ought to forbid the passage 
 of the resolutions. It was now three years since 
 the close of the war, and the public would 
 ask why these officers had not received this re- 
 ward before ; why, for the first time, they were 
 brought forward at this late day ? And, after 
 being so long neglected, might not the proceed- 
 ing now be imputed to personal favor ? Mr. 
 H. concluded by moving that the resolutions lie 
 on the fable. 
 
 Mr. POINDEXTEB hoped that the motion to lay 
 the resolutions on the table would be withdrawn, 
 that the two resolutions might be separated, and 
 the sense of the House taken on each by itself. 
 The subject of the Northwestern and of the 
 Southern officers ought, bethought, to be intro- 
 duced separately, and then gentlemen in the 
 House, acquainted personally with the officers in 
 the two armies, could speak of them, respect- 
 ively, from their own knowledge. He support- 
 ed the propriety of adopting these resolutions by 
 referring to the votes of thanks, &c., which had 
 been passed at this very session, and the sword 
 which only yesterday was awarded to a gallant 
 officer. To reject the cases now before the 
 House, under those circumstances, would be in- 
 vidious as well as unjust. 
 
 Mr. RHEA hoped the resolutions would not be 
 laid on the table. Had they not been brought 
 forward at all this session he should have been 
 satisfied, because the reputation of these gallant 
 men was too well secured to make this distinc- 
 tion necessary ; but as the resolutions had been 
 offered, he was anxious they should not be re- 
 jected. These brave men did not rest when 
 they were going on the floods to meet the ene- 
 mies of their country, and he hoped the resolu- 
 tions for rewarding them would not be allowed 
 to rest on the table, but would be adopted. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON again rose to bear testimony 
 to the gallant services of the gentlemen of the 
 Northwestern army, and took the opportunity 
 of expressing briefly his sense of the distinguish- 
 ed honor which he had recently himself receiv- 
 ed at the hands of Congress a reward more 
 dear to him than any other that could be con- 
 ferred on him, but which he must look on as 
 due to the gallant army which he had the 
 honor to command, rather than to his merits, 
 &c. 
 
 After some further opposition by Mr. CLAI- 
 BORNE to laying the resolution on the table, the 
 question was taken on that motion and carried 
 ayes 58, noes 5-i. 
 
 FRIDAY, April 3. . 
 State of Illinois. 
 
 The House resolved itself into a Committee of 
 the Whole on the bill to enable the people of 
 Illinois Territory to form a constitution and 
 State government, and for the admission of 
 such State into the Union on a footing with the 
 original States. 
 Mr. POPE moved to amend the bill by striking 
 
 out the lines defining the boundaries of the new 
 States, and to insert the following : 
 
 "Beginning at the month of the Wabixsh river; 
 hence up the same, and with the line of Indiana to 
 the northwest corner of said State ; thence east with 
 the line of the same State to the middle of Lake 
 Michigan; thence north along the middle of said 
 lake to north latitude 42 deg. 30 minutes ; thence 
 west to the middle of the Mississippi river; and 
 thence down along the middle of that river to its 
 confluence with the Ohio river ; and thence up the 
 latter river along its northwestern shore to the be- 
 ginning." 
 
 The object of this amendment, Mr. P. said, 
 was to gain, for the proposed State, a coast on 
 Lake Michigan. This would afford additional 
 security to the perpetuity of the Union, inas- 
 much as the State would thereby be connected 
 with the States of Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, 
 and New York, through the Lakes. The facil- 
 ity of opening a canal between Lake Michigan 
 and the Illinois river, said Mr. P., is acknowl- 
 edged by every one who has visited the place. 
 Giving to the proposed State the port of Chi- 
 cago, (embraced in the proposed limits,) will 
 draw its attention to the opening of the com- 
 munication between the Illinois river and that 
 place, and the improvement of that harbor. It 
 was believed, he said, upon good authority, 
 that the line of separation between Indiana and 
 Illinois would strike Lake Michigan south of 
 Chicago, and not pass west of it, as had been 
 supposed by some geographers who had favored 
 us with maps of that country; and, Mr. P. 
 added, that all the country north of the pro- 
 posed State, and bounded by Lakes Michigan, 
 Huron, Superior, and of tha Woods, and the 
 Mississippi river, must form but one State, Con- 
 gress being restricted, by the ordinance of 
 1787, from erecting more than five States in 
 the Northwestern Territory. 
 
 This motion was agreed to without a division. 
 
 Mr. POPE then moved further to amend the 
 bill by striking out that part which appropri- 
 ated the State's proportion of the proceeds of 
 the sales of the public lands to the construction 
 of roads and canals in said State, and to insert 
 the following : 
 
 " For the purposes following, viz : two-fifths to be 
 disbursed, under the direction of Congress, in making 
 roads leading to the State ; the residue to be appro- 
 priated by the Legislature of the State for the en- 
 couragement of learning, of which one part 
 
 shall be exclusively bestowed on a college or uni- 
 versity." 
 
 Mr. P. said that the fund proposed to be ap- 
 plied for the encouragement of learning had, in 
 the other new States, been devoted to roads; 
 but its application had, it was believed, not 
 been productive of the good anticipated; on 
 the contrary, it had been exhausted on local 
 and neighborhood objects, by its distribution 
 among the counties, according to their respec- 
 tive representation in the Legislature. The im- 
 portance of education in a Republic, he said,
 
 174 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 Case of R. W. Meade. 
 
 [APRIL, 1818. 
 
 was universally acknowledged ; and that no im- 
 mediate aid could be derived in new counties 
 from waste lands was not less obvious; and 
 that no active fund would be provided in a 
 new State, the history of the Western States 
 too clearly proved. In addition to this, Mr. P. 
 said, nature had left little to be done in the 
 proposed State of Illinois, in order to have the 
 finest roads in the world. Besides, roads would 
 be made by the inhabitants as they became 
 useful, because the benefits are immediate; but 
 not so with endowments to schools. The effects 
 of these institutions were too remote. Nor 
 would the interest of the United States be im- 
 paired by this plan. The land on the roads was 
 generally private property before the opening 
 of the road ; and the benefit resulting to the 
 United States from the stipulation would be 
 found alone in the exemption from taxation, 
 for five years, of lands sold in the State. 
 
 This motion was also agreed to without a di- 
 vision ; and after receiving some further amend- 
 ments, the most important of which was one 
 moved by Mr. TAYLOR, to exempt the soldiers' 
 bounty lands in the State from taxation for 
 three years 
 
 The committee rose and reported the bill to 
 the House, and it was ordered to be engrossed, 
 as amended, and read a third time, nemine con- 
 tradicente. 
 
 History of Congress. 
 
 On motion of Mr. SERGEANT, the House pro- 
 ceeded, by a vote of 60 to 58, to consider the 
 report of the Committee of the "Whole on the 
 bill authorizing a subscription (of one thousand 
 copies) to the History of Congress, proposed to 
 be undertaken by Gales & Seaton. 
 
 The House having refused to concur with 
 the Committee of the Whole, in striking out the 
 first section of the bill, Mr. S. with a view of 
 removing the objections made by some gentle- 
 men to the bill in its present shape, moved to 
 add to the first section the following proviso : 
 
 Provided further, That, before receiving any pay- 
 ment on account of said work, the publishers shall 
 enter into bond in a penalty of twenty thousand dol- 
 lars, with security to be approved by the First Comp- 
 troller, that the said work shall not exceed ten vol- 
 umes in extent, to be brought up to the end of the 
 second session of the fourteenth Congress, and shall 
 be completed within ten years from the day on which 
 the first payment on account thereof is demanded : 
 And Provided, also, That nothing in this act contain- 
 ed shall be construed to preclude Congress from re- 
 scinding their subscription to the said work, when- 
 ever it shall to them seem expedient. 
 
 _ This amendment was agreed to without a di- 
 vision ; when Mr. HITCHCOCK moved to reduce 
 the subscription from one thousand to one hun- 
 dred copies ; which motion he afterwards mod- 
 ified, by moving two hundred and fifty. 
 
 This motion was opposed by Mr. SERGEANT, 
 because, he argued, it would be equivalent to 
 a rejection of the bill ; as the great labor of the 
 
 compilation, the expense of preparing the work 
 for the presB, the expense of printing volumes 
 of the magnitude proposed, &c., could not bo 
 undertaken without aid from Congress, to the 
 extent proposed by the select committee ; and 
 because a work of this nature could not depend 
 on private subscription, &c. Mr. S. also en- 
 forced and enlarged on the national importance 
 of the work proposed, as well as its importance 
 to Congress in its legislative business, &c. ; in 
 which he was supported by Mr. SIMKINS, Mr. 
 JOHNSON of Kentucky, and Mr. LIVERMORE. 
 
 The bill was opposed earnestly by Mr. PITKIN, 
 Mr. HITCHCOCK, and Mr. BUTLER, principally on 
 the ground of the expense, and the unimpor- 
 tance of the work compared with that expense. 
 
 Mr. HITCHCOCK'S motion to reduce the num- 
 ber of copies to be subscribed for was agreed to 
 ayes 74, noes 56 when, on motion by Mr. 
 BASSETT, the bill was ordered to lie on the 
 table. 
 
 THURSDAY, April 9. 
 Case ofR. W. Meade. 
 
 The House, on motion of Mr. TRIMBLE, took 
 up the report of the select committee on the 
 resolution of the 12th February, and the me- 
 morial of sundry citizens of Philadelphia, re- 
 specting the imprisonment of Richard W. 
 Meade, by the Spanish Government. The re- 
 port concludes with recommending to the House 
 the adoption of the following resolution : 
 
 Resolved, That the House is satisfied that the im- 
 prisonment of Richard W. Meade, is an act of cruel 
 and unjustifiable oppression ; that it is the right and 
 duty of the Government of the United States to afford 
 to Mr. Meade its aid and protection ; and that this 
 House will support and maintain such measures as 
 the President may hereafter adopt, to obtain the re- 
 lease of the said R. W. Meade from confinement, 
 should such measures be proper and necessary. 
 
 The resolution having been read, Mr. TRIMBLE 
 proposed the following substitute therefor, by 
 way of amendment : 
 
 Resolved, That the demand made by the President 
 of the United States upon the King of Spain for the 
 liberation of Richard W. Meade, a citizen of the 
 United States, detained in confinement at the Castle 
 of Santa Catalina, at Cadiz, ought to be supported 
 and enforced, by vesting in the President an author- 
 ity to make a reprisal upon a Spanish Consul, in the 
 event of a failure on the part of Spain promptly to 
 discharge the said Meade. 
 
 Mr. TRIMBLE rose in support of his motion, 
 and addressed the House as follows : 
 
 If I may find favor in the sight of the House, 
 I would ask a short indulgence at their hands. 
 I know how much they are exhausted in the 
 consideration of various complicated questions, 
 touching our internal prosperity and exterior 
 relations ; and I am more than sensible of my 
 utter inability to repay their attention with a 
 fair equivalent. 
 
 The resolution reported by the committee is,
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 175 
 
 APRIL, 1818.] 
 
 Case of R. W. Meade. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 in my opinion, unequal to the emergency of the 
 case I would prefer a stronger measure. Had 
 the yindication of this amendment fallen to the 
 lot of some members whom I could designate, 
 they would tell us a round, unvarnished tale, 
 that would nail us to our places a tale that 
 would " rouse the slumbering dead to hear," 
 They would show you a captive through the 
 gratings of his prison window; that captive a 
 citizen and brother, your agent and vice consul, 
 languishing in a foreign dungeon, unpitied and 
 forgotten ; secluded from the cheerful light of 
 day ; bereft of all the endearments of social life 
 the solace of children, wife, and friends, and 
 peaceful home pining and wasting away in 
 misery and despair, with but one solitary ray of 
 hope, " that gleams from the star-spangled ban- 
 ner which waves over the land of the free and 
 the home of the brave." But I have no 
 thoughts that scald, or words that burn, or 
 plaintive tones of supplication, that would wring 
 reluctant succor and compassion from Congress 
 and the nation. Mine are humble powers, that 
 have no eloquence of speech, save what the 
 subject lends to grace its memory. Let no man 
 judge me of meaning more than I explain. In 
 the full spirit of candor, I declare, before the 
 highest of all tribunals the Judge of quick and 
 dead that, if I know myself, there is no tempta- 
 tion which would induce me to do a deed that 
 would bring dishonor on my country ; and I 
 swear by all that is sacred in me, that in my 
 opinion we are bound in duty, in justice, and in 
 honor, to give this citizen immediate succor, 
 even at the hazard of our lives. Suppose a 
 change of cases, and I and you, and all of us 
 would ask it and expect it. Let us remember 
 the golden rule of hku who spake as never man 
 spake let us do to others as we would have 
 them do to us ; for on this hangs the duty of 
 the nation. If the measure which I offer and 
 advocate is dangerous or premature, there is a 
 redeeming spirit in the superior wisdom and 
 better judgment of the House, which will shield 
 us from its consequences ; and I am sure there 
 is afund of charity within these walls that will 
 forgive the well-meant, but mistaken zeal, 
 which may lead me beyond the boundary of 
 cold caution. 
 
 Permit me to waste a few moments in glanc- 
 ing over the facts, as reported. I intend to rely 
 entirely on the evidence of the Spanish docu- 
 ments, and for that reason shall omit many con- 
 siderations which give a favorable color to the 
 case ; as, for instance, Mr. Meade's loan of forty 
 thousand dollars in cash to the Regency, to as- 
 sist them in suppressing a mutiny of the troops 
 at Cadiz ; the enormous sum of more than half 
 a million which they owe him for property sold 
 the Government ; and the fact of his being put 
 Tinder military guard until his warehouses were 
 pillaged by order of the Regency, because he 
 refused to sell any more property, flour, to- 
 bacco, &c., until he could get pay for what they 
 already owed him. Let these, and m.iny others 
 ^ke them, pass for nothing. The naked case is 
 
 this: Mr. Meade held in his hands about fifty- 
 two thousand dollars, as trustee under the 
 bankrupt laws of Spain, subject to the direction 
 and control of the Consulado at Cadiz. One 
 Glass claimed this money for himself; and one 
 Hunter, by his agent, (McDermot.) also claimed 
 it. The Consulado ordered the money to be 
 paid to McDermot, on condition that .he would 
 give security. This he failed to do, and the 
 Consnlado suddenly made an order, directing 
 Mr. Meade to deposit the sum in the King's 
 Treasury. He made the deposit in " effective 
 specie," which the same treasury owed him, 
 viz : in libramientos that is, treasury notes or 
 cash scrip. These treasury notes may have 
 been at a discount in the market, but that could 
 make no difference; for it would have been 
 more than dishonest in the treasury to refuse its 
 own paper, because it was at a discount. Be- 
 tween Meade and the treasury there was no 
 ground of complaint, and could be none ; for, if 
 he had paid the deposit in specie, the treasurer 
 must have instantly repaid it to him, in dis- 
 charge of the libramientoe that is, treasury 
 notes and the result would be exactly the 
 same. And as Meade was then pressing the 
 treasurer to pay his cash scrip, it is easy to see 
 that the treasurer obtained a respite from fur- 
 ther importunity, until Glass or Hunter should 
 call for the money at the end of their lawsuit. 
 
 Some time after this, McDermot brought 
 suit against Mr. Meade for the same sum, before 
 the same court. He pleaded then- order and the 
 deposit in the King's treasury, and vouched 
 the treasury to respond the money; but the 
 court gave judgment that he should pay again. 
 He appealed at the Alzadas, and the cause 
 was withdrawn from that court by the 
 Council of War, at the instance of McDermot ; 
 and it is still pending before the Council of 
 War. Mr. Meade petitioned the King against 
 the oppressive conduct of that court, and the 
 King ordered five new judges to be associated 
 with the old ones, and directed that no proceed- 
 ings should be had in the cause, in the absence 
 of the new judges. McDermot suggested to the 
 Council of War, that Meade was about to leave 
 Spain, and the old judges, in the absence of the 
 new ones, and contrary to the King's order, 
 authorized the Consulado at Cadiz to hold 
 Meade to security for the money ; and the Con- 
 sulado resolved,that the only security they would 
 take should be another deposit of the money 
 in their Treasury. This Meade refused to do, and 
 he was sent to the castle, and put in the felons' 
 prison. Other aggravating facts and circum- 
 stances may be found in the documents sent 
 by the President in his Message on this subject. 
 
 Our Minister near the Court of Madrid com- 
 plained of these outrageous proceedings, as a 
 violation of the 7th and 20th articles of the 
 treaty of 1795, and also a violation of the laws 
 and usages of Spain, and the King expressed his 
 entire disapprobation of the conduct of the 
 courts, and ordered that justice should be im- 
 mediately done in the cause ; but at the same
 
 176 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF 
 
 Case of R. W. Meade. 
 
 [APRIL, 1818. 
 
 time issued an order, directing the proceedings 
 to be suspended as long as possible, suggesting 
 as his reason for this, that in any event, his 
 treasury must refund the deposit as soon as 
 the cause should be decided ; and that he had 
 no money in his treasury to refund. This is 
 said at the time when his Minister of Finance 
 states in his expose to the King, that the annual 
 expense of the King's household amounts to 
 seven millions of dollars. And this is what 
 Don Onis calls "Immaculate Purity," and I 
 would say that it caps the climax of Spanish 
 villany and treachery. I challenge all history 
 to produce its parallel. Are we not bound to 
 protect this citizen against such a flagrant out- 
 rage ? I read in the books that nations are in a 
 state of nature, and have only two modes of 
 compelling each other to do justice ; war and 
 reprisal. I say nothing of big words hung up 
 in resolutions. They are the index of imbecility ; 
 the mask of cowardice. I abjure all hectoring, 
 and gasconading, and gostering between nations 
 or individuals. In this- case war would only in- 
 crease the injury by protracting the confine- 
 ment. Eeprisal is the only efficient remedy. 
 The amendment before you proposes, that a 
 law be passed, authorizing the President (in the 
 event of a failure on the part of Spain, to liberate 
 this citizen) to make reprisal by seizing a Span- 
 ish subject, a consul or vice consul, and confine 
 him as a hostage. This will support the Presi- 
 dent in his late demand, and put a weapon in 
 his hand to chastise the insolence which Spain 
 may offer to this Government in the reply which 
 she may make. So far as precedent goes, this 
 amendment is supported by the law of 1799, 
 which authorized and required the President, 
 ADAMS, to make reprisals upon French citizens 
 in the cases there mentioned. If examples are 
 called for, they are to be found in the history of 
 every nation. The world would never be at 
 were redressed 
 
 by war. Humanity and sound policy approve 
 the practice of reprisals, and require that it 
 should sometimes be resorted to. Why should 
 a nation change its peaceful habits, and gird on 
 the armor of war, and waste millions to obtain 
 redress for an injury, which can be redressed 
 by the seizure and confinement of a single indi- 
 vidual ? "Would you spill the blood and squan-. 
 der the treasure of your own people, where re- 
 dress can be obtained by the pressure of coer- 
 cion on the people of your adversary ? Shall 
 this outrage be placed upon the calendar of 
 grievances, to be discussed upon thirteen years 
 forbearance ? Promptitude is justice in a case 
 like this. If it must terminate in a war of 
 words, we have proof positive that Mr. Adams 
 can drive Don Onis from the field of battle; 
 but, in my opinion, we have retreated far enough 
 from Spain ; and unless we make a stand upon 
 reprisal, we shall take shelter behind the ram- 
 parts of disgrace. 
 
 When I had the honor of presenting the res- 
 olution for reprisals, some objection arose be- 
 cause it did not define the nature and extent of 
 
 reprisals meditated. In this amendment I have 
 attempted to obviate the objection. But it is 
 due, in candor to the House and nation, that I 
 should so explain myself, that no one can mis- 
 take me. In the event of a failure on the part 
 of Spain to surrender Mr. Meade, upon the late 
 demand, I would seize a Spanish subject and 
 Consul of equal property and respectability, as 
 a hostage ; confine him at Castle William in the 
 harbor of Boston, and treat him, in all respects, 
 as it shall be made to appear that our citizen is 
 treated at the Castle of Santa Catalina. That 
 would be equal justice subject for citizen, Con- 
 sul for Consul, castle for castle, and treatment 
 for treatment. No, sir, I humbly crave the 
 pardon of my country that would not be equal 
 justice for as "one day, one hour, of virtuous 
 liberty is worth a whole eternity of bondage," 
 so, also, one honest, upright, independent free- 
 j man is worth a kingdom, an empire, of servile, 
 j crouching, sycophantic Spanish slaves. 
 
 I will not say that this amendment has been 
 drawn up with all the skill and scholar-craft 
 i which might have been employed in its produc- 
 j tion ; but I will boldly affirm that the redress 
 which it indicates, is more than justified by the 
 case, and fully supported by the laws and usages 
 of nations. I know not what others may think 
 I on this subject, but, for myself, I have no hope 
 of redress but from coercion for that sovereign 
 who forfeits his word of honor, and brings his 
 reputation and his justice into question, will 
 not easily unhand his victim or forego his ven- 
 geance. I am, therefore, bold to say that I will 
 use retortion. The States surrendered to the 
 General Government the right of making re- 
 prisals ; and, in their name, I ask you to exer- 
 cise the power I demand it in the name of the 
 I people. Gentlemen may shake their heads, if 
 i they mean to say that the demand is too broad 
 that I have no right to speak for them and 
 I their States. Then, sir, I demand it in the name 
 ! of the people whom I represent in the name 
 | of the State from whence I come. I know them, 
 and can speak for them I know their love of 
 liberty and hatred of oppression, and will answer 
 for their readiness to support the honor of the 
 j country, and their promptitude in chastising all 
 infractions of personal liberty. 
 
 Mr. HOPKIXSOX, of Pennsylvania, expressed 
 his belief that the report of the committee went 
 as far as the duty of this House required it to 
 go in such a matter. There was a limit beyond 
 which it was improper to go, in an aft'air in- 
 trusted to the Executive ; and Mr. H. hoped, 
 that what had been done by the Executive 
 would be found amply sufficient for all the pur- 
 poses of this case. The first movement in this 
 business had been made by this House; the 
 President had, in consequence thereof, opened a 
 correspondence with the Spanish Minister in a 
 very decided and dignified manner; and the 
 report of the committee is, that this House will 
 support the Executive in any further measures 
 to obtain the release of Mr. Meade, which shall 
 be just and necessary. In doing more than
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 177 
 
 APRIL, 1818.] 
 
 Proceedings. 
 
 [H. OF R 
 
 this, at present, Mr. H. asked if the House 
 might not proceed, without distinctly seeing 
 the result ? But Mr, H. wished to see something 
 of the practical effect of the proposition ; with 
 that the gentleman had not favored the House. 
 The resolution offered by the gentleman from 
 Kentucky authorized the President to make re- 
 prisal for the imprisonment of Mr. Meade to 
 seize a Spanish subject, and confine him in prison 
 until Meade shall be released. Now Mr. H. 
 denied that this Congress could give the Presi- 
 dent any such despotic power. Every man in 
 this country, whether foreigner or citizen, is 
 under the protection of the laws. Who was 
 the President to select for reprisal ? Shall he, 
 as is suggested, by some unknown process, seize 
 a Consul, living under our laws, and lodge him 
 in jail, uncharged with debt, or crime, or any 
 violation whatever of the laws of the land ? If 
 despotic Governments do these things, we should 
 avoid, not follow, the example. We. said Mr. 
 H., must follow the course of the laws, and can- 
 not depart from it. There was no process, he 
 said, by which a man could be seized and im- 
 prisoned in this country, because a citizen was 
 improperly imprisoned in a foreign country. 
 There was nothing in the laws of nations, or 
 our own laws, to justify it. The case quoted 
 by Mr. TPJMBLE was an authority given to the 
 President to make reprisals when we were 
 actually in a state of war. Such acts might be 
 proper in a time of war, but not in a time of 
 peace like the present. Mr. H. admonished the 
 House not to stretch this thing too far, in their 
 anxiety to obtain justice for the citizen in ques- 
 tion. He knew Mr. Meade and his family, and 
 his feelings were as strongly excited to their 
 sufferings as any gentleman's ; and he wished 
 to do every thing to produce his liberation which 
 was consistent with propriety. Did the gentle- 
 man mean to make this a subject for war ? Yet 
 there was no act beyond the one proposed by 
 him but war. What precedent, or law, Mr. H. 
 asked, could the gentleman find for the reprisal 
 he recommended, and what would prevent the 
 judges from discharging any man, brought up 
 by habeas corpus, from such an arrest? Mr. 
 H. contended, that the report of the com- 
 mittee was sufficient for the present, and went 
 far enough. Hereafter, after it was seen what 
 effect the President's remonstrance should pro- 
 duce, stronger measures might be taken, if it 
 should be found necessary even war itself. 
 
 The question was then taken on Mr. TEIM- 
 BLE'S substitute, and decided in the negative, 
 only about fifteen rising in its favor ; and the 
 resolution reported by the select committee was 
 agreed to without a division. 
 
 FEIDAY, April 10. 
 
 A message from the Senate informed the 
 
 House that the Senate have disagreed to the 
 
 amendment proposed by this House to the bill, 
 
 entitled " An act to make valid certain acts of 
 
 VOL. VI. 12 
 
 the justices of the peace in the district of Co- 
 lumbia." They have passed the bill, entitled 
 " An act to provide for the publication of the 
 laws of the United States, and for other pur- 
 poses," with amendments. They have also pass- 
 ed bills of the following titles, viz : " An act for 
 the relief of John Hall, late a major of marines;" 
 and " An act in addition to an act to prohibit the 
 introduction of slaves in to any portor place with- 
 in the jurisdiction of the United States, from and 
 after the first day of January, in the year of our 
 Lord, 1808, and to repeal certain parts of the 
 same ;" in which amendments and bills they 
 ask the concurrence of this House. 
 
 Fugitives from Justice and Service. 
 
 A motion was made by Mr. PINDAXL, that the 
 House do now proceed to consider the amend- 
 ments proposed by the Senate, to the bill, en- 
 titled " An act to provide for delivering up per- 
 sons held to labor or service in any of the States 
 or Territories, who shall escape into any other 
 State or Territory." And the question being 
 taken thereon, it was determined in the negative 
 yeas 63, nays 73, as follows : 
 
 YEAS. Messrs. Abbott, Austin, Baldwin, Bassett, 
 Bloomfield, Blount, Colston, Cook, Culbreth, Desha, 
 Earle, Floyd, Forney, Forsyth, Garnett, Hall of North 
 Carolina, Herbert, Hogg, Johnson of Virginia, John- 
 son of Kentucky, Linn, Little, Lowndes, McCoy, 
 Marchand, Mason of Massachusetts, Mercer, Middle- 
 ton, Miller, Moore, Mumford, H. Nelson, T. M. Nel- 
 son, Ogle, Owen, Parrott, Peter, Pindall, Pleasants, 
 Poindexter, Reed, Rhea, Ringgold, Robertson of Lou- 
 isiana, Ruggles, Sampson, Sawyer, Settle, Simkins, 
 Slocumb, S. Smith, Ballard Smith, Alexander Smyth, 
 J. S. Smith, Speed, Spencer, Stewart of North Caro- 
 lina, Strother, Trimble, Tucker of South Carolina, 
 Tyler, Walker of North Carolina, and Williams of 
 North Carolina. 
 
 NAYS. Messrs. Adams, Allen of Vermont, Ball, 
 Bateman, Bennett, Boden, Boss, Campbell, Clagett, 
 Crafts, Cruger, Darlington, Drake, Ellicott, Gage, 
 Hale, Hall of Delaware, Hasbrouck, Hendricks, Her- 
 kimer, Heister, Hitchcock, Holmes of Massachusetts, 
 Holmes of Connecticut, Hopkinson, Hubbard, Hunter, 
 Huntington, Ingham, Irving of New York, Jones, 
 Kinsey, Kirtland, Lawyer, Livermore, W. Maclay, W. 
 P. Maclay, Mason of Rhode Island, Merrill, Morton, 
 Mosely, Murray, Jeremiah Nelson, Palmer, Patter- 
 son, Pawling, Pitkin, Porter, Rice, Rich, Richards, 
 Rogers, Savage, Scudder, Sergeant, Shaw, Sherwood, 
 Silsbee, Tallmadge, Tarr, Taylor, Tomkins, Town- 
 send, Upham, Wallace, Wendover, Westerlo, White- 
 side, Whitman, Williams of Connecticut, Williams of 
 New York, Wilson of Massachusetts, and Wilson of 
 Pennsylvania.* 
 
 MONDAY, April 20. 
 Six o'clock, P. M. 
 
 A message from the Senate informed the 
 House that the Senate have passed a resolution 
 
 * This seems to have been the eud of the bill the House 
 refusing, at the end of the session, to take up the Senate 
 amendments for consideration.
 
 178 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 Proceedings. 
 
 1818. 
 
 for the appointment of a joint committee to wait 
 on the President of the United States, and in- 
 form him of the approaching recess of Con- 
 gress ; and have appointed a committee on their 
 part. 
 
 The House took up the said resolution, and 
 being read, it was concurred in by the House ; 
 and Mr. HARBISON and Mr. PITKIN were ap- 
 
 pointed a committee, conformably thereto, on 
 the part of this House. 
 
 The said committee having reported that the 
 President had no further communication to 
 make to Congress, the SPEAKER adjourned the 
 House until the third Monday in November 
 next, the day fixed by law for the next meeting 
 of the Congress of the United States.
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 179 
 
 NOVEMBER, 1818.] 
 
 President's Message. 
 
 [SENAI 
 
 FIFTEENTH CONGRESS-SECOND SESSION. 
 
 BEGUN AT THE CITY OF WASHINGTON, NOVEMBER 16, 1818, 
 
 PKOCEEDINGS IN THE SENATE. 
 
 MONDAY, November 16, 1818. 
 The second session of the Fifteenth Congress 
 commenced this day at the city of Washington, 
 conformably to the act passed the 18th of April, 
 1818, entitled u An act fixing the time for the 
 next meeting of Congress ;" and the Senate as- 
 sembled. 
 
 PRESENT : 
 
 DAVID L. MOERILL, from the State of New 
 Hampshire. 
 
 PEENTISS MELLEN, from Massachusetts. 
 
 JAMES BURRILL, junior, from Ehode Island and 
 Providence Plantations. 
 
 ISAAC TICHENOR and WILLIAM A. PALMER, 
 from Vermont. 
 
 DAVID DAGGETT, from Connecticut. 
 
 EUFUS KING and NATHAN SANFOBD, from 
 New York. 
 
 MAHLON DIOKERSON and JAMES J. WILSON, 
 from New Jersey. 
 
 ABXER LACOCK and JONATHAN EGBERTS, from 
 Pennsylvania. 
 
 EGBERT H. GOLDSBOEOTJGH, from Maryland. 
 
 JAMES BARBOUE and JOHN W. EPPES, from 
 Virginia. 
 
 NATHANIEL MAOON, from North Carolina. 
 
 JOHN GAILLAED and WILLIAM, SMITH, from 
 South Carolina. 
 
 JOHN WILLIAMS and JOHN HENRY EATON, 
 from Tennessee. 
 
 BENJAMIN EUGGLES, from Ohio. 
 ELEGIUS FROMENTIN and HENRY JOHNSON, 
 from Louisiana. 
 
 JAMES NOBLE and WALLER TAYLOR, from 
 Indiana. 
 
 WALTER LEAKE and THOMAS H. WILLIAMS, 
 from Mississippi. 
 
 JOHN GAILLARD, President pro tempore, re- 
 sumed the Chair. 
 
 PRENTISS MELLEN, appointed a Senator by 
 the Legislature of the State of Massachusetts, 
 to supply the vacancy occasioned by the resig- 
 nation of Eli P. Ashinun; WILLIAM A. PALMER, 
 
 appointed a Senator by the Legislature of the 
 State of Vermont, to supply the vacancy occa- 
 sioned by the resignation of James Fisk ; and 
 JOHN HENRY EATON, appointed a Senator by the 
 Executive of the State of Tennessee, to supply 
 the vacancy occasioned by the resignation of 
 George W. Campbell, respectively produced 
 their credentials, were qualified, and took their 
 seats in the Senate. 
 
 A quorum being present, a message was sent 
 to the House of Eepresentatives, notifying that 
 body of the fact. 
 
 A committee was appointed, jointly with a 
 committee to be appointed by the other House, 
 for the purpose of waiting on the President of 
 the United States, to inform him that the two 
 Houses were organized, &c. Messrs. MAOON 
 and DAGGETT were appointed of the committee 
 on the part of the Senate. 
 
 TUESDAY, November IT. 
 JEREMIAH MORROW, from the State of Ohio ; 
 and ALEXANDER C. HANSON, from the State of 
 Maryland, attended this day. 
 
 President's Message. 
 
 The following Message was received from the 
 PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES : 
 Fellouo-citizens of the Senate 
 
 and of the House of Representatives : 
 
 The auspicious circumstances under which you 
 will commence the duties of the present session will 
 lighten the burdens inseparable from the high trust 
 committed to you. The fruits of the earth have been 
 unusually abundant ; commerce has flourished ; the 
 revenue has exceeded the most favorable anticipa- 
 tion, and peace and amity are preserved with foreign 
 nations on conditions just and honorable to our coun- 
 try. For these inestimable blessings we cannot but 
 be grateful to that Providence which watches over 
 the destiny of nations. 
 
 As the term limited for the operation of the com- 
 mercial convention with Great Britain will expire 
 early in the month of July next, and it was deemed
 
 180 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 President's Message. 
 
 [NOVEMBER, 1818. 
 
 important that there should be no interval, during 
 which that portion of our commerce, which was pro- 
 vided for by that convention, should not be regulated, 
 either by arrangements between the two Govern- 
 ments, or by the authority of Congress, the Minister 
 of the United States at London was instructed, early 
 in the last Summer, to invite the attention of the 
 British Government to the subject, with a view to 
 that object He was instructed to propose, also, that 
 the negotiation which it was wished to open, might 
 extend to the general commerce of the two countries, 
 and to every other interest and unsettled difference 
 between them ; particularly those relating to impress- 
 ment, fisheries, and boundaries, in the hope that 
 an arrangement might be made, on principles of re- 
 ciprocal advantage, which might comprehend and 
 provide, in a satisfactory manner, for all these high 
 concerns. I have the satisfaction to state, that the 
 proposal was received by the British Government in 
 the spirit which prompted it, and that a negotiation 
 has been opened at London embracing all these ob- 
 jects. On full consideration of the great extent and 
 magnitude of the trust, it was thought proper to com- 
 mit it to not less than two of our distinguished citi- 
 zens, and, in consequence, the Envoy Extraordinary 
 and Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States at 
 Paris has been associated with our Envoy Extra- 
 ordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at London ; to 
 both of whom corresponding instructions have been 
 given ; and they are now engaged in the discharge 
 of its duties. It is proper to add, that, to prevent 
 any inconvenience resulting from the delay incident 
 to a negotiation on so many important subjects, it 
 was agreed, before entering on it, that the existing 
 convention should be continued for a term not less 
 than eight years. 
 
 Our relations with Spain remain nearly in the state 
 in which they were at the close of the last session. 
 The convention of 1802, providing for the adjustment 
 of a certain portion of the claims of our citizens for 
 injuries sustained by spoliation, and so long suspended 
 by the Spanish Government, has at length been rati- 
 fied by it ; but no arrangement has yet been made 
 for the payment of another portion of like claims, 
 not less extensive or well founded, or for other classes 
 of claims, or for the settlement of boundaries. These 
 subjects have again been brought under considera- 
 tion in both countries, but no agreement has been 
 entered into respecting them. lu the mean time 
 events have occurred, which clearly prove the ill ef- 
 fect of the policy which that Government has so 
 long pursued, on the friendly relations of the two 
 countries, which, it is presumed, it is at least of as 
 much importance to Spain, as to the United States, 
 to maintain. A state of things has existed in the 
 Floridas, the tendency of which has been obvious to 
 all who have paid the slightest attention to the pro- 
 gress of affairs in that quarter. Throughout the 
 whole of those provinces to which the Spanish title 
 extends, the Government of Spain has scarcely been 
 felt Its authority has been confined almost exclu- 
 sively to the walls of Pensacola and St. Augustine, 
 within which only small garrisons have been main- 
 tained. Adventurers from every country, fugitives 
 from justice, and absconding slaves, have found an 
 asylum there. Several tribes of Indians, strong in 
 the number of their warriors, remarkable for their 
 ferocity, and whose settlements extend to our limits, 
 inhabit those provinces. These different hordes of 
 people, connected together, disregarding, on the one 
 
 side, the authority of Spain, and protected, on the 
 other, by an imaginary line, which separates Florida 
 from the United States, have violated our laws pro- 
 hibiting the introduction of slaves, have practised 
 various frauds on our revenue, and committed every 
 kind of outrage on our peaceable citizens, which 
 their proximity to us enabled them to perpetrate. 
 The invasion of Amelia Island, last year, by a small 
 band of adventurers, not exceeding one hundred and 
 fifty in number, who wrested it from the inconsider- 
 able Spanish force stationed there and held it several 
 months, during which, a single effort only was made 
 to recover it, which failed, clearly proves how com- 
 pletely extinct the Spanish authority had become, as 
 the conduct of those adventurers, while in possession 
 of the island, as distinctly shows the pernicious pur- 
 poses for which their combination had been formed. 
 
 This country had, in fact, become the theatre of 
 every species of lawless adventure. With little popu- 
 lation of its own, the Spanish authority almost ex- 
 tinct, and the colonial governments in a state of 
 revolution, having no pretension to it, and sufficiently 
 employed in their own concerns, it was in a great 
 measure derelict, and the object of cupidity to every 
 adventurer. A system of buccaneering was rapidly 
 organizing over it, which menaced, in its conse"- 
 quences, the lawful commerce of every nation, and 
 particularly of the United States ; while it presented 
 a temptation to every people, on whose seduction its 
 success principally depended. In regard to the Unit- 
 ed States, the pernicious effect of this unlawful com- 
 bination was not confined to the ocean. The Indian 
 tribes have constituted the effective force in Florida. 
 With these tribes these adventurers had formed at an 
 early period, a connection, with a view to avail them- 
 selves of that force, to promote their own projects of 
 accumulation and aggrandizement. It is to the in- 
 terference of some of these adventurers, in misrepre- 
 senting the claims and titles of the Indians to land, 
 and in practising on their savage propensities, that 
 the Seminole war is principally to be traced. Men 
 who thus connect themselves with savage communi- 
 ties, and stimulate them to war, which is always at- 
 tended, on their part, with acts of barbarity the most 
 shocking, deserve to be viewed in a worse light than 
 the savages. They would certainly have no claim 
 to an immunity from the punishment which, accord- 
 ing to the rules of warfare practised by the savages, 
 might justly be inflicted on the savages themselves. 
 
 If the embarrassments of Spain prevented her from 
 making an indemnity to our citizens, for so long a 
 time, from her treasury, for their losses by spoliation 
 and otherwise, it _was always in her power to have 
 provided it, by the cession of this territory. Of this 
 her Government has been repeatedly apprised, and 
 the cession was the more to have been anticipated, 
 as Spain must have known that, in ceding it, she 
 would, in effect, cede what had become of little value 
 to her, and would likewise relieve herself from the im-* 
 portant obligation secured by the treaty of 1795, and 
 all other compromitments respecting it. If the Unit- 
 ed States, from consideration of these embarrassments, 
 declined pressing their claims in a spirit of hostility, 
 the motive ought, at least, to have been duly appre- 
 ciated by the Government of Spain. It is well known 
 to her Government that other powers have made to 
 the United States an indemnity for like losses sus- 
 tained by their citizens at the same epoch. 
 
 There is, nevertheless, a limit, beyond which this 
 spirit of amity and forbearance can in no instance be
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 181 
 
 NOVEMBER, 1818.] 
 
 President's Message. 
 
 [SENATE. 
 
 justified. If it was proper to rely on amicable nego- | that combination, and justified the confidence with 
 
 tiation for an indemnity of losses, it would not have 
 been so to have permitted the inability of Spain to 
 fulfil her engagements, and to sustain her authority 
 in the Floridas, to be perverted, by foreign adven- 
 turers and savages, to purposes so destructive to the 
 lives of our fellow- citizens, and the highest interests 
 of the United States. The right of self-defence never 
 ceases. ' It is among the most sacred, and alike ne- 
 cessary to nations and individuals. And, whether 
 the attack be made by Spain herself, or by those who 
 abuse her power, its obligation is not the less strong. 
 The invaders of Amelia Island had assumed a popular 
 and respected title, under which they might approach 
 and wound us. As their object was distinctly seen, 
 and the duty imposed on the Executive, by an exist- 
 ing law, was profoundly felt, that mask was not per- 
 mitted to protect them. It was thought incumbent 
 on the United States to suppress the establishment, 
 and it was accordingly done. The combination in 
 Florida, for the unlawful purposes stated, the acts 
 perpetrated by that combination, and, above all, the 
 incitement of the Indians, to massacre our fellow- 
 citizens, of eveiy age, and of both sexes, merited a 
 like treatment, and received it. In pursuing these 
 savages to an imaginary line, in the woods, it would 
 have been the height of folly to have suffered that 
 
 line to protect them. 
 
 it been done, the war 
 
 could never cease. Even if the territory had been, 
 exclusively, that of Spain, and her power complete 
 over it, we had a right, by the law of nations, to 
 follow the enemy on it, and 'to subdue him there. 
 But the territory belonged, in a certain sense, at least, 
 to the savage enemy who inhabited it ; the power of 
 Spain had ceased to exist over it, and protection was 
 sought, under her title, by those who had committed 
 on our citizens hostilities which she was bound by 
 treaty to have prevented, but had not the power to 
 prevent. To have stopped at that line would have 
 given new encouragement to these savages, and new 
 vigor to the whole combination existing there, in the 
 prosecution of all its pernicious purposes. 
 
 In suppressing the establishment at Amelia Island, 
 no unfriendliness was manifested towards Spain, be- 
 cause the post was taken from a force which had 
 wrested it from her. The measure, it is true, was 
 not adopted in concert with the Spanish Government, 
 or those in authority under it ; because, in transac- 
 tions connected with the war in which Spain and the 
 colonies are engaged, it was thought proper, in doing 
 justice to the United States, to maintain a strict im- 
 partiality towards both the belligerent parties, with- 
 out consulting or acting in concert with either. It 
 gives me pleasure to state, that the Governments of 
 Buenos Ayres and Venezuela, whose names were as- 
 sumed, have explicitly disclaimed all participation in 
 those measures, and even the knowledge of them, 
 until communicated by this Government, and have 
 also expressed their satisfaction that a course of pro- 
 ceedings had been suppressed, which, if justly imput- 
 able to them, would dishonor their cause. 
 
 In authorizing Major General Jackson to enter 
 Florida, in pursuit of the Seminoles, care was taken 
 not to encroach on the rights of Spain. I regret to 
 have to add, that, in executing this order, facts were 
 disclosed respecting the conduct of the officers of 
 Spain, in authority there, in encouraging the war, 
 furnishing munitions of war, and other supplies, to 
 carry it on, and in other acts, not less marked, which 
 evinced their participation in the hostile purposes of 
 
 which it inspired the savages, that, by those officers 
 they would be protected. A conduct so incompatible 
 with the friendly relations existing between the two 
 countries, particularly with the positive obligation of 
 the 5th article of the treaty of 1795, by which Spain 
 was bound to restrain, even by force, those savages, 
 from acts of hostility against the United States, could 
 not fail to excite surprise. The Commanding Gen- 
 eral was convinced that he should fail in his object ; 
 that he should in effect accomplish nothing, if he did 
 not deprive those savages of the resource on which 
 they had calculated, and of the protection on which 
 they had relied in making the war. As all the docu- 
 ments relating to this occurrence will be laid before 
 Congress, it is not necessary to enter into further 
 detail respecting it 
 
 Although the reasons which induced Major Gen- 
 eral Jackson to take these posts were duly apprecia- 
 ted, there was, nevertheless, no hesitation in deciding 
 on the course which it became the Government to 
 pursue. As there was reason to believe that the com- 
 manders of these posts had violated their instructions, 
 there was no disposition to impute to their Govern- 
 ment a conduct so unprovoked and hostile. An order 
 was in consequence issued to the General in com- 
 mand there to deliver the posts Pensacola, uncondi- 
 tionally to any person duly authorized to receive it ; 
 and St. Marks, which is in the heart of the Indian 
 country, on the arrival of a competent force, to defend 
 it against those savages and their associates. 
 
 In entering Florida to suppress this combination, 
 no idea was entertained of hostility to Spain, and, 
 however justifiable the Commanding General was, in 
 consequence of the misconduct of the Spanish officers, 
 n entering St. Marks and Pensacola, to terminate it, 
 by proving to the savages and their associates that 
 they should not be protected even there ; yet the 
 amicable relations existing between the United States 
 and Spain could not be altered by that act alone. By 
 ordering the restitution of the posts, those relations 
 were preserved. To a change of them the power of 
 the Executive is deemed incompetent. It is vested 
 in Congress only. 
 
 By this measure, so promptly taken, due respect 
 was shown to the Government of Spain. The mis- 
 conduct of her officers has not been imputed to her. 
 She was enabled to review with candor her relations 
 with the United States, and her own situation, par- 
 ticularly in respect to the territory in question, with 
 the dangers inseparable from it ; and, regarding the 
 losses we have sustained, for which indemnity has 
 been so. long withheld, and the injuries we have suf- 
 fered through that territory, and her means of re- 
 dress, she was likewise enabled to take, with honor, 
 the course best calculated to do justice to the United 
 States, and to promote her own welfare. 
 
 Copies of the instructions to the Commanding 
 General ; of his correspondence with the Secretary of 
 War, explaining his motives, and justifying his con- 
 duct, with a copy of the proceedings of the courts- 
 martial, in the trial of Arbuthnot and Ambrister ; 
 and of the correspondence between the Secretary of 
 State and the Minister Plenipotentiary of Spain near 
 this Government : and of the Minister Plenipotentiary 
 of the United States, at Madrid, with the Govern- 
 ment of Spain, will be laid before Congress. 
 
 The civil war, which has so long prevailed between 
 Spain and the provinces in South America, still con- 
 tinues without any prospect of its speedy termination.
 
 182 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 President's Message. 
 
 [NOVEMBER, 1818. 
 
 The information respecting the condition of those 
 countries, which has heen collected by the Commis- 
 sioners, recently returned from thence, will be laid 
 before Congress, in copies of their reports, with such 
 other information as has been received from other 
 agents of the United States. 
 
 It appears, from these communications, that the 
 Government of Buenos Ayres declared itself independ- 
 ent in July, 1816, having previously exercised the 
 power of an independent Government, though in the 
 name of the King of Spain, from the year 1810: that 
 the Banda Oriental, Entre Rios, and Paraguay, with 
 the city of Santa Fe, all of which are also independ- 
 ent, are unconnected with the present Government 
 of Buenos Ayres : that Chili has declared itself inde- 
 pendent, and is closely connected with Buenos Ayres ; 
 that Venezuela has also declared itself independent, 
 and. now maintains the conflict with various success ; 
 and that the remaining parts of South America, ex- 
 cept Montevideo, and such other portions of the 
 eastern bank of the La Plata as are held by Portugal, 
 are still in the possession of Spain, or, in a certain 
 degree, under her influence. 
 
 By a circular note addressed by the Ministers of 
 Spain to the allied powers with whom they are re- 
 spectively accredited, it appears that the allies have 
 undertaken to mediate between Spain and the South 
 American provinces, and that the manner and extent 
 of their interposition would be settled by a Congress, 
 which was to have met at Aix-la-Chapelle in Sep- 
 tember last. From the general policy and course of 
 proceeding observed by the allied powers in regard to 
 this contest, it is inferred that they will confine their 
 interposition to the expression of their sentiments ; 
 abstaining from the application of force. I state this 
 impression, that force will not be applied, with the 
 greater satisfaction, because it is a course more con- 
 sistent with justice, and likewise authorizes a hope 
 that the calamities of the war will be confined to the 
 parties only, and will be of shorter duration. 
 
 From the view taken of this subject, founded on 
 all the information that we have been able to obtain, 
 there is good cause to be satisfied with the course 
 heretofore pursued by the United States, in regard to 
 this contest, and to conclude, that it is proper to ad- 
 here to it, especially in the present state of affairs. 
 
 I have great satisfaction in stating, that our rela- 
 tions with France, Russia, and other powers, continue 
 on the most friendly basis. 
 
 In our domestic concerns we have ample cause of 
 satisfaction. The receipts into the Treasury, during 
 the three first quarters of the year, have exceeded 
 seventeen millions of dollars. 
 
 After satisfying all the demands which have been 
 made under existing appropriations, including the 
 jinal extinction of the old six per cent, stock, and the 
 redemption of a moiety of the Louisiana debt, it is 
 estimated that there will remain in the Treasury, on 
 the first day of January next, more than two millions 
 Of dollars. 
 
 It is ascertained that the gross revenue which has 
 accrued from the customs during the same period 
 amounts to twenty-one millions of dollars, and that 
 the revenue of the whole year may be estimated at 
 not less than twenty-six millions. The sale of the 
 public lands during the year has also greatly ex- 
 ceeded, both hi quantity and price, that of any for- 
 mer year ; and there is just reason to expect a pro- 
 gressive improvement in that source of revenue. 
 
 It is gratii'ying to know, that, although the annual 
 
 expenditure has been increased by the act of the last 
 session of Congress, providing for Revolutionary pen- 
 sions, to an amount about equal to the proceeds of 
 the internal duties, which were then repealed, the 
 revenue for the ensuing year will be proportionally 
 augmented, and that, while the public expenditure 
 will probably remain stationary, each successive year 
 will add to the national resources, by the ordinary 
 increase of our population, and by the gradual devel- 
 opment of our latent sources of national prosperity. 
 
 The strict execution of the revenue laws, resulting 
 principally from the salutary provisions of the act of 
 the 20th of April last, amending the several collec- 
 tion laws, has, it is presumed, secured to domestic 
 manufactures all the relief that can be derived from 
 the duties which have been imposed upon foreign 
 merchandise, for their protection. Under the influ- 
 ence of this relief, several branches of this important 
 national interest have assumed greater activity, and, 
 although it is hoped that others will gradually revive, 
 and ultimately triumph over every obstacle, yet the 
 expediency of granting further protection is submit- 
 ted to your consideration. 
 
 The measures of defence, authorized by existing 
 laws, have been pursued with the zeal and activity 
 due to so important an object, and with all the de- 
 spatch practicable in so extensive and great an under- 
 taking. The survey of our maritime and inland fron- 
 tiers has been continued ; and, at the points where it 
 was decided to erect fortifications, the work has been 
 commenced, and, in some instances, considerable pro- 
 gress has been made. In compliance with resolu- 
 tions of the last session, the Board of Commissioners 
 were directed to examine in a particular manner the 
 parts of the coast therein designated, and to report 
 their opinion of the most suitable sites for two naval 
 depots. This work is in a train of execution. The 
 opinion of the Board on this subject, with a plan of 
 all the works necessary to a general system of defence, 
 so far as it has been formed, will be laid before Con- 
 gress, in a report from the proper department, as soon 
 as it can be prepared. 
 
 In conformity with the appropriations of the last 
 session, treaties have been formed with the Quapaw 
 tribe of Indians, inhabiting the country on the Arkan- 
 sas, and with the Great and Little Osages north of 
 the White River ; with the tribes in the State of Indi- 
 ana ; with the several tribes within the State of Ohio, 
 and the Michigan Territory ; and with the Chicka- 
 saws ; by which very extensive cessions of territory 
 have been made to the United States. Negotiations 
 are now depending with the tribes in the Illinois 
 Territory, and with the Choctaws, by which it is ex- 
 pected that other extensive cessions will be made. I 
 take great interest in stating that the cessions already 
 made, which are considered so important to the 
 United States, have been obtained on conditions very 
 satisfactory to the Indians. 
 
 With a view to the security of our inland frontiers, 
 it has been thought expedient to establish strong posts 
 at the mouth of Yellow Stone River, and at the Man- 
 dan village, on the Missouri : and at the mouth of St. 
 Peters, on the Mississippi, at no great distance from 
 our northern boundaries. It can hardly be presumed, 
 while such posts are maintained in the rear of the In- 
 dian tribes, that they will venture to attack our 
 peaceable inhabitants. A strong hope is entertained 
 that this measure will likewise be productive of much 
 good to the tribes themselves ; especially in promot- 
 ing the great object of their civilization. Experience
 
 DEBATES OF CONGKESS. 
 
 183 
 
 NOVEMBER, 1818.] 
 
 Proceedings. 
 
 has clearly demonstrated, that independent savage 
 communities cannot long exist within the limits of a 
 civilized population. The progress of the latter has, 
 almost invariably, terminated in the extinction of 
 the former, especially of the tribes belonging to our 
 portion of this hemisphere, among whom, loftiness of 
 sentiment, and gallantry in action, have been con- 
 spicuous. To civilize them, and even to prevent their 
 extinction, it seems to be indispensable that their in- 
 dependence, as communities, should cease, and that 
 the control of the United States over them should be 
 complete and undisputed. The hunter state will 
 then be more easily abandoned, and recourse will be 
 had to the acquisition and culture of land, and to 
 other pursuits tending to dissolve the ties which con- 
 nect them together as a savage community, and to 
 give a new character to every individual. I present 
 this subject to the consideration of Congress, on the 
 presumption that it may be found expedient and 
 practicable to adopt some benevolent provisions, hav- 
 ing these objects in view, relative to the tribes with- 
 in our settlements. 
 
 It has been necessary, during the present year, to 
 maintain a strong naval force in the Mediterranean, 
 and in the Gulf of Mexico, and to send some public 
 ships along the Southern coast, and to the Pacific 
 Ocean. By these means, amicable relations with 
 the Barbary Powers have been preserved, our com- 
 merce has been protected, and our rights respected. 
 The augmentation of our Navy is advancing, with 
 a steady progress, towards the limit contemplated by 
 law. 
 
 I communicate, with great satisfaction, the acces- 
 sion of another State, Illinois, to our Union ; because 
 I perceive, from the proof afforded by the additions 
 already made, the regular progress and sure consum- 
 mation of a policy of which history affords no exam- 
 ple, and of which the good effect cannot be too highly 
 estimated. By extending our Government, on the 
 principles of our constitution, over the vast territory 
 within our limits, on the lakes and the Mississippi, 
 and its numerous streams, new life and vigor are in- 
 fused into every part of our system. By increasing 
 the number of the States, the confidence of the State 
 governments in their own security is increased, and 
 their jealousy of the National Government propor- 
 tionally diminished. The impracticability of one 
 consolidated Government for this great and growing 
 nation will be more apparent, and will be universally 
 admitted. Incapable of exercising local authority, 
 except for general purposes, the General Government 
 will no longer be dreaded. In those cases of a local 
 nature, and for all the great purposes for which it 
 was instituted, its authority will be cherished. Each 
 Government will acquire new force and a greater free- 
 dom of action, within its proper sphere. Other 
 inestimable advantages will follow : our produce will 
 be augmented to an incalculable amount, in articles 
 of the greatest value for domestic use and foreign 
 commerce. Our navigation will, in like degree, be 
 increased ; and, as the shipping of the Atlantic States 
 will be employed in the transportation of the vast 
 produce of the Western country, even those parts of 
 the United States which are most remote from each 
 other, will be further bound together by the strongest 
 ties which mutual interest can create. 
 
 The situation of this District, it is thought, requires 
 the attention of Congress. By the constitution, the 
 power of legislation is exclusively vested in the Con- 
 gress of the United States. In the exercise of this 
 
 power, in which the people have no participation, 
 Congress legislate in all cases, directly on the local 
 concerns of the District. As this is a departure, for 
 a special purpose, from the general principles of our 
 system, it may merit consideration, whether an 
 arrangement better adapted to the principles of our 
 Government, and to the particular interests of the 
 people, may not be devised, which will neither in- 
 fringe the constitution, nor affect the object which 
 the provision in question was intended to secure. 
 The growing population, already considerable, and 
 the increasing business of the District, which it is 
 believed already interferes with the deliberations of 
 Congress on great national concerns, furnish addi- 
 tional motives for recommending this subject to your 
 consideration. 
 
 When we view the great blessings with which our 
 country has been favored, those which we now enjoy, 
 and the means which we possess of handing them 
 down, unimpaired, to our latest posterity, our atten- 
 tion is irresistibly drawn to the source from whence 
 they flow. Let us then unite in offering our most 
 grateful acknowledgments for these blessings to the 
 Divine Author of all Good. 
 
 JAMES MONROE. 
 
 NOVEMBER 16, 1818. 
 
 The Message was read, and two thousand 
 copies thereof ordered to be printed for the use 
 of the Senate. 
 
 WEDNESDAY, November 18. 
 HARRISON GRAY OTIS, from the State of 
 Massachusetts, attended this day. 
 
 THURSDAY, November 19. 
 JOHN J. CBITTENDEN, from the State of Ken- 
 tucky, attended this day. 
 
 FRIDAY, November 20. 
 CLEMENT STOKER, from the State of New 
 Hampshire, attended this day. 
 
 MONDAY, November 23. 
 NICHOLAS VAN DYKE, from the State of Dela- 
 ware, attended this day; JOHN FORSYTH, ap- 
 pointed a Senator by the Legislature of the 
 State of Georgia, to supply the vacancy occa- 
 sioned 'by the resignation of George M. Troup, 
 produced his credentials, was qualified, and 
 took his seat in the Senate. 
 
 TUESDAY, November 24 
 
 Mr. FROMENTIN submitted the following mo- 
 tion for consideration : 
 
 Resolved, That the President of the United States 
 be requested to cause to be laid before the Senate 
 such information as he may possess touching the exe- 
 cution of so much of the first article of the late 
 Treaty of Peace and Amity between His Britannic 
 Majesty and the United States of America as relates 
 to the restitution of slaves, and which has not hereto- 
 fore been communicated.
 
 184 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 Memorial of Matthew Lyon. 
 
 [DECEMBER, 1818. 
 
 WEDNESDAY, November 25. 
 
 OUTERBRIDGE HORSEY, from the State of Del- 
 aware, attended this day. 
 
 Agreeably to notice given, Mr. GOLDSBOEOTJGH 
 asked and obtained leave to introduce a resolu- 
 tion to erect a monument over the remains of 
 the late General GEORGE WASHINGTON, where 
 they now lie ; and the resolution was read, and 
 passed to the second reading. 
 
 MONDAY, November 30. 
 ISHAM TALBOT, from the State of Kentucky, 
 attended this day. 
 
 TUESDAY, December 1. 
 
 Mr. FORSYTE submitted the following motion 
 for consideration : 
 
 Resolved, That the Committee on Finance be in- 
 structed to inquire into the expediency of prohibiting 
 the exportation of the gold, silver, and copper coins 
 of the United States. 
 
 WEDNESDAY, December 2. 
 MONTFORD STOKES, from the State of North 
 Carolina, attended this day. 
 
 THURSDAY, December 3. 
 Deported Slaves. 
 
 The following Message was received from the 
 PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES : 
 To the Senate of the United States: 
 
 In compliance with the resolution of the Senate, 
 of the 25th of last month, requesting to be furnished 
 with such information as may be possessed by the 
 Executive, touching the execution of so much of the 
 first article of the late Treaty of Peace and Amity 
 between His Britannic Majesty and the United States, 
 as relates to the restitution of slaves, and which has 
 not heretofore been communicated, I lay before the 
 Senate a report made by the Secretary of State, on 
 the 1st instant, in relation to that subject. 
 
 JAMES MONEOE. 
 
 DECEMBER 2, 1818. 
 
 DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Dec. 1, 1818. 
 
 The Secretary of State, to whom has been referred 
 the resolution of the Senate, of the 13th ultimo, re- 
 questing information not heretofore communicated, 
 relating to restitution of slaves, conformably to the 
 first article of the late Treaty of Peace between the 
 United States and Great Britain, has the honor of 
 reporting to the President of the United States, that 
 the difference of construction given by the two Gov- 
 ernments to that part of the first article of the 
 Treaty, and the claim of the citizens of the United 
 States to indemnity for slaves carried away contrary 
 to its stipulations, form one of the subjects of nego- 
 tiation now pending in England ; which negotiation 
 having commenced towards the close of the month of 
 August, no report of its progress has yet been re- 
 ceived at this Department, from the Plenipotentiaries, 
 to whom, on the part of the United States, it has 
 been committed. 
 
 JOHN QUINCY ADAMS. 
 
 The Message and documents were read, and 
 ordered to lie on the table. 
 
 FRIDAY, December 4. 
 
 WILLIAM HUNTER, from the State of Rhode 
 Island and Providence Plantations, attended 
 this day. 
 
 NINIAN EDWARDS and JESSE B. THOMAS, re- 
 spectively appointed Senators by the Legisla- 
 ture of the State of Illinois, produced their cre- 
 dentials, were qualified, and took* their seats 
 in the Senate. 
 
 TUESDAY, December 8. 
 Memorial of Matthew Lyon. 
 
 The Senate resumed the consideration of the 
 report of the Committee on the Judiciary, to 
 whom was referred the memorial of Matthew 
 Lyon, of Eddyville, in the State of Kentucky, 
 praying reimbursement of a certain fine, im- 
 posed in the year 1798, at the suit of the Unit- 
 ed States, together with the costs and other 
 losses attending the same, to wit: "That the 
 prayer of the petition ought not to be granted." 
 Whereupon, 
 
 Mr. CRITTENDEN submitted the following mo- 
 tion as an amendment : 
 
 Resolved, That all persons, who were prosecuted 
 and fined under and by virtue of the second section 
 of the act of Congress, commonly called the sedition 
 law, approved the 14th day of July, 1798, and en- 
 titled " An act in addition to the act entitled ' An act 
 for the punishment of certain crimes against the 
 United States,' " ought to be reimbursed and indem- 
 nified out of the public Treasury, to the amount of 
 the fines imposed upon, and paid by them, respect- 
 ively. 
 
 Mr. CHITTENDEN said he considered the sedi- 
 tion act as having been unconstitutional, not 
 only from a defect of power in Congress to pass 
 such a law, but because its passage was ex- 
 pressly forbidden by the constitution. The 
 sense of the nation had unquestionably pro- 
 nounced it unconstitutional, and that opinion 
 being generally entertained, it ought to be sol- 
 emnly pronounced by the Legislature, that his- 
 tory and the records of the country may not 
 hand it down to posterity as a precedent for 
 acts of similar usurpation. If a revision of the 
 proceedings in that case was important in a 
 public point of view, it was certainly so as it 
 related to the individuals who became the sub- 
 jects of prosecution under that act. To each 
 of them, and to every citizen of the United 
 States, the Constitution of the United States had 
 guaranteed certain rights, which had been vio- 
 lated by that law. This guarantee entitled 
 them to indemnity in cases wherein those rights 
 were violated ; of this indemnity, the decision 
 of courts ought not to deprive them. If they 
 did, he said, there is no redeeming spirit in the 
 constitution. Legal sanctions cannot viti'ite 
 constitutional provisions. The Judiciary is a 
 valuable part of Government, and ought to be 
 highly respected; but is not infallible. The 
 constitution is our guide our supreme law. 
 Blind homage can never be rendered by freemen 
 to any power. In all cases of alleged violations
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 185 
 
 DECEMBER, 1818.] 
 
 Memorial of Matthew Lyon. 
 
 [SENATE. 
 
 of the constitution, it was for Congress to make 
 a just discrimination. In doubtful cases, he 
 said, he would iiot interfere ; but, when the 
 constitution forbade a law, he would not hesi- 
 tate to. interpose for the relief of those who 
 suffered by its inflictions. The case now before 
 the Senate, he considered a fair case for the in- 
 terposition of Congress. It had a peculiar char- 
 acter. The individual had a right to remunera- 
 tion ; this right ought not to be sacrificed to 
 contingencies, or to speculative opinions. We 
 may not do wrong that right may come of it. 
 Justice to the individuals, to the constitution, 
 to the country, all required this course. Let us 
 add, said Mr. C., new defences and guards to 
 the constitution in this assailable point. Let us 
 secure it, as far as in our power, from future 
 infraction on the ground of precedent. 
 
 Mr. BUEBILL sa_id he hoped the amendment 
 would not prevail. If it was negatived, the 
 gentleman would yet have it in his powr to 
 try the general question by introducing a bill 
 embracing his proposition. But, Mr. B. said, 
 not a fact alleged in the petition now before the 
 Senate was supported by any proof, though the 
 facts were extraordinary in then* nature, and 
 not to be believed without proof. The peti- 
 tioner had asked relief from Congress, on the 
 ground of not having had a fair trial. Ought 
 not this to be proved, instead of being merely 
 asserted? He had called Judge Patterson a 
 second Jeffries, himself an Algernon Sydney ; 
 but this was not a ground on which the Senate 
 could found a legislative act. The question re- 
 garding the constitutionality of the act of Con- 
 gress, which had been agitated, Mr. B. said he 
 would not argue ; not that he had any doubts 
 on the subject, but because it was unnecessary 
 now to discuss it. The question really before 
 the Senate was one which could be discussed 
 without reference to the character of Judge 
 Patterson, and without reflecting on the admin- 
 istration of justice in the courts of our country. 
 The facts alleged were not proved, and Mr. B. 
 believed they were not susceptible of proof. 
 
 Mr. BAEBOTJE said he had not intended to 
 speak on this question, unless impelled by an 
 imperious sense of duty. He was happy, he 
 said, that the question presented to the Senate, 
 instead of being decided on the merit or de- 
 merit of an individual, was to be decided on 
 the broad ground of principle. "Was the course 
 proposed in the amendment, he asked, an un- 
 usual course ? Was it not a daily practice to 
 include all who were in the same predicament 
 in the same remedy ? An individual, Mr. B. 
 said, was responsible for any charges he made ; 
 and they are not to be received as facts until 
 satisfactorily proved. Let not, therefore, the 
 great constitutional question now presented rest 
 on the merit of the claim of a single individual, 
 or be encumbered by questions of fact peculiar 
 to an isolated case. The true question now to 
 be decided, was, did the Government, by the 
 sedition act of 1798, from improper motives of 
 party feelings, violate the constitution and op- 
 
 press individuals? If they did, ought not the 
 new trustees to whom the people had confided 
 their authority, to remedy the evil as far as in 
 their power? The public sentiment, he said, 
 called upon Congress to repair the wrongs which 
 had been inflicted, and to administer, like the 
 good Samaritan, the healing balm to every 
 wound. This, he thought, was a propitious 
 moment to retrace the former steps, in deference 
 to the opinion of the people, and erect a barrier 
 against the recurrence of similar aggressions of 
 power on inherent and constitutional right. 
 This, he said, was not the tribunal to take cog- 
 nizance of judicial delinquency : that was the 
 province of the other House. But it was quite 
 within the power of this body, as one branch of 
 the Legislature, to pronounce that those who 
 gave the authority exercised by the judiciary 
 had no right to do so, and that, therefore, the 
 judiciary had proceeded unconstitutionally in 
 executing the law, the constitution being the 
 paramount law. He believed, he said, our 
 courts were the purest in the world ; but those 
 who composed them were mere men, and some 
 of them, possibly, bad men. Was there any 
 thing, he asked, in the ermine robe, which con- 
 ferred on the wearer exemption from human 
 frailties ? It was rather calculated to inflate the 
 vanity, and increase the confidence of the judge 
 in his own infallibility. He would not, he said, 
 act indelicately towards the judiciary, or any 
 member of it ; but, in regard to the violation of 
 the constitution, in the passage and execution 
 of the sedition law, a tribunal from which there 
 was no appeal, had decided on it. There was 
 among the people, at this day, scarcely a dis- 
 sentient voice on that subject. Would the de- 
 cision of four or five individuals counterbalance 
 this unanimous opinion ? The sedition act, Mr. 
 B. proceeded to say, was one of the most con- 
 spicuous among the acts of misrule, in conse- 
 quence of which the party who then held the 
 reins of Government was precipitated from 
 power. The law, he said, was unconstitutional, 
 and Congress ought to say so, and to repair the 
 ravages made under color of its authority. 
 
 Mr. OTIS said, this debate was wholly unex- 
 pected by him, until the gentleman from Ken- 
 tucky gave him an intimation a day or two ago, 
 that he intended to oppose the report of the 
 committee. He did not then intend to inter- 
 fere, as he believed the few observations he 
 might make would be wholly unprofitable ; and 
 nothing but some allusions which had been 
 made, would induce him to address the Senates 
 He was the only member of Congress, now in 
 the Senate, who voted for the sedition law ; and 
 there were but four or five in the other House, 
 who had aided in passing this law. It might 
 be expected he would let the world see he was 
 not ashamed of his old friends, nor of his old 
 principles. He was not now an advocate for ft 
 sedition law. The public opinion, as clearly 
 ascertained, forbade it. He respected this 
 opinion as sincerely as those who much oftener 
 referred to it. It was his inclination, as well
 
 186 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 Memorial of Matthew Lyan. 
 
 [DECEMBER, 1818. 
 
 as his duty, to conform to it. But, though he 
 would not repeat the offence, he could not re- 
 pent it. In supporting that law on its passage, 
 he acted from a sense of duty. Those who 
 acted with him, were governed by motives 
 equally honorable. He admitted the law was 
 inexpedient, but he thought gentlemen mistaken 
 when they pronounced it unconstitutional. This 
 question had been ably discussed, as well by 
 those who were opposed to the law, as by those 
 who advocated it ; and he should not now enter 
 deeply into the subject. Every Government 
 had an inherent right to punish offences which 
 endangered its existence ; and on this definition 
 he relied for a justification of the law. If the 
 President and Congress were convinced there 
 was a necessity* for such a law, they had a 
 right to enact it. It was passed in a period of 
 great danger and alarm. It was true, it had 
 been said these were chimerical. He trusted 
 this would not now be said. It was a period of 
 war, and of threatened invasion. Our ministers 
 of peace had been spurned by the French Ke- 
 public, who had demanded more money. The 
 nation was preparing to resist. At this mo- 
 ment the law was passed. It was a measure of 
 defence a part of the general system. Of this 
 system WASHINGTON approved, and accepted 
 the command of the army. Mr. O. did not wish 
 to excite unpleasant feelings, and would en- 
 deavor to avoid it. There was one argument 
 more he would urge. Had gentlemen lately 
 read the law ? If they had, they would remem- 
 ber that its second section only punished the 
 publication of false, scandalous, and malicions 
 matter, and admitted the truth to be given in 
 the defence. He had always been surprised 
 that this section was found fault with, while 
 the first section, defining a conspiracy, and pre- 
 scribing its punishment, had been passed over 
 without animadversion. The law was doubt- 
 less inexpedient, but it was not new in princi- 
 ple. Similar provisions existed in several of 
 the States ; and this act was deemed essential 
 for the defence of the constitution and its au- 
 thorities. It was not intended to affect the 
 poor individuals who became its victims ; but 
 it was thought that France, who was every- 
 where endeavoring to extend her influence by 
 intrigue and corruption, would, by her agents, 
 busy herself in our concerns, and that the pro- 
 visions of this act were necessary to defeat their 
 efforts, and preserve the Government. No 
 matter whether those apprehensions were un- 
 
 * This assumed source of power necessity constituted 
 the main dividing line between the Federalists and Repub- 
 licans in the beginning of the Government, and was the ar- 
 gument on which their support or opposition to measures 
 enlarging the powers of Congress so often turned the Fed- 
 eral party for it, the Republicans against it But at a later 
 period the time of the establishment of the second National 
 Bank, and the commencement of federal internal improve- 
 ment, the Republicans fell into the same doctrine and with 
 the same fate ; experience showing that each did, under the 
 plea (,( necessary, what was not so. 
 
 founded or not they existed. Nor need it be 
 wondered at. We had since seen and heard it 
 asserted, that the finger of Great Britain was 
 discovered in the proceedings of men, whose 
 principles, services, lives, families, and fortunes 
 were certain pledges of their fidelity to their 
 country. But, admitting that gentlemen are 
 correct, and that indelible stigma should bo 
 stamped on the law and its authors, can Con- 
 gress remedy the wrong done? We have no 
 constitutional power to declare any law uncon- 
 stitutional, in any other mode than by repealing 
 it. If gentlemen thought we had, he would 
 thank them to point out the clause. They could 
 not do it. We have no such power. The Ju- 
 diciary could do justice in such cases, but the 
 Legislature cannot. 
 
 Mr. SMITH said, that, being of the committee 
 who reported against the petition, and of opinion 
 that the prayer of it ought not to be granted, he 
 deemed it a duty to offer his reasons for differ- 
 ing from the gentlemen from Kentucky and 
 Virginia. He was in favor of the report, and 
 against the amendment. His political principles 
 were and always had been republican or (as they 
 had been formerly called, by way of reproach) 
 democratic. His principles had never changed, 
 nor was it probable they ever would, lie was 
 sorry gentlemen had gone so deep into the ques- 
 tion, as it might awaken feelings which had bet- 
 ter be permitted to slumber. When the sedi- 
 tion law passed, public opinion revolted a^ain^t 
 its principles and provisions, not because it was 
 unconstitutional, but because of the temper 
 manifested in enacting and executing it, -winch 
 induced a belief that the object was to crush all 
 opposition to the party in power. That party 
 were continually pouring in addresses upon the 
 President, applauding his measures, and de- 
 nouncing those who differed from them in opin- 
 ion. The very children presented their adula- 
 tory offerings ; and it was remarked by some 
 one at the time, that the President had as many 
 addresses in his bureau as James the First had. 
 The Democrats were denounced, and the Pres- 
 ident called on to remove them all from office ; 
 and on every removal of one of them, addresses 
 were sent to the President approbating his con- 
 duct. This created the alarm. To this violence 
 the sedition law owed the opposition it experi- 
 enced, and not to the belief that it was uncon- 
 stitutional. The times were not now what they 
 were in 1798. The Government now admitted 
 its opponents to a participation in its offices, 
 and its friends did not clamor for their dis- 
 missal. 
 
 But he would drop this subject, and return to 
 the question. The gentlemen from Massachu- 
 setts and Rhode Island justly opposed the as- 
 sumption by Congress to decide on the consti- 
 tutionality of a law. Our constitution had very 
 properly separated the powers of Government 
 the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. They 
 should be kept separate. The Judiciary was to 
 construe laws. Congress could not reverse their 
 decisions, nor repair their injuries. When they
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 187 
 
 DECEMBER, 1818.] 
 
 Memorial of Matthew Lyon. 
 
 [SENATE. 
 
 had passed a law, and the President signed it, 
 they could not touch it, unless to repeal or 
 amend it. The opinions of legal men ought to 
 have great weight. The Judiciary was com- 
 posed of such. They were selected for their 
 legal acquirements. They deliberated well be- 
 fore they decided. They would not have stoop- 
 ed to party purposes, but they gave the law its 
 full operation. This could give Congress no 
 right to interfere. Are you to presume the 
 judges were perjured and prostituted? We 
 ought not to do so without proof; and we have 
 here only the suggestions and recollections of 
 eighteen or twenty years ago. And he must 
 here say, the petitioner had here given evidence 
 that he can now write bitterly, if he did not 
 then. He appealed to gentlemen who had pro- 
 fessionally studied law, whether the sedition act 
 was unconstitutional. He was not satisfied it 
 was so, but inclined to think otherwise. In this 
 case at least, the applicant ought not to be 
 believed, as there was no evidence of the truth 
 of his allegations. In the infancy of our Gov- 
 vernment, the common law of England was 
 adopted. This forbade the proof of any fact 
 alleged, and was much more severe than the 
 sedition law. Under the common law, instead 
 of admitting the truth as a justification, " The 
 greater the truth, the greater the libel." The 
 jury could only decide on the fact of publica- 
 tion, and the court could fine and imprison at 
 their discretion. There was no offence punish- 
 able by the sedition act but was indictable &t 
 common law, save perhaps in a single case ; and 
 while under the former the truth might be given 
 in evidence, and the jury had cognizance both 
 of law and fact, under the latter the truth but 
 aggravated the offence, and the offender was at 
 the mercy of the court. The sedition law was 
 therefore an amelioration of the common law. 
 But the great evil was in the spirit which pre- 
 vailed in its enaction and administration. 
 
 Mr. MACON had hoped the resolution would be 
 discussed on its merits, as it did not even men- 
 tion Matthew Lyon's name. The true question 
 was, will you review the proceedings under the 
 sedition law, now, while party spirit is hushed, 
 and all is calm ? This calm he did not wish to 
 disturb. But if you agree to the report, and re- 
 ject the petition, how will you bring the ques- 
 tion before you ? He was told the precedent 
 would be dangerous. He would meet this at 
 once. If any party in power thought it their 
 duty to follow it, let them do so. He did not 
 admire precedent more than the gentleman from 
 South Carolina, but, when wrong was done, it 
 ought to be righted. The adoption of the con- 
 stitution, and the state of things abroad and at 
 home, which ensued, had excited heats in the 
 country; and he supposed both parties \vi-iv 
 sometimes wrong. The country is now peace- 
 ful, and we can act free from prejudice or party. 
 He should not attempt to discuss the constitu- 
 tionality of the sedition law. He had often 
 been heard on this subject, and he supposed 
 every man had made up his mind on the ques- 
 
 tion. If the Senate was satisfied the law was 
 unconstitutional, they ought to adopt the reso- 
 ution ; if they had doubts, they ought to re- 
 ect it. Some facts were stated in the petition 
 lot known to him; but he believed Matthew 
 Lyon had remunerated all the members who ad- 
 vanced money to relieve him from his fine. Ac- 
 ording to some gentleman we were to regard 
 the judiciary more than the law, and both more 
 than the constitution. It was a misfortune the 
 udges were not equal in infallibility to the God 
 who made them. The truth was, if the judge 
 was a party man out of power, he would be a 
 party man in. The office would not change 
 tmman nature. He had no doubt that the sedi- 
 tion law, and the proceedings under it, had more 
 effect in revolutionizing the Government than 
 all its other acts. He well remembered the 
 language of the times pay your taxes, but 
 don't speak against Government. The gentle- 
 man from Massachusetts admits the inexpe- 
 diency of the law, but not its unconstitution- 
 ality. This was of itself a great concession. 
 Would he, or the gentleman from South Caro- 
 lina, put his finger on the clause of the consti- 
 tution which authorized that law ? He would 
 not impute evil motives he had nothing to do 
 with them, but with acts. He would have pre- 
 ferred a silent vote ; but, being referred to in 
 the petition, he could not be silent. Money is 
 paid back daily from the Treasury to individu- 
 als, without its being called revising the decision 
 of the judges. He did not agree with the gen- 
 tleman from Massachusetts about the powers of 
 the Government. That gentleman thought it 
 might do any act necessary to its preservation. 
 He, Mr. M., believed it could not go beyond the 
 constitution. We have in this country two gov- 
 ernments. The constitution defines the powers 
 of the General Government, and leaves the State 
 governments untouched. He thought the po- 
 sition clear, that if there was no constitutional 
 power to pass the law, the money was taken 
 wrongfully, and ought to be restored. Mr. MA- 
 CON was sorry the names of judges had been 
 introduced. We ought to pass lightly over the 
 ashes of the dead. Let them sleep quietly with 
 their' fathers he would not disturb them. 
 
 The Senate adjourned, without taking the 
 question. 
 
 WEDNESDAY, December 9. 
 Memorial of Matthew Lyon. 
 
 The Senate resumed the consideration of the 
 report of the Judiciary Committee unfavorable 
 to the petition of Matthew Lyon ; Mr. CRITTEN- 
 DEN'S motion to re verse the report, and to make 
 general provision for the indemnification of all 
 similar cases occurring under the sedition law, 
 being yet under consideration : 
 
 Mr.'MoRRiLL said, the discussion had taken a 
 course which was unexpected ; and he felt it a 
 duty to make some remarks, and assign the rea- 
 sons which would govern his vote. The ques- 
 tion turned on the constitutionality of the sedi-
 
 188 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 General John Stark. 
 
 [DECEMBER, 1818. 
 
 tion law. He was opposed to the resolution, 
 because he believed the law constitutional. The 
 law only punished false, licentious, and mali- 
 cious writings. The constitution did not mean 
 to prohibit a law to punish these. It was in- 
 tended to cherish virtue and morality, and to 
 preserve our rights and privileges ; and which 
 of these did we esteem higher than reputation ? 
 The constitution prohibited any law abridging 
 the free'dom of speech or of the press. Now, 
 freedom and liberty are synonymous and con- 
 vertible terms. The law was not intended to 
 abridge the liberty of the press, but its licen- 
 tiousness. The second section allowed the truth 
 to 1 be given in evidence. If the publication was 
 licentious, the charge could not be supported, 
 and the offender would be punished. If it 
 contained facts, they could be maintained, and 
 an acquittal would take place. He was opposed 
 to the resolution on another ground this was 
 not the proper tribunal to decide the question 
 of unconstitutionality. The judiciary was the 
 proper tribunal. If Congress should indemnify 
 in one case, they might in others and where 
 would we stop ? All would be confusion and un- 
 certainty. 
 
 Mr. CBITTENDEN felt himself bound to reply 
 to some observations which had been made. 
 The public voice had determined the unconsti- 
 tutionality of the sedition law : it had removed 
 one party from power, and elevated another. 
 He had expected Congress would confirm the 
 decision of the people. He should be sorry if 
 he were disappointed ; but it would be a great 
 consolation that the opinion of the nation was 
 with him. If the law was a violation of the 
 national compact, -which guaranteed to every 
 dividual freedom to speak and to publish what 
 he chose, could we retain fines incurred under 
 this law ? In a moral point of view, the money 
 ought to be refunded; and he knew not on 
 what ground the claim could be resisted. For 
 the judiciary he felt a proper respect ; but he 
 would not bow submissively to every thing the 
 judiciary should say. As a man, and as a mem- 
 ber of the Senate, he had a right to form opin- 
 ions for himself. The constitution he regarded 
 as the supreme law, and entitled to our first at- 
 tention and respect. By this resolution we 
 should cast no stigma on any judge or court : it 
 was not revising any judicial decision ; it was no 
 indelicacy to the judiciary. The blame attach- 
 ed to Congress more than to the judiciary. We 
 ourselves have done an injurious act ; it is for 
 us to repair the wrong. There was no more in- 
 delicacy in the present case, than there would 
 be in moving the repeal of a law. He thought 
 gentlemen quite too sensitive on this subject. He 
 had no wish to cast a stigma on either the judi- 
 ciary or Congress no desire to impute impure 
 motives to either ; but purity of motive could 
 not make the law constitutional. Victorious 
 parties might pursue their adversaries too far, 
 as well in the Senate as in the field; hence 
 arose the act in question. The stability of the 
 judiciary was not to be affected by this resolu- 
 
 tion. He judged the law by the constitution. 
 He did not like the judiciary less than others, 
 but he loved the constitution more. 
 
 Mr. OTIS said he should not enter into the ar- 
 gument of the question ; but would merely sug- 
 gest a fact which he had before omitted. He 
 believed the people of the United States had 
 never demonstrated their opinion that the sedi- 
 tion law was unconstitutional. After the Vir- 
 ginia Legislature had passed their resolutions, 
 denouncing this law, and circulars enclosing 
 their proceedings were sent to the Legislatures- 
 of the several States, those of New England unan- 
 imously declined expressing their disapproba- 
 tion of the law, and so far gave their sanction 
 to it. Virginia again took up the subject, and 
 gave a comprehensive view of all the arguments 
 against the law ; and this was carried through 
 the Legislature but by about two to one. He 
 thought at least one-half of the people of the 
 United States might be considered as having 
 expressed their opinion that the law was con- 
 stitutional ; yet, he would not at this time so 
 far outrage public opinion as to vote for a re- 
 newal of this law. He hoped it might be done 
 without ; but it might have to be recurred to 
 in times of imminent public danger. A crisis 
 might arrive, when it would not be safe to let 
 the press denounce the President of the United 
 States as a usurper and highwayman, and the 
 Congress as swindlers, and participators in his 
 plunder ; and to declare that the people had no 
 resource but in a convention of delegates. 
 
 The question was taken on Mr. CRITTENDEN'S 
 proposition, and decided in the negative yeas 
 17, nays, 20, as follows : 
 
 YEAS. Messrs. Barbour, Crittenden, Edwards, 
 Eppes, Forsyth, Lacock, Macon, Morrow, Palmer, 
 Roberts, Ruggles, Sanford, Stokes, Talbot, Thomas, 
 Williams of Mississippi, and Wilson. 
 
 NAYS. Messrs. Burrill, Daggett, Fromentin, Gail- 
 lard, Hanson, Hunter, Johnson, King, Leake, Mellen, 
 Merrill, Noble, Otis, Smith, Storer, Taylor, Tichenor, 
 Van Dyke, and Williams of Tennessee. 
 
 The report of the committee was then con- 
 curred in ayes 20. 
 
 FRIDAY, December 11. 
 
 CHABLES TAIT, from the State df Georgia, at- 
 tended this day. 
 
 WEDNESDAY, December 16. 
 General JoJm StarJc. 
 
 The Senate proceeded again to the considera- 
 tion of the bill for the relief of General Stark, 
 an amendment having been heretofore agreed 
 to, on motion of Mr. TICIIENOR, to change the 
 commencement of the pension from the 4th of 
 July, 1817, to the 16th of August,(the anniver- 
 sary of the battle of Bennington, in which 
 General Stark so greatly signalized himself,) 
 and the question was on ordering it to a third 
 reading. 
 
 Mr. KOBEBTS commenced a brief debate on
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 189 
 
 DECEMBER, 1818.] 
 
 Illegal Transportation of Slaves. 
 
 [SENATE. 
 
 the bill, by objecting to its passage, though 
 under the highest sense of General Stark's 
 merits, on the general ground of being adverse 
 to a system of pensions, when not justified by 
 disability incurred in the public service ; that, 
 if a pension were granted in this case, the same 
 argument would justify pensions in numerous 
 other cases , and because, in this instance, the 
 relief was not solicited by General Stark him- 
 self, but by others for him. 
 
 Mr. FROMENTIN replied to Mr. ROBERTS, and 
 advocated the bill with much earnestness, re- 
 marking, in substance, that he would act on 
 this single case, without extending his views to 
 other possible cases to which his attention was 
 not called; that the very silence of General 
 Stark was the most eloquent appeal he could 
 possibly make for support, because age and in- 
 firmity had rendered him incapable of making 
 his own petition ; that, on the score of expense, 
 there was little to apprehend on that account; 
 for, so far from the probability that General 
 Stark would be a burden to the Treasury, there 
 was danger that, ere the present bill could re- 
 ceive the approbation necessary to make it a 
 law, the object of it (now ninety odd years of 
 age) would have descended to the tomb, as was 
 almost the fact in the case of General St. Clair, 
 who did not enjoy his pension more than 
 three months, when he became a tenant of the 
 grave. 
 
 Mr. KINO> rose merely to remark that, if the 
 Senate were composed altogether of men of his 
 age, he believed there would not be a dissent- 
 ing voice heard against the bill; because they 
 would all have then, as he had, a personal re- 
 collection of the singular and extraordinary 
 Revolutionary services of General Stark. Mr. 
 K. mentioned, as particular examples, the un- 
 rivalled conduct and services of General Stark 
 at the battle of Bunker Hill ; his subsequent 
 success in arresting the triumphant progress of 
 Burgoyne ; the feelings of joy and encourage- 
 ment in the cause, which were diffused through- 
 out all the northern section of the States, by the 
 achievements and success of Stark, and which, 
 if every member were old enough to remember, 
 as he did, there would, he repeated, be not a 
 solitary objection to this bill. 
 
 Mr. SMITH followed in opposition to the bill. 
 He argued, in reply to its advocates, that if 
 General Stark was so near his end as was repre- 
 sented, there was the less necessity for this bill, 
 because he could not live to enjoy it, and the 
 doctrine was long since exploded that a man 
 had use for money after his decease passage- 
 money was no longer deemed necessary. If it 
 was for relief, it was unnecessary ; but, if it was 
 intended as a compliment, that was another 
 question. In either view he was opposed to it. 
 Mr. S. denied the power of giving pensions for 
 the purpose of distinction, and he had therefore 
 never given his assent to any pension not pre- 
 viously provided for by law. He did by no 
 nu-aii^ deny the great merits of General Stark ; 
 but this being another case in the improper 
 
 system of pensions, now becoming common, 
 he was opposed to it, and hoped it would not 
 pass. 
 
 Mr. MORRILL made a few remarks in reply to 
 some of the observations made by gentlemen on 
 this subject, when before under consideration, 
 and added a few words on the uncommon 
 merits of General Stark briefly noticing his 
 gallant conduct at Bunker Hill, at Bennington, 
 at Trenton, at Princeton, &c., adducing the 
 voluntary letters of compliment from Mr. Jef- 
 ferson and Mr. Madison, respectively, on their 
 succeeding to the Presidency, and concluded by 
 saying, that if merit was to be estimated by 
 services rendered to one's country, there was 
 none so deserving as the veteran hero the Senate 
 was now called on to relieve from penury. 
 
 The question was then taken on ordering the 
 bill to a third reading, and decided in the 
 affirmative, as follows : 
 
 YEAS. Messrs. Burrill, Crittenden, Dickerson, 
 Eaton, Edwards, Forsyth, Fromentin, Gaillard, Hor- 
 sey, Hunter, Johnson, King, Leake, Mellen, Morrill, 
 Morrow, Otis, Palmer, Ruggles, Sanford, Stokes, 
 Storer, Talbot, Taylor, Thomas, Tichenor, Williams 
 of Mississippi, Williams of Tennessee, and Wilson 
 29. 
 
 NAYS. Messrs. Eppes, Lacock, Macon, Noble, 
 Robertson, and Smith 6. 
 
 FRIDAY, December 18. 
 Illegal Transportation of Slates. 
 
 Mr. WILSON, of New Jersey, rose to offer a 
 resolution. He observed that the resolution he 
 was about to submit required a few words of 
 explanation. The traffic in slaves and servants 
 of color had been carried on to considerable 
 extent from the State of New Jersey ; and, 
 under color of this traffic, it was believed many 
 free persons, or who were soon to become free, 
 had been consigned to slavery for life. The 
 Legislature of New Jersey, at its late session, 
 had unanimously passed a law to prevent this 
 traffic ; but it was feared this law could not be 
 carried into complete effect, without the co-op- 
 eration of the revenue officers of the United 
 States, authorized by an act of Congress. The 
 Legislature had therefore instructed their Sena- 
 tors, and requested their Representatives in 
 Congress, to use their endeavors to procure the 
 passing of an act to prevent the transportation 
 of slaves, or servants of color, from any State 
 to any other part of the United States, in cases 
 where, by the laws of such State, such trans- 
 portation is prohibited. In conformity with 
 these instructions, as well as agreeably to his 
 own feelings and principles, he therefore begged 
 leave to submit the following resolution : 
 
 Resolved, That the committee on the subject of 
 the slave trade be instructed to inquire into the ex- 
 pediency of making provision, by law, " to prevent 
 the transportation of slaves, and servants of color, 
 from any one State to any other part of the United 
 States, in cases where, by the laws of such State, 
 such transportation is prohibited."
 
 190 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 Exportation of Domestic Coins. 
 
 [JANUARY, 1819. 
 
 General Jacfaon and the Seminole War. 
 
 The Senate resumed the consideration of the 
 motion of the 4th instant, for referring to a select 
 committee the Message from the President, 
 and documents, relative to the Seminole war ; 
 and, on motion by Mr. EATON, the same having 
 been amended, was agreed to as follows : 
 
 Resohed, That the Message of the President, 
 and documents, relative to the Seminole war, 
 be referred to a select committee, who shall 
 have authority, if necessary, to send for persons 
 and papers: that said committee inquire rela- 
 tive to the advance of the United States troops 
 into West Florida; whether the officers in 
 command at Pensacola and St. Marks were 
 amenable to, and under the control of Spain ; 
 and, particularly, what circumstances existed, 
 to authorize or justify the Commanding General 
 in taking possession of those posts. 
 
 Messrs. LACOCK, EATON, FORSYTH, KING, and 
 BURRILL, were appointed the committee. 
 
 THURSDAY, December 24. 
 Mr. SANFORD presented the memorial of the 
 New York Society for promoting the manumis- 
 sion of slaves, and for protecting such of them 
 as have been, or may be, liberated; and the 
 memorial was read, and referred to the com- 
 mittee on that subject. 
 
 THURSDAY, December 31. 
 
 A message from the House of Representatives 
 informed the Senate of the death of the honor- 
 able GEORGE MUMFORD, late a member of the 
 House of Representatives from the State of 
 North Carolina, and that his funeral will take 
 place to-morrow morning at 10 o'clock. 
 
 On motion by Mr. MAOON, 
 
 Resolved unanimously, That the Senate will 
 attend the funeral of the honorable George 
 Mumford, late a member of the House of Rep- 
 resentatives from the State of North Carolina, 
 to-morrow morning at 10 o'clock; and as a 
 testimony of respect for the memory of the 
 deceased, they will go into mourning, and wear 
 a black crape round the left arm for thirty 
 days. 
 
 The Senate adjourned to Monday morning. 
 
 WEDNESDAY, January 6, 1819. 
 DANIEL D. TOMPKINS, Vice President of the 
 United States, and President of the Senate, at- 
 tended, and took the Chair. 
 
 FRIDAY, January 8. 
 Monument to Washington. 
 The Senate then resumed the consideration 
 of the bill providing for the erection of a mon- 
 ument over the remains of General GEOKGE 
 WASHINGTON, where they now lie. 
 
 Mr. BARBOUR moved that the bill be recom- 
 mitted, with instructions to report a bill appro- 
 
 priating money for the erection of an equestrian 
 statue of General WASHINGTON, in conformity 
 with the resolution of Congress of 1783. 
 
 [This resolution was passed on the 7th of 
 August, 1783, and directs substantially that an 
 equestrian statue of bronze be erected at the 
 Seat of Government ; that the General be rep- 
 resented in a Roman dress, holding a truncheon 
 in his right hand, his head encircled by a laurel 
 wreath ; that the pedestal be of marble, on 
 which to be represented in relief, the following 
 principal events of the war in which General 
 WASHINGTON commanded in person, viz: the 
 evacuation of Boston ; the capture of the Hes- 
 sians at Trenton ; the battle of Princeton ; the 
 battle of Monmouth, and the surrender of York- 
 town. The resolution directed also the inscrip- 
 tions ; that it shall be executed by the best 
 artists, &c.] 
 
 The motion produced a short debate, and was 
 finally decided in the affirmative, as follows : 
 
 YEAS. Messrs. Barbour, Burrill, Crittenden, Dag- 
 gett, Eaton, Edwards, Forsyth, Fromentin, Gail- 
 lard, Goldsborough, Horsey, Hunter, Johnson, King, 
 Leake, Macon, Mellen, Morrill, Otis, Palmer, San- 
 ford, Stokes, Storer, Tait, Talbot, Taylor, Thomas, 
 Tichenor, Van Dyke, and Williams of Tennessee 
 30. 
 
 NAYS. Messrs. Lacock, Morrow, Noble, Roberts, 
 Ruggles, and Smith 6. 
 
 MONDAY, January 25. 
 Exportation of Domestic Coins. 
 
 Mr. TALBOT, from the Committee on Finance, 
 to whom was referred a resolution of the Senate 
 to inquire into the expediency of prohibiting by 
 law the exportation of the gold, silver, and cop- 
 per coins of the United States, made the follow- 
 ing report, wbich was read : 
 
 The Committee on Finance, to whom was referred 
 a resolution to inquire into the expediency of prohib- 
 iting by law, the exportation of the gold, silver, and 
 copper coins of the United States, report : 
 
 That, the measure contemplated in the resolution 
 intimately connecting itself with the fiscal concerns 
 of the nation, the committee, through their chairman, 
 addressed a note to the Secretary of the Treasury, 
 requesting his opinion of the propriety of adopting 
 measures for the attainment of the object in contem- 
 plation, from whom they received in reply a commu- 
 nication, which accompanies this "report, with the 
 arguments and opinions expressed, in wbich those of 
 your committee substantially correspond. 
 
 Of the inefficiency, if not entire impotence of legis- 
 lative provisions to prevent the escape of the precious 
 metals beyond the territorial limits of the Government, 
 the history of all countries in which the power of leg- 
 islation has been thus exercised, bears testimony. 
 And, if all the efforts of arbitrary power in despotic 
 Governments, if regulations dictated by the most 
 cautious and jealous policy, guarded by penalties and 
 punishments the most cruel and sanguinary, and 
 enforced with a rigor which knows no mitigation, 
 have been in vain, what hope can be indulged that a 
 Government like ours the genius and spirit of which 
 breathes mildness and moderation a country in
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 191 
 
 FEBRUARY, 1819.] 
 
 Sales of Public Lands. 
 
 [SENATE. 
 
 which cruel and unusual punishments are unknown 
 could find the means of obtaining, by this mild spirit 
 of legislation, this desirable end ? Indeed, no error 
 seems more entirely renounced and exploded, if not 
 by the practice of all nations, at least in the dis- 
 quisitions of political economists, than that which 
 supposed that an accumulation of the precious metals 
 could be produced in the dominions of one sovereign j 
 by regulations prohibiting their exportation to those 
 of any other. The evils resulting to the community 
 from a scarcity, or too small a portion of the precious 
 metals, seem to your committee to be too deeply 
 seated to yield to any remedies within the compe- 
 tency of legislation to afford. It, is a malady which 
 admits of no cure but that of time, patient industry, 
 and persevering economy. As long as the balance 
 of trade is against us, so long will a constant efflux 
 of the precious metals be required for the discharge 
 of such balance. 
 
 From this axiom in commerce, the correctness of 
 which, it is believed, never was questioned, it follows 
 that it remains with the people themselves to adjust 
 this balance, and to produce a preponderance in favor 
 of our own country. Highly favored as they are by 
 the bounty of Providence ; blessed with a conntry of 
 unparalleled fertility ; with soil, climate, and situa- 
 tion almost infinitely diversified ; with capacities of 
 rivalling every quarter of the globe in the agricul- 
 tural productions, as well as in the perfection of their 
 manufactures, raw materials for which are so abun- 
 dantly furnished them within the bosom of their own 
 country ; aided by a moderate and wise economy in 
 a limited enjoyment of foreign luxuries with these 
 advantages, duly appreciated and fully improved, to 
 what elevated condition in their intercourse with 
 foreign nations may they not aspire ? To the pro- 
 tection of our domestic manufactures by the imposi- 
 tion of duties on foreign importations, the National I 
 Government seemed to have gone as far as sound j 
 policy would warrant or permit ; the present tariff i 
 having been framed with a view as well of raising j 
 the requisite supply of revenue for the support of j 
 Government, as, by the amount of the duties imposed 
 on foreign articles of manufacture, to enable our own 
 manufacturer of similar articles to meet the importer 
 of such foreign manufacture, in our own market, on 
 terms of fair and equal competition. 
 
 Further than this, it would seem to your com- 
 mittee, the Congress of the United States ought not 
 to go. To commercial enterprise, to the sagacity of 
 this class of the community, sharpened by the keen 
 sense of interest, and enlightened by long experience, 
 it should be left to explore the old, or, seeking new 
 channels of commerce, find out the most profitable 
 markets for the productions of our imtive and domes- 
 tic industry, and to bring us in exchange such of the 
 productions of foreign climates, and of foreign labor, 
 as our citizens are willing to purchase. In short, it 
 is the opinion of your committee, that commerce is 
 always destined to flourish most where it is permitted 
 to pursue its own paths, marked out by itself, embar- 
 rassed as little as possible by legislative regulations 
 or restrictions. 
 
 From these considerations your committee are in- 
 duced to recommend the adoption of the following 
 resolution : 
 
 Resolved, That it is not expedient for Congress to 
 adopt any regulations for preventing the exportation 
 of the gold, silver, or copper coins of the United 
 States. 
 
 TUESDAY, February 9. 
 Sales of Public Lands. 
 
 Mr. MORROW, from the Committee on Public 
 Lands, who were instructed "to inquire into 
 the expediency of so altering the laws respect- 
 ing the sale of the public lands, that, from and 
 
 after the day of next, credit shall not 
 
 be given on such sales," made a report, accom- 
 panied by a bill, making further provision for 
 the sale of public lands; and the report and 
 bill were read, and the bill passed to the second 
 reading. 
 
 The report is as follows : 
 
 That a view to the extensive territory placed at 
 the disposal of the Government, the increasing de- 
 mand for new lands for cultivation, arising from the 
 progressive augmentation of the population in the 
 United States, and the influence which the proposed 
 alteration in the system for the sale of public lands, 
 must produce on the interests of a large portion of 
 the community, give, in the opinion of the commit- 
 tee, more than ordinary importance to the inquiry 
 which they are instructed to make. 
 
 From the connection that the terms of credit have 
 with the other provisions and conditions provided for 
 the sale of the public lands, a correspondent alteration 
 in the price and size of the tracts offered for sale, will 
 be necessary, when the credit is discontinued on fu- 
 ture sales. That provision, alone, would virtually 
 operate an enhancement of the price, and lessen the 
 facility to men of limited capital, of acquiring new 
 lands for settlement and cultivation. 
 
 In this view, the committee have considered the 
 expediency of providing for the discontinuance of 
 credit, a reduction of the price, and a subdivision of 
 tracts in future sales. The provisions for the sale 
 of public lands now in force, with some subsequent 
 alterations, were adopted by the act of the 10th day 
 of May, 1800. By its general regulations, a credit 
 is allowed on three-fourths of the purchase-money for 
 the lands sold. The moneys credited may be retain- 
 ed by incurring the charge of simple interest, for five 
 years, from the time of purchase. It would appear 
 that, at the first sales under this law, the long term 
 of credit allowed had induced excessive purchases. 
 The term of credit on these sales expired in the year 
 1805 ; and in 1806, it became necessary for Congress 
 to interpose for relief of the purchasers, to prevent 
 extensive forfeitures for failure in payment; and, 
 since that period, nine several acts have been passed 
 for the relief of the purchasers of public lands ; and 
 these acts for mitigating the operation for the general 
 provision of the law have been in force more than one-* 
 half of the whole time since the system was first or- 
 ganized. The inducements of a long credit, which 
 encourage purchases beyond the means for making 
 payment, the general disposition in men to anticipate 
 the most favorable results from the products of their 
 labor, and the frequent unfavorable fluctuations in 
 commerce, which cannot be foreseen by the most dis- 
 cerning, are the principal causes of the failures in 
 payment by purchasers of public lands. It must ap- 
 pear from the Treasury statement^ at the present 
 session, of the amount of outstanding balances, on 
 account of the sales of public lands, with the em- 
 barrassments arising from the deranged state of the 
 currency, that any degree of punctuality in the pay- 
 ment of the debts now due is highly improbable. If 
 the laws were left to operate in the rigid exactions of
 
 192 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 Duelling. 
 
 [FEBRUARY, 1819. 
 
 the penalties and forfeitures, the most serious injuries 
 (in the present circumstances of the country) must 
 follow to a large class of the community ; and the 
 effect of relief, by an extension for the time for pay- 
 ment, while the sales continue to progress, may pro 
 duce an accumulation of the deht, and increase the 
 difficulty in making the final payments. 
 
 The experience for several years of the effects of 
 this system, the frequent recurrence of circumstances 
 which render necessary the interposition of the Legis- 
 lature to mitigate the general operation of law, and 
 the extensive forfeitures which have been incurred, 
 notwithstanding the aid of frequent remedial laws for 
 the relief of the purchasers, seem to forbid any 
 calculation on a successful operation of the same sys- 
 tem in future sales. It cannot be correct policy to 
 persist in the continuance of a system so much affect- 
 ed by circumstances, as that under consideration ; 
 which requires the frequent aid of mitigating expe- 
 dients to preserve its existence, and to prevent its 
 oppressive effects on a considerable portion of the 
 community. It is not believed that any of the acts 
 for the relief of the purchaser of public lands were 
 unnecessary indulgences. The unfavorable state of 
 things, during the restrictions on our commerce, and 
 the late war, rendered such measures necessary ; and 
 the present state of the currency presents claims for 
 indulgence still more imperative. Judging from the 
 experience of the past, without any assurance of a 
 more favorable state of things in future, it may be 
 concluded that the system of credit is not well adapt- 
 ed to the circumstances of the country, and will be 
 injurious so long as commerce is liable to fluctua- 
 tion. The allowance of credit on the sales of the 
 public lands, could not have been adopted for the 
 benefit of capitalists ; to them it is unnecessary, and 
 for them it ought not to have been provided. And 
 yet it is believed that it has operated most to the 
 disadvantage of men destitute of capital. An indi- 
 vidual who takes the whole term of credit allowed by 
 law, on the three last instalments of purchase money, 
 is charged on the moneys credited more than ten per 
 cent, per annum above the purchaser who makes 
 prompt payment ; and, in many instances, if he pos- 
 sess no other resources than those arising from the 
 land itself, he incurs a forfeiture of the money paid, 
 and the land, with its improvements. If the allow- 
 ance of credit on future sales was abolished, every 
 subsequent purchaser would, without any liability to 
 error, be able to calculate his means for payment ; 
 and if his purchase should not be so extensive, he 
 would at once become an independent landholder, 
 secure and quiet in his possession. In future, those 
 fertile sources of discontent and disquietude, which 
 arise from disappointment, and from the exercise of 
 measures necessary to enforce the payments, as also 
 the frequent distress occasioned by the forfeiture of 
 lands on which settlements have been made, would 
 be avoided ; and (as will be proposed) were the public 
 lands offered for sale in tracts of eighty acres, at one 
 dollar and fifty cents per acre, then any individual, 
 on the payment of one hundred and twenty dollars, 
 might acquire a freehold estate, without encumbering 
 himself with any debt whatever. It is believed that 
 an advantage to the general interest of the districts 
 in which the public lands are sold, would result from 
 discontinuing the credit on the sales. The purchaser 
 is in possession of the lands purchased, for four or five 
 years before the completion of his payment. The 
 product of his labor, for that time, is applied in dis- 
 
 charge of his debt, and passes into the public Treas- 
 ury. In as far as the instalments are collected in 
 the district, it operates on the principle of rents col- 
 lected, and withdrawn from circulation, or of a par- 
 tial tax on that part of the community. The drain 
 of money from circulation, thus occasioned, has been 
 sensibly felt ; and the balance in exchange against 
 the western country, may, on this principle, be ac- 
 counted for. In case of cash payments, the resources 
 for payment would be drawn from other parts of the 
 country, in as far as emigrants are the purchasers. 
 In a more general point of view, the proposed meas- 
 ure appears important. The accumulation of debt, 
 in particular districts, where the mass of citizens are 
 the debtors, is a consequence attending the credit 
 system. The principles of general policy require 
 that charges on the people, for the necessary supply 
 of revenue, should be diffused over the whole society ; 
 by adopting cash payments, this evil would be avoided ; 
 and the interest of subsequent purchasers would then 
 be identified with that of the Government. 
 
 From the foregoing consideration it is respectfully 
 proposed that credit on future sales shall not be al- 
 lowed ; that the price of the public lands be fixed at 
 one dollar and fifty cents ; and that the lands be of- 
 fered for sale in tracts of eighty acres. 
 
 And for that purpose they ask leave to report a bill. 
 Duelling. 
 
 The Senate resumed the consideration of the 
 motion, submitted yesterday by Mr. MOREILL, to 
 request the President to dismiss certain officers 
 from service. 
 
 Mr. MOERILL addressed the Chair as follows : 
 
 Mr. President, it is with no ordinary degree 
 of sensation that I invite the attention of the 
 Senate to the consideration of the resolution 
 which I had the honor to present. The nature 
 and enormity of the transaction can require but 
 little illustration. It is not my intention to en- 
 ter into a minute detail of the horror or magni- 
 tude of the crime ; but, as I had the honor to 
 offer the resolution, it may be expected that I 
 assign some reasons in justification of the propo- 
 sition. In the first place, sir, I consider the 
 practice of duelling as inhuman. What can be 
 more repulsive to the philanthropic breast than 
 to place before a musket, charged with a ball, 
 at the distance of twelve or fifteen feet, a fellow- 
 citizen for a mark ? Humanity shudders, every 
 tender feeling of the heart recoils, and Pagan 
 barbarity itself is put to the blush. But, sir, it 
 is immoral. It tends to demoralize society and 
 corrupt the community. It banishes accounta- 
 bility from the human mind. It represents life 
 and death as of no consequence, and immaterial. 
 It may sometimes deprive society of its useful 
 members. 
 
 The practice is unjust and wicked. In conse- 
 quence of capital offences, by a legal tribunal 
 life may be taken. But shall one citizen, for 
 any trivial offence, take the life of his fellow ? 
 It cannot be justified upon any correct principle 
 whatever, either Christian, humane, or civil. 
 Christianity breathes a better spirit ; humanity 
 retires with disgust ; the civil code condemns 
 and executes the offender. What law, human 
 or divine, will sustain the act ? The articles of
 
 DEBATES OF CONGKESS. 
 
 193 
 
 FEBRUARY, 1819.] 
 
 Duelling. 
 
 [SENATE. 
 
 war forbid it ; State laws forbid it ; Virginia 
 herself has forbidden it. 
 
 But, sir, General Mason has fallen. A hus- 
 band, a father, a son, thus prematurely ushered 
 into eternity. And, unless invention and vice 
 are more than ordinarily active, he received en- 
 couragement to the sad catastrophe in this city ; 
 and the more to be lamented, for, is this the 
 case, his blood must, at least in part, rest upon 
 the heads of his guilty abettors and counsellors. 
 
 Lamentable fact ! that a gentleman of high 
 standing, who had been a member of this hon- 
 orable body, and probably would have been the 
 next Governor of Virginia, should be so over- 
 come with pride or with passion as to fall a sac- 
 rifice to sentiments so absurd. And, sir, what 
 plausible apology is offered to mitigate the 
 crime ? The only plea which ingenuity itself 
 can invent, is grounded upon a false notion of 
 honor. A gentleman is bound by his honor to 
 commit an act of murder. His honor must be 
 sustained by the commission of an offence be- 
 neath the dignity of the human species. If this 
 be a correct mode of sustaining a gentleman's 
 honor, why is it prohibited in your army ? Why 
 are laws against it ? If it will sustain the honor 
 of an individual, it will sustain the honor of the 
 community ; the honor of your country ; and 
 why do your laws condemn that on which your 
 country's glory is erected ? 
 
 But, sir, it is a gentleman's way of deciding a 
 controversy. Yes, and the servants ; the boys 
 in the street, by this practice, learn high notions 
 of honor, and, to display them, must fight a 
 duel. Base practice, indeed ; repugnant to all 
 the refined feelings of a cultivated mind. The 
 better feelings of man revolt at the act. Con- 
 science condemns it, and it must, in time and 
 eternity. From this view of the subject, sir, I 
 am induced to offer the resolution, and am led 
 to hope it will be adopted by the Senate. Let 
 this be as it may, I have discharged my duty ; 
 I have expressed my opinion without reserve. 
 
 Mr. BARBOTJE addressed the Senate as fol- 
 lows : 
 
 Mr. President, the event to which the resolu- 
 tion relates has filled me with the deepest afflic- 
 tion. I claim the melancholy privilege of being 
 the chief mourner here. Mason was my friend 
 a long and intimate acquaintance, ripened 
 into a Bincere friendship by an association in 
 this body for several years, gave me an oppor- 
 tunity of appreciating his distinguished worth. 
 Virginia loved him as one of her favorite sons 
 in war her shield, her ornament in peace. 
 With her the very name had been consecrated 
 to patriotism, through successive generations. 
 Its lustre lost nothing in the person of the de- 
 ceased, lie united the amiable qualities of the 
 man to the higher virtues of the patriot. His 
 loss will be mourned by his country as a public 
 calamity. In the vigor of life, uniting bojh the 
 affection and confidence of all, and surrounded 
 with every blessing that promised happiness, he 
 has suddenly fallen the victim of a barbarous 
 practice. Cut off in the commencement of a 
 VOL. VI. 13 
 
 splendid career, he leaves a wretched mother, 
 a disconsolate widow, a fatherless child, and a 
 weeping country. 
 
 Oh, what a scene was there ! But yesterday 
 Selma was the abode of happiness ; to-day it is 
 wrapped in mourning. See on yesterday the af- 
 fectionate husband, the amiable wife, the ten- 
 der infant the pledge and cement of their hap- 
 piness,. To-day, behold that husband carried 
 into the presence of his wife, bathed in gore. 
 See her, frantic with despair, precipitating her- 
 self upon the corpse of her bleeding husband, 
 mingling her tears with his flowing blood, and 
 contending with the icy arms of death for the 
 lifeless prize. She lifts her eyes to heaven, the 
 last refuge of the wretched, and in tones of ag- 
 ony cries out, my God, my God, restore my 
 husband ! Her prayers are given to the winds"; 
 his disembodied spirit has found its refuge and 
 its home in the bosom of its God, while his 
 earthly remains are consigned to the cold and 
 narrow house appointed for all the living. Peace 
 be to his ashes ! And may a kind Providence 
 become the friend of the widow; pour balm 
 into her afflicted bosom, and bind up the broken 
 heart; be the father of the fatherless, and let 
 him be the mother's prop ; rock the cradle of 
 her declining years, and be a consolation in her 
 dying hour ! If any thing can now administer 
 to the affliction of his surviving friends, it will 
 be the knowledge that Virginia, this day, 
 through all her borders, weeps his untimely 
 fall. 
 
 As to the practice of duelling, I have already, 
 long since, given proofs of my sentiments, more 
 substantial than mere professions. "Whatever 
 credit, if any, be due to it, to me it belongs, of 
 having first presented to the Legislature of my 
 native State the law against duelling. "What 
 will be its result on society, all-trying time must 
 decide. The best hopes of humanity are con- 
 nected with its success ; nor is it presumptuous 
 to hope that Heaven may smile on our efforts. 
 
 And yet, sir, with these sentiments, I must 
 still be opposed to the resolution under consid- 
 eration. As to the rumors to which the mover 
 refers, and on which he rests, in part, at least^. 
 the success of this motion, they may or may not 
 be true. Incidents of this kind are generally at- 
 tended with the most exaggerated statements. 
 If, indeed, they be true, as represented, I should 
 feel no hesitation in pronouncing them as de- 
 serving the deepest abhorrence. Of some of 
 the persons concerned in this melancholy to 
 dy, I know nothing ; with others I have a slight 
 acquaintance. Their characters forbid the " 
 lief that they have acted dishonorably, 
 statement made by the mover, unsustained by 
 proof, furnishes a strong reason against the 
 adoption of the resolution. For it is palpably 
 an ex parte proceeding, and we are called upon 
 to consign to infamy men who have had no op- 
 portunity of being heard in their deefnce. Let us 
 not multiply the regrets already attending this 
 melancholy event, by doing an act of injustice. 
 Let us not commit the dignity of the Senate by
 
 194 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 Statue of Washington. 
 
 [FEBRUARY, 1819. 
 
 taking cognizance of a subject which belongs to < 
 others. If a crime has been committed, the of- , 
 fenders are subject, if, as the resolution sup- j 
 poses, they be military men, to trial by court- i 
 martial, and, in any event, by a civil tribunal. \ 
 To the President, as Commander-in-chief, be- j 
 longs the former ; the latter to the civil magis- 
 trate. By this irregular proceeding, should it | 
 prevail, we depart from our own duty in pre- 
 scribing to others, to whom of right the subject 
 belongs, and of whose remissness there is no 
 imputation. The crime of duelling is not to be 
 corrected by a proceeding of this kind. The 
 roots of the evil are too deep to be extirpated 
 by a solitary paroxysm of zeal. Public opinion 
 is the only corrective. No matter what may 
 be the number or severity of penalties that are 
 denounced against this ferocious practice, they, 
 as experience has evinced, are inoperative, un- 
 less their enforcement can be secured by the co- 
 incidence of public sentiment, or unless, as with 
 us, the law executes itself by disfranchising the 
 offender. So long as public opinion requires of 
 an individual a submission to what is most im- 
 properly called the laws of honor, to maintain 
 his grade in society, it is as capricious as unjust 
 to anathematize those who submit to its de- 
 crees. Let the press, let your schools, let the 
 pulpit, let your Legislatures, throughout the 
 nation, make a simultaneous effort, and continue 
 it with zeal and perseverance, to extirpate this 
 practice, the undisputed progeny of a barbarous 
 age. Upon such an undertaking, let us hope 
 for the blessing of Heaven. 
 
 After other gentlemen had spoken 
 Mr. MORRILL made the following remarks : 
 Mr. President, I learn with pleasure, from 
 what honorable gentlemen have advanced on 
 this subject, there is but one sentiment with re- 
 epect to the nature and atrocity of the act. A 
 difference of opinion as to the expediency and 
 policy of the measure proposed, is the only dif- 
 ficulty to be encountered. 
 
 The honorable gentleman from Kentucky in- 
 timates a want of information, and an apprehen- 
 sion that no guilt can be attached to any impli- 
 cated in this affair. It is very desirable, sir, that 
 this should be the fact. If no guilt, no blame ; 
 and, of course, no injury, can be sustained by 
 the innocent ; and no evil is to be apprehended. 
 But the gentleman suggests that favorable ex- 
 pressions have fallen from gentlemen on the 
 floor of the other House. Is this a fact, sir ? it 
 is the more to be lamented, and furnishes an- 
 other reason why this House should express an 
 fopinion on the subject. But, sir, the honorable 
 gentleman from Virginia, with whose eloquence 
 I am generally captivated, and by whose argu- 
 ments I am commonly drawn into his mode of 
 thinking, has expressed the generous feeling of 
 his heart, on the nature of the act, in a manner 
 in perfect coincidence with my views of the 
 subject. The spontaneous effusions of his heart, 
 thus exhibited, I can by no means doubt, and 
 can hardly suppose the social intercourse which 
 he has holden in this House wifh the unfortu- 
 
 nate sufferer should not have created a more than 
 ordinary attachment. But, sir,the honorable gen- 
 tleman intimates several reasons why this resolu- 
 tion should not be adopted. It is assuming the ex- 
 ercise of a power vested in another department. 
 Your articles of war do not reach the case. They 
 provide for the punishment of those who give or 
 accept a challenge, but not those who are ac- 
 cessory thereto. As to the civil authority, sir, 
 crimes of this kind, in this region, have passed 
 too long unobserved to justify the most remote 
 expectation that cognizance will be taken of 
 this transaction. But, says the gentleman, it 
 may consign to infamy individuals. If guilty, 
 be it so ; to this I have no objection. Would 
 to God that all who are guilty of duelling might, 
 by public disapprobation, be consigned to infa- 
 my as lasting as time itself. This would be the 
 roost successful and sure way to suppress the 
 practice. The honorable gentleman intimates, 
 the public opinion is incorrect, and this is the 
 best corrective ; and it is hard to criminate a 
 person for committing a crime when public 
 opinion requires him so to do to maintain his 
 grade in society. Admit, sir, the public opinion 
 is the best corrective, and that public opinion is 
 incorrect I would ask that honorable gentle- 
 man, what is the best method to correct public 
 opinion ? Will resolutions passed in private cir- 
 cles effect the object ? Would not the opinion 
 of the President have more influence upon so- 
 ciety than that of an obscure individual ? Would 
 the gentleman, to purify a stream, cast his cor- 
 rective into the ocean where it empties, or into 
 the fountain where it originated? I presume, 
 into the fountain. And, sir, upon the same prin- 
 ciple, if the public opinion is corrupt, let the 
 correction commence here in the Senate of 
 the United States. Let the stream be purified. 
 Here, I wish to record my vote against an act 
 so inhuman and wicked. A crime which I de- 
 test with all the powers of my soul. But, sir, 
 as my desire is to accommodate the feelings of 
 gentlemen, I will withdraw the resolution and 
 submit a substitute. 
 
 Mr. M. then offered the following, which was 
 agreed to : 
 
 Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary be 
 instructed to inquire into the expediency of providing, 
 by law, for the punishment of all persons concerned 
 in duelling within the District of Columbia. 
 
 WEDNESDAY, February 10. 
 
 The bill more effectually to provide for the 
 punishment of certain crimes against the United 
 States, and for other purposes, was read a third 
 time, and passed. 
 
 Statue of Washington. 
 
 The Senate then resumed the consideration 
 of the bill providing for the erection of an 
 equestrian statue of General WASHINGTON, in 
 pursuance of the resolution of the Congress of 
 1783. 
 
 Considerable discussion took place on this 
 subject; in the course of which Mr. WILSON
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 195 
 
 FEBRUARY, 1819.] 
 
 Committee on the Seminole War. 
 
 moved to postpone the bill to the 5th of March, 
 (to reject it,) with a view of then moving for 
 estimates of expense, &c., to be reported to the 
 House at the next session ; which motion was 
 decided by yeas and nays, as follows : 
 
 YEAS. Messrs. Barbour, Burrill, Crittenden, Dick- 
 erson, Edwards, Eppes, Lacock, Leake, Macon, Mor- 
 row, Noble, Palmer, Roberts, Ruggles, Tait, Taylor, 
 Williams of Massachusetts, and Wilson 18. 
 
 NAYS. Messrs. Daggett, Eaton, Forsyth, Fromen- 
 tiu, Goldsborough, Horsey, Hunter, Johnson, King, 
 Mellen, Morriil, Otis, Sanford, Stokes, Talbot, Tich- 
 enor, Van Dyke, and Williams of Tennessee 18. 
 
 THURSDAY, February 11. 
 Statue of Washington. 
 
 The Senate resumed the consideration of the 
 bill for the erection of an equestrian statue of 
 General GEOEGE WASHINGTON, in the Capitol 
 square. 
 
 Mr. OTIS moved to postpone the bill to the 
 5th day of March, (to reject it ;) which motion 
 was decided in the negative, by yeas and nays, 
 as follows : 
 
 YEAS. Messrs. Barbour, Burrill, Crittenden, Dick- 
 erson, Eppes, Lacock, Leake, Macon, Morrow, No- 
 ble, Otis, Roberts, Tait, Taylor, and Wilson 15. 
 
 NAYS. Messrs. Daggett, Eaton, Forsyth, Fromen- 
 tin, Goldsborough, Horsey, Hunter, Johnson, King, 
 Mellen, Morriil, Sanford, Stokes, Storer, Talbot, Tich- 
 enor, Van Dyke, and Williams of Tennessee 18. 
 
 On motion of Mr. DAGGETT, the bill was 
 amended, by adding a proviso, that, if the Pres- 
 ident should find that the monument would 
 cost more than $150,000, the sum appropriated, 
 he should not proceed to execute the act, but 
 make a report of the estimated cost to the next 
 session of Congress. 
 
 The question was then taken on ordering the 
 bill, as amended, to be engrossed and read a 
 third time, and decided affirmatively, by yeas 
 and nays, as follows: 
 
 YEAS. Messrs. Barbour, Burrill, Crittenden, Dag- 
 gett, Dickerson, Fromentin, Goldsborough, Horsey, 
 Hunter, Johnson, King, Leake, Mellen, Morriil, Otis, 
 Sanford, Stokes, Storer, Talbot, Thomas, Tichenor, 
 Van Dyke, and Williams of Tennessee 23. 
 
 N.u>. Mc-ssrs. Eaton, Edwards, Eppes, Forsyth, 
 Lacock, Macon, Morrow, Palmer, Roberts, Rug- 
 gles, Tait, Taylor, Williams of Mississippi, and Wil- 
 son 14. 
 
 WEDNESDAY, February 17. 
 
 The PRESIDENT communicated a letter from 
 JOHN FOESYTH, notifying the resignation of his 
 seat in the Senate; and the letter was read; 
 and, on motion by Mr. TAIT, the President was 
 iv<|i:c4ed to notify the Executive of the State 
 of Georgia of this resignation. 
 
 Missouri State Bill. 
 
 A message from the House of Representatives 
 informed the Senate that the I louse have passed 
 a bill, entitled " An act to authorize the people 
 of the Missouri Territory to form a constitution 
 
 and State government, and for the admission of 
 such State into the Union on an equal footing 
 with the original States." 
 
 The two bills last mentioned were read, and 
 passed to the second reading. 
 
 On motion, by Mr. TALBOT, the bill to author- 
 ize the people of the Missouri Territory to form 
 a constitution and State government was read 
 the second time, by unanimous consent, and re- 
 ferred to the committee on the memorial of the 
 Legislative Council and House of Representa- 
 tives of the Alabama Territory, praying admis- 
 sion into the Union as a State. 
 
 The bill for the relief of David Henley was 
 read a third time, and passed. 
 
 Committee on the Seminole War. 
 
 Mr. LACOCK submitted the following motion : 
 
 Resolved, That a member be added to the com- 
 mittee already appointed on the subject of the Semi- 
 nole war, in the place of the honorable Mr. FOR- 
 SYTH, who has recently been appointed to a foreign 
 mission. 
 
 After considerable debate, Mr. EATON moved 
 to postpone the motion to the 5th day of March 
 next, [to defeat it,] on the ground that it would 
 be an unnecessary consumption of the time of 
 the Senate, if not a deviation from the line of 
 its duty, to enter at this late period of the ses- 
 sion into an investigation and debate on this 
 subject, which, after a debate of unexampled 
 length, had been solemnly decided on in the 
 House of Representatives. To this it was re- 
 plied, that nothing more was proposed, in this 
 instance, than was on other occasions considered 
 as matter of course. When an inquiry into the 
 conduct of a public officer or officers, was asked 
 from a respectable source, it was invariably 
 granted ; and it would be, it was said, no more 
 than consistent with self-respect, to prosecute 
 to some result the inquiry already commenced 
 in this case. This motion to postpone was 
 negatived, by yeas and nays, 21 to 16, as fol- 
 lows: 
 
 YEAS. Messrs. Crittenden, Dickerson, Eaton, Ed- 
 wards, Fromentin, Johnson, King, Leake, Morrow, 
 Otis, Ruggles, Sanford, Stokes, Storer, Williams of 
 Mississippi, and Wilson. 
 
 NAYS. Messrs. Barbour, Burrill, Daggett, Eppes, 
 Gaillard, Goldsborough, Horsey, Hunter, Lacock, 
 Macon, Mellen, Noble, Palmer, Roberts, Tait, Tal- 
 bot, Taylor, Thomas, Tichenor, Van Dyke, and Wil- 
 liams of Tennessee. 
 
 The motion of Mr. LACOCK to fill up the com- 
 mittee was opposed, and of Mr. EATON to 
 postpone the proceedings, was supported by 
 Messrs. OTIS, EATON, and FEOMENTIN; on the 
 other side were Messrs. LACOCK, EPPES, BUB- 
 RILL, TALBOT, GOLDSBOROUGU, and MACON. It 
 was contended by the former, that, without de- 
 ciding upon the right of the Senate, abstractly, 
 to institute inquiries into the conduct of public 
 officers, or to exercise a censorial power in other 
 cases than those of impeachment, it was suffi- 
 cient to show that, in this instance, such an in- 
 terference would be entirely inexpedient. For,
 
 196 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 Public Lands. 
 
 [FEBRUARY, 1819. 
 
 that the conduct of the commanding officer in the 
 Serninole war had been at least excused by the 
 President of the United States, and that, so far 
 as that general officer was censured, there was 
 no difference between the previous orders and a 
 subsequent excuse or justification. In either 
 case, the mantle of his superior officer was a 
 screen for him ; and, if the Executive govern- 
 ment had thus assumed the responsibility with- 
 out sufficient motives and reasons, persons other 
 than General Jackson might be held to answer 
 before the Senate in another capacity, and that 
 this body might thus be placed in a situation of 
 embarrassment, unfavorable to a just and im- 
 partial discharge of judicial duties. That if 
 this were true in ordinary cases, it was most 
 emphatically so in the present instance. The 
 House of Kepresentatives was the great inquest 
 and constitutional accuser of the nation. And, 
 after a most laborious investigation and debate, 
 had decided in favor of a nol. pros. It would 
 seem then to betray a great eagerness to exer- 
 cise the faculty of censure and condemnation, to 
 pursue a supposed delinquent after that House 
 had rejected a bill of indictment. The Senate 
 would be placed in an unfavorable and undigni- 
 fied attitude be chargeable with a spirit of 
 persecution, and would separate themselves, not 
 only from the House of Eepresentatives, but 
 from the people, and excite, in favor of the 
 principal party, feelings of sympathy that would 
 defeat the object of exhibiting the triumph of 
 the civil over the military power. Many re- 
 marks were also added to show that to refuse 
 to fill up the committee, or to postpone gener- 
 ally, or to discharge the committee, were equiv- 
 alent motions, and all in perfect conformity 
 with correct and dignified proceedings. 
 
 On the other hand, the filling up the com- 
 mittee was supported and the postponement re- 
 sisted, upon the suggestion that the committee, 
 after making progress in their inquiries, and 
 after much laborious research, and after a ma- 
 jority of them were agreed on many points, 
 were divided upon others, and that the Senate 
 was bound by the respect due to itself to fill up 
 the vacancy and not stifle the report ; and that 
 afterwards, upon a motion to discharge the 
 committee, if it should be offered, conclusive 
 reasons should be shown against that measure. 
 To decline replacing a member, whose senti- 
 ments were known to be unfavorable to the 
 proceedings in the Seminole war, and who had 
 received an Executive appointment, would be 
 to expose the motives of the Executive to mis- 
 construction. That the Senate possessed a con- 
 current right with the House of Kepresentatives 
 to originate any investigation into the proceed- 
 ings of public officers, or the conduct of public 
 affairs, and was bound as an independent branch 
 of the Legislature to discharge its duty, without 
 any reference to the proceedings of the House, 
 to which all allusions were unparliamentary 
 and improper. It was denied to be the correct 
 doctrine that a military officer is in all caees 
 protected by the command or justification of 
 
 his superior ; and, if it were true, it might be 
 better to disband the army. That the present 
 moment was favorable to sustaining and defin- 
 ing the rights of the Senate. And, finally, that 
 it would not follow of course that the present 
 proceedings would involve a question of censure 
 or approbation of any officer ; but the commit- 
 tee might possess evidence (and it was suggested 
 that they did) of irregularities not exhibited to 
 the House, which might demand legislative in- 
 terposition and reform. 
 
 The motion of Mr. LACOCK was then agreed 
 to, and Mr. EPPES was appointed the member. 
 
 THTTBSDAY, February 18. 
 Public Lands. 
 
 The Senate resumed, as in Committee of the 
 Whole, the consideration of the bill making fur- 
 ther provision respecting the sale of the public 
 lands. 
 
 [For the following remarks, made by Mr. 
 CBITTENDEN, in conclusion .of a speech in sup- 
 port of the bill, we are obliged to a friend who 
 was present at the debate, for being enabled to 
 lay before our readers. Editors."] 
 
 Mr. President, I must acknowledge to you 
 that I feel a peculiar sort of partiality for this 
 bill ; and that, independent of the reasons which 
 I have had the honor of submitting, I am influ- 
 enced by feelings somewhat of a personal char- 
 acter to desire its passage. It is the work of 
 the honorable gentleman from Ohio, (Mr. MOR- 
 EOW,) who is so soon to be finally separated 
 from us. He has long been our Palimirus in 
 every thing that related to this important sub- 
 ject. He has steered us safely through all its 
 difficulties, and, with him for our helmsman, 
 we have feared neither Scylla nor Charybdis. 
 "We have heretofore followed him with increas- 
 ing confidence. We have never been deceived 
 or disappointed. The bill now before you is 
 probably the last, the most important, act of his 
 long and useful political life. If it shall pass, 
 sir, it will identify his name and his memory with 
 this interesting subject. It will be his " peren- 
 nius sere." A noble monument ! which, whilst 
 t guides the course of future legislation, shall 
 perpetuate the remembrance of an honest man. 
 Sir, if the ostracism of former times prevailed 
 with us, I do not know the individual whose 
 virtues would more expose him to its envious and 
 jealous sentence. The illustrious Greek himself, 
 who derived such unfortunate distinction from 
 that ancient usage, did not better deserve the 
 epithet of " just." Mr. President, I do not in- 
 iend to flatter the honorable gentleman from 
 Ohio. Flattery is falsehood. I burn no such 
 incense at the shrine of any man. The sincere 
 homage of the heart is not flattery. I have 
 spoken the spontaneous feelings of my own 
 Breast. I am confident, too, that I have spoken 
 the sentiments of the Senate. But yet, sir, I 
 ought, perhaps, to beg pardon of the honorable 
 jentleman. For, I have much cause to fear 
 ;hat the gratification I have had in offering this
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 197 
 
 FEBRUARY, 1819.J 
 
 Report on the Seminole War. 
 
 [SENATE. 
 
 poor tribute of my respect, is more than coun- 
 terbalanced by the pain it has inflicted on him. 
 
 FEIDAT, February 19. 
 British Colonial Trade. 
 
 In Executive session 
 
 Mr. MACON, from the Committee on Foreign 
 Relations, to whom was referred so much of 
 the documents accompanying the Commercial 
 Convention with Great Britain, as relates to the 
 colonial trade, made the following report, which 
 was read : 
 
 That the object of the negotiation with Great 
 Britain, respecting the colonial trade, is the estab- 
 lishment of a regulation whereby a trade in articles 
 of the produce and manufacture of the United States, 
 and of the British Colonies, may be carried on be- 
 tween them ; and secondly, a regulation whereby 
 the shipping of the two countries may be placed on 
 an equal footing in the carrying on of this trade. 
 
 In respect to the articles of the trade, the United 
 States would agree that all articles of the produce 
 and manufacture of the United States, and of the 
 respective colonies, should be included, and all other 
 articles excluded. But as Great Britain probably 
 would not consent to this arrangement, the United 
 States would not object to the catalogue of articles of 
 the produce and manufactures of the United States, 
 and of the said colonies, enumerated in the British 
 act of Parliament, and according to which the trade 
 has heretofore been carried on in British bottoms. 
 
 As respects duties and charges, they should be 
 placed on a footing of reciprocal equality : if Great 
 Britain would consent to impose no higher or other 
 duties on articles of the produce and manufacture of 
 the United States imported into the colonies, than 
 upon the like articles imported from her continental 
 colonies, (whence only they can be obtained,) the 
 United States might agree to impose no greater or 
 other duties and charges on articles the produce and 
 manufacture of her colonies, than on the like articles 
 from other countries. To this adjustment Great 
 Britain will probably disagree : in lieu thereof, and 
 as a compensation for the stipulation not to impose 
 greater or other duties on the colonial articles of 
 Great Britain, than on the like articles of other 
 countries, it might be stipulated, on the part of Great 
 Britain, that the duties and charges on articles of the 
 produce and manufacture of the United States, should 
 
 not exceed by more than per cent, those which 
 
 should be imposed on the like articles imported from 
 the British continental colonies. 
 
 In no event should articles of the produce and man- 
 ufacture of the United States pay higher duties and 
 charges in the direct voyage from" the United States 
 than in the indirect or circuitous voyage through 
 New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Bermudas, or other 
 intermediate ports ; and as the direct trade should 
 not be more restrained in respect to the articles 
 thereof, than the indirect or circuitous trade, no arti- 
 cle should be allowed to go or come indirectly or 
 circuitously, which might not go or come directly. 
 
 There is nothing in principle or policy that forbids 
 the confining of this trade to articles of the produce 
 or manufacture of the respective countries ; that is, 
 of the United States and of the British colonies ; ar- 
 ticles of produce and manufacture of other portions 
 of the British territories coming through these colo- 
 
 nies being excluded from the United States, as arti- 
 cles not of the produce and manufacture of the Unit- 
 ed States are excluded from Great Britain, and would 
 be excluded from the British colonies. 
 
 As respects the shipping employed in this trade, it 
 must be placed on a footing of practical and recipro- 
 cal equality, both as respects duties and charges, and 
 the equal participation of the trade ; on this adjust- 
 ment, even, there will exist an advantage in favor of 
 the English navigation ; as it will be exclusively 
 employed in the transportation of articles of the pro- 
 duce and manufacture of the United States, between 
 the intermediate colonies aforesaid and the West In- 
 dia Colonies, and likewise in a disproportioned degree, 
 in the distribution of these articles among the British 
 West India Colonies. 
 
 Furthermore, as the voyage from the United States 
 to New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Bermuda, is a 
 short one, and would yield but little profit, the da- 
 ties and charges must be as great on the British ships, 
 and the articles of the produce and manufacture of 
 the United States composing their cargoes, arriving 
 in the British West India Colonies, through these in- 
 termediate colonies, as on the same ships and articles 
 arriving directly from the United States ; otherwise 
 the direct trade will be deserted in favor of the cir- 
 cuitous trade, and thereby the object of the arrange- 
 ment, an equality hi the employment of the shipping 
 of the two countries, will be defeated. So far as the 
 operation of the late navigation law is understood, it 
 seems to have been advantageous, and especially in 
 the increase of the American shipping engaged in the 
 direct trade between the United States and Great 
 Britain, and the corresponding decrease of that of 
 Great Britain but sufficient time has not yet been 
 afforded satisfactorily to ascertain this point, or to de- 
 termine other questions that are in a course of solution. 
 
 Perhaps it would be prudent to allow time for this 
 important experiment, and to suffer the negotiation 
 on this subject to remain where it is for the present. 
 It ought not to be forgotten, that without cutting off 
 the trade with New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and 
 Bermuda, this experiment cannot be fairly made. 
 Whether it would be expedient at the present session 
 to adopt this measure, is perhaps doubtful. 
 
 If the effect of our navigation law, reinforced ac- 
 cording to the above suggestion, should prove to be 
 such as it not improbably will be, it might, and prob- 
 ably would be our true footing to adhere to the law, 
 and decline any convention with Great Britain, 
 touching the colonial trade. 
 
 MONDAY, February 22. 
 SAMUEL W. DANA, from the State of Connec- 
 ticut, attended this day. 
 
 TUESDAY, February 23. 
 The PRESIDENT communicated the credentials 
 of WALLER TAYLOR, appointed a Senator by the 
 Legislature of the State of Indiana, for the term 
 of six years, commencing on the fourth day of 
 March next ; which were read, and laid on tile. 
 
 WEDNESDAY, February 24. 
 
 Report on the Seminole War. 
 
 Mr. LACOCK, from the committee appointed 
 
 in pursuance of a resolution of the Senate of 
 
 the 18th December last, " That the Message of
 
 198 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 Senate adheres to its Amendment. 
 
 the President and documents, relative to the 
 Seminole war, be referred to a select commit- 
 tee, who shall have authority, if necessary, to 
 send for persons and papers ; that said commit- 
 tee inquire relative to the advance of the United 
 States troops into West Florida ; whether the 
 officers in command at Pensacola and St. Marks 
 were amenable to, and under the control of, 
 Spain; and, particularly, what circumstances 
 existed, to authorize or justify the commanding 
 general in taking possession of those posts," re- 
 ported, &c. 
 
 THTTESDAT, February 25. 
 The PEESIDENT communicated the credentials 
 of JOHN GAILLAHD, appointed a Senator by the 
 Legislature of the State of South Carolina, for 
 the term of six years, commencing on the fourth 
 day of March next ; which were read, and laid 
 on file. 
 
 SATURDAY, February 27. 
 Missouri State Mil 
 
 The bill from the other House to authorize 
 the people of Missouri to form a constitution, 
 &c., was resumed; and, with the various mo- 
 tions relative to it, gave rise to a long and ani- 
 mated debate. 
 
 Mr. WILSON moved to postpone the further 
 consideration of the bill to a day beyond the 
 session, which motion was decided as follows : 
 
 YEAS. Messrs. Burrill, Daggett, Dickerson, King, 
 Lacock, Mellen, Merrill, Otis, Roberts, Sanford, Sto- 
 rer, Tichenor, Van Dyke, and Wilson 14. 
 
 NAYS. Messrs. Barbour, Crittenden, Dana, Eaton, 
 Edwards, Eppes, Fromentin, Gaillard, Goldsborough, 
 Horsey, Johnson, Leake, Macon, Morrow, Noble, 
 Palmer, Ruggles, Stokes, Tait, Talbot, Thomas, Wil- 
 liams of Mississippi, and Williams of Tennessee 23. 
 
 So the question was negatived. 
 
 On the question to agree to a proposition to 
 strike out the restriction against the introduc- 
 tion or toleration of slavery in said new State, a 
 division of the question was called for, and the 
 question was taken on striking ont the latter 
 clause of said restriction, as follows : " And 
 that all children of slaves, born within the said 
 State, after the admission thereof into the 
 Union, shall be free, but may be held to service 
 until the age of twenty-five years." And de- 
 cided as follows : 
 
 YEAS. Messrs. Barbour, Crittenden, Daggett, 
 Dana, Eaton, Edwards, Eppes, Fromentin, Gaillard, 
 Goldsborongh, Horsey, Johnson, King, Lacock, Leake, 
 Macon, Morrow, Otis, Palmer, Roberts, Sanford, 
 Stokes, Storer, Tait, Talbot, Thomas, Tichenor, Van 
 Dyke, Williams of Mississippi, and Williams of Ten- 
 nessee 31. 
 
 NAYS. Messrs. Burrill, Dickerson, Mellen, Morrill, 
 Noble, Ruggles, and Wilson 7. 
 
 So it was agreed to strike out that clause. 
 
 The question was then taken to strike out the 
 first clause of said restriction, in the words fol- 
 lowing: "And provided also, That the further 
 introduction of slavery or involuntary servitude 
 
 be prohibited, except for the punishment of 
 crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly 
 convicted ; " and decided as follows : 
 
 YEAS. Messrs. Barbour, Crittenden, Eaton, Ed- 
 wards, Eppes, Fromentin, Gaillard, Goldsborough, 
 Horsey, Johnson, Lacock, Leake, Macon, Olis, Pal- 
 mer, Stokes, Tait, Talbot, Tliomas, Van Dyke, Wil- 
 liams of Mississippi, and Williams of Tennessee 22. 
 
 NAYS. Messrs. Burrill, Daggett, Dana. Dickerson, 
 King, Mellen, Morrill, Morrow, Noble, Roberts, Rug- 
 gles, Sanford, Storer, Taylor, Tichenor, Wilson 16. 
 
 So it was decided to strike out this clause 
 also; when, before finally acting on the bill, 
 the Senate adjourned. 
 
 MONDAY, March 1. 
 Territory of Arkansas. 
 
 The Senate resumed the bill, entitled "An 
 act establishing a separate Territorial govern- 
 ment in the southern part of the Territory of 
 Missouri;" it having been previously read a 
 third time. 
 
 On motion by Mr. BURRILL, 
 
 " That the said bill be recommitted to the commit- 
 tee to whom the same was first referred, with instruc- 
 tions so to amend tbe same, that the further intro- 
 duction of slavery or involuntary servitude within the 
 said Territory, except for the punishment of crimes, 
 be prohibited." 
 
 It was determined in the negative yeas 14, 
 nays 19, as follows: 
 
 YEAS. Messrs. Burrill, Daggett, Dana, Dickerson, 
 King, Lacock, Mellen, Noble, Roberts, Ruggles, San- 
 ford, Storer, Tichenor, and Wilson. 
 
 NAYS. Messrs. Barbour, Crittenden, Eaton, Ed- 
 wards, Eppes, Fromentin, Gaillard, Goldsborough, 
 Johnson, Leake, Macon, Morrow, Stokes, Tait, Tal- 
 bot, Taylor, Thomas, Williams of Mississippi, and 
 Williams of Tennessee. 
 
 On the question, " Shall this bill pass ? " it 
 was determined in the affirmative. So it was 
 resolved that this bill pass. 
 
 TUESDAY, March 2. 
 Missouri State Bill House non-concurs in 
 
 Senate Amendment. 
 
 A message from the House of Eepresentatives 
 informed the Senate that they have concurred in 
 all the amendments of the Senate to the bill, 
 entitled " An act to authorize the people of the 
 Missouri Territory to form a constitution and 
 State government, and for the admission of such 
 State into the Union on an equal footing with 
 the original States," except the eleventh, and 
 to that they disagree. 
 
 Senate adheres to its Amendment. 
 
 The Senate proceeded to consider the elev- 
 enth amendment, disagreed to by the House of 
 Representatives. [This amendment struck out 
 the prohibitory clause concerning the toleration 
 of slavery in said State.] 
 
 Whereupon, on motion of Mr. TAIT, the Sen- 
 ate resolved to adhere to their said amendment
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 199 
 
 MARCH, 1819.] 
 
 Proceedings. 
 
 [SENATE. 
 
 WEDNESDAY, March 3. 
 
 The credentials of WILIIAM A. PALMER, ap- 
 pointed a Senator by the Legislature of the 
 State of South Carolina, for the term of six 
 years, commencing on the fourth day of March 
 instant, were communicated and read, and laid 
 on file. 
 
 Missouri State Bill House adheres to its Bill. 
 A message from the House of Representatives 
 informed the Senate that the House adhere to 
 their disagreement to the eleventh amendment 
 proposed and adhered to hy the Senate to the 
 bill, entitled " An act to authorize the people of 
 the Missouri Territory to form a constitution 
 and State government, and for the admission of 
 such State into the Union on an equal looting 
 with the original States." * 
 
 1 Six o'clock in the Evening. 
 
 On motion by Mr. MACON, a committee was 
 appointed on the part of the Senate, jointly 
 with such committee as may be appointed on 
 the part of the House of Representatives, to 
 wait on the President of the United States, and 
 notify him, that unless he may have other com- 
 munications to the two Houses of Congress, 
 they are ready to adjourn. Mr. MACOX and 
 Mr. DAGGETT were appointed the committee. 
 
 On motion by Mr. BUKBILL, 
 
 Resolved, unanimously, That the thanks of the Sen- 
 ate be presented to the honorable JAMES BARBOUR, 
 Senator from Virginia, for the dignified and impartial 
 manner in which he has discharged the important 
 duties of the President of the Senate, since he was 
 called to the Chair. 
 
 Resolved, vnanimovsly, That the thanks of the Sen- 
 ate be also presented to the honorable JOHN GAILLARD, 
 Senator from South Carolina, for the dignified and 
 impartial manner in which he discharged the impor- 
 
 * The two Houses adhering one to its bill, the other to 
 Its amendment the bill was consequently lost. 
 
 tant duties of President of the Senate during the time 
 he presided therein. 
 
 Whereupon Mr. BAREGCE addressed the Sen- 
 ate as follows : 
 
 Gentlemen : The sensibility produced by this new 
 evidence of your kindness and approbation, is beyond 
 my power to express. I would rather refer to yonr 
 own bosoms as furnishing a more correct standard by 
 which to appreciate it. I have the consolation to re- 
 flect, that whatever of zeal or capacity I possess, has 
 been devoted to the discharge of the duties of my 
 station ; your approbation is more than an ample re- 
 ward. Permit me, as the moment of separating is 
 approaching, from all for a season, from some per- 
 haps forever, to tender you all an affectionate fare- 
 well, and to pray that upon your return to yonr re- 
 spective homes, your reception may be such, in all 
 your relations, as may make you happy. 
 
 Mr. GAILLAED then rose and made the follow- 
 ing address : 
 
 Mr. President : Next to the satisfaction arising from 
 the consciousness of faithfully performing our duty 
 the favorable opinion of those with whom we are as - 
 sociated affords the highest gratification that can be 
 received ; and the present vote of approbation, to- 
 gether with the many acts of kindness I have expe- 
 rienced from this honorable body, have excited in my 
 mind feelings of gratitude which neither time nor 
 circumstances can ever efface. 
 
 A message from the House of Representatives 
 informed the Senate that the House, having fin- 
 ished the business before them, are about to ad- 
 journ. 
 
 Mr. MACON reported, from the joint commit- 
 tee, that they had waited on the President of 
 the United States, who informed them that he 
 had no further communication to make to the 
 two Houses of Congress. 
 
 The Secretary was then directed to inform 
 the House of Representatives that the Senate, 
 having finished the legislative business before 
 them, are about to adjourn. 
 
 The PRESIDENT then adjourned the Senate 
 sine die.
 
 200 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 Proceedings. 
 
 [NOVEMBER, 1818. 
 
 FIFTEENTH CONGRESS -SECOND SESSION, 
 
 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES 
 
 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 
 
 MONDAY, November 16, 1818. 
 
 This being the day fixed by law for the meet- 
 ing of Congress, HENRY CLAY, the Speaker, 
 THOMAS DOUGHERTY, the Clerk, and the follow- 
 ing members of the House of Representatives, 
 appeared and took their seats, to wit : 
 
 From New Hampshire Josiah Butler, Clifton 
 Clagett, Samuel Hale, Arthur Livermore, John F. 
 Parrott, and Nathaniel Upham. 
 
 From Massachusetts Benjamin Adams, Joshua 
 Gage, John Holmes, Jonathan Mason, Marcus Mor- 
 ton, Benjamin Orr, Thomas Rice, Nathaniel Ruggles, 
 Zabdiel Sampson, Henry Shaw, Nathaniel SUsbee, 
 and Ezekiel Whitman. 
 
 From Rhode Island John L. Boss, jun. 
 
 From Connecticut Ebenezer Huntington, Jona- 
 than O. Mosely, Timothy Pitkin, Nathaniel Terry, 
 and Thomas S. Williams. 
 
 From Vermont Heman Allen, Samuel C. Crafts, 
 William Hunter, Orsamus C. Merrill, Charles Rich, 
 and Mark Richards. 
 
 From New York Oliver C. Comstock, John P. 
 Cushman, Josiah Hasbrouck, John Herkimer, Thomas 
 H. Hubbard, William Irving, Dorrance Kirtland, 
 Thomas Lawyer, John Palmer, John Savage, Philip 
 J. Schuyler, Tredwell Scudder, Henry R. Storrs, 
 James Tallmadge, jun., John W. Taylor, George 
 Townsend, Rensselaer Westerlo, James W. Wilkin, 
 and Isaac Williams. 
 
 From New Jersey Ephraim Bateman, Benjamin 
 Bennett, Joseph Bloomfield, Charles Kinsey, John 
 Linn, and Henry Southard. 
 
 From Pennsylvania William Anderson, Henry 
 Baldwin, Andrew Boden, Isaac Darlington, Joseph 
 Hopkinson, William P. Maclay, David Marchand, 
 Robert Moore, John Murray, Alexander Ogle, 
 Thomas Patterson, Thomas J. Rogers, John Ser- 
 geant, Adam Seybert, Christian Tarr, James M. 
 Wallace, John Whiteside, and William Wilson. 
 
 From Maryland Thomas Bayley, Thomas Cul- 
 breth, John C. Herbert, Peter Little, George Peter, 
 Philip Reed, Samuel Smith, and Philip Stuart. 
 
 From Virginia Archibald Austin, Philip P. Bar- 
 hour, Wiliiam A. Burwell, John Floyd, Robert S. 
 Garnett, William J. Lewis, William McCoy, Charles 
 F. Mercer, Hugh Nelson, Thomas Newton, James 
 Pindall, James Pleasants, Alexander Smyth, and 
 Henry St. George Tucker. 
 
 From North Carolina Weldon N. Edwards, Thos. 
 H. Hall, George Mumford, Lemuel Sawyer, Thomas 
 Settle, Jesse Slocumb, James S. Smith, James 
 Stewart, Felix Walker, and Lewis Williams. 
 
 From South Carolina Joseph Bellinger, Henry 
 Middleton, and Sterling Tucker. 
 
 From Georgia Zadock Cook, Joel Crawford, 
 John -Forsyth, and William Terrell. 
 
 From Kentucky Joseph Desha, Richard M. John- 
 son, Anthony New, Tunstall Quarles, George Rob- 
 ertson, Thomas Speed, David Trimble, and David 
 Walker. 
 
 From Tennessee Thomas Claiborne, Francis 
 Jones, and John Rhea. 
 
 From Ohio John W. Campbell, and William 
 Henry Harrison. 
 
 From Indiana William Hendricks. 
 
 From Mississippi George Poindexter. 
 
 The following members elected to supply 
 vacancies in the House, also appeared, were 
 qualified, and took their seats, viz : 
 
 From Massachusetts, ENOCH LINCOLN, vice 
 Mr. Parris, resigned. 
 
 From Connecticut, SYLVESTER GILBERT, vice 
 Mr. Holmes, resigned. 
 
 From Pennsylvania, SAMUEL MOORE, vice Mr. 
 Ingham, resigned, and JACOB HOSTETTER, vice 
 Mr Spangler, resigned. 
 
 From Virginia, JOHN PEGRAM, vice Mr. Good- 
 wyn, deceased. 
 
 From Louisiana, THOMAS BUTLER, vice Mr. 
 Eobertson, resigned. 
 
 JOHN SCOTT, the delegate from the Territory 
 of Missouri, and JOHN CROWEL, the delegate 
 from the Territory of Alabama, also appeared 
 and took their seats. 
 
 A quorum being present, messages were ex- 
 changed with the Senate to that effect. 
 
 Messrs. TAYLOE and BALDWIN were appoint- 
 ed on the part of this House, on the joint com- 
 mittee for waiting on the President. 
 
 The SPEAKER laid before the House a copy 
 of the constitution of the State of Illinois, adopt- 
 ed in convention at Kaskaskia, on the 26th day 
 of August, 1818 ; which was ordered to lie on 
 the table.
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 201 
 
 NOVEMBER, 1818.] State of Illinois Question of Swearing in its Representative. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 TUESDAY, November 17. 
 
 Several other members, to wit : from Massa- 
 chusetts, WALTEB FOLGER, jr., and JOHN WIL- 
 SON; from New York, BENJAMIN ELLICOTT and 
 DAVID A. OGDEN; from Delaware, Louis MO- 
 LANE ; from Virginia, THOMAS M. NELSON, BAL- 
 LAED SMITH, and EDWARD COLSTON ; from North 
 Carolina, JAMES OWEN; from Georgia, THOMAS 
 W. COBB ; from Tennessee, SAMJJEL HOGG ; and 
 from Ohio, PHILEMON BEECHER and LEVI BAR- 
 BER, appeared, and took their seats. 
 
 Mr. TAYLOR, from the joint committee ap- 
 pointed to wait on the President of the United 
 States, reported that they had discharged that 
 duty, and that the President informed the com- 
 mittee he would this day make a communica- 
 tion to the two Houses of Congress. 
 
 WEDNESDAY, November 18. 
 Several other members, to wit: from New 
 York, JOHN R. DRAKE, JAMES PORTER, and 
 JOHN C. SPENCER; from Virginia, BTJRWELL 
 BASSETT; and from Tennessee, WILLIAM G. 
 BLOUNT, appeared, and took their seats. 
 
 THURSDAY, November 19. 
 
 Three other members, to wit : from Massachu- 
 setts, JEREMIAH NELSON; from Pennsylvania, 
 WILLIAM MACLAY ; and from Kentucky, RICH- 
 ARD C. ANDERSON, jr., appeared, and took their 
 seats. 
 
 The SPEAKER laid before the House a letter 
 from the Governor of the State of Pennsylvania, 
 enclosing the credentials of SAMUEL MOORE, as 
 a member of this House, in the room of Samuel 
 D. Ingham, resigned; which was referred to 
 the Committee of Elections. 
 
 State of Illinois Question of Swearing in its 
 Representative. 
 
 Mr. MoLEAN, Representative from the new 
 State of Illinois, being in attendance 
 
 The SPEAKEE stated to the House a difficulty 
 which he felt in deciding upon the propriety of 
 administering the oath to him, in consequence 
 of Congress not having concluded the act of 
 admission of the State into the Union. Under 
 this difficulty, he submitted the question to the 
 decision of the House. 
 
 Mr. POINDEXTER, of Mississippi, said he 
 thought it incumbent on the House, before ad- 
 mitting the Representative to a seat, to examine 
 the constitution just laid before it, to see, first, 
 whether the requisitions of the act of last ses- 
 sion were complied with ; and, secondly, whether 
 the form of government established was repub- 
 lican, which the United States were bound to 
 guarantee. He illustrated the irregularity of a 
 din'erent procedure, by putting the case that 
 the member was admitted to a seat, allowed to 
 vote on important questions, and the constitu- 
 tion subsequently rejected. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON, of Ohio, wished a different 
 course to be pursued, and one for which he ad- 
 
 duced precedent, in the case of the Representa- 
 tive from one of the States lately admitted. 
 The House had taken for granted the fact of ft 
 compliance with the law, and of the republican 
 form of government established, and had ad- 
 mitted the member without question to his 
 seat. In the present case, Mr. H. was unwill- 
 ing to depart from the precedent, for mere 
 form's sake. 
 
 Mr. PITKIN, of Connecticut, said that this 
 was a question which, he believed, had never 
 before been presented to the House. He 
 thought, for himself, that, before admitting a 
 Representative to a seat, the question, whether 
 the people who elected him were a State, ought 
 to be decided. To the decision of this ques- 
 tion, several things were necessary ; for in- 
 stance, the law of last session required that 
 the Territory in question should havo had a 
 certain population, to justify its forming a con- 
 stitution and State government. This fact 
 ought to be officially established, &c., and the 
 resolution of admission passed, before a Repre- 
 sentative took his seat. 
 
 The question having been put, it was decided 
 apparently by a large majority that the SPEAKER 
 should not at this time administer the oath of 
 office. 
 
 Ordered, That the constitution of the State of 
 Illinois be referred to a select committee ; and 
 Messrs. ANDERSON, of Kentucky, POINDEXTER, 
 and HENDRICKS, were appointed the said com- 
 mittee. 
 
 FRIDAY, November 20. 
 
 The SPEAKER presented a memorial and peti- 
 tion of Matthew Lyon, formerly a member of 
 the House of Representatives from the State of 
 Vermont, detailing the circumstances attending 
 his prosecution for sedition, in the year 1798, 
 and complaining of the unconstitutionality of 
 the act under which he was prosecuted, of 
 illegality in the proceedings of the court, and 
 of the fine which he was compelled to pay, and 
 the imprisonment he suffered; and also set- 
 ting forth the iniquity of the motives which 
 prompted the said prosecution; and praying 
 that the amount of the said fine, with the interest 
 thereon, may be granted to him, together with 
 such sum as Congress may think a just indem- 
 nity for his being dragged from his home, his 
 family, friends, and business, and thrown into 
 a loathsome dungeon, where he suffered every 
 speoies of hardship and indignity, which the 
 most prosecuting spirit could devise, for four 
 months. 
 
 Mr. WILLIAMS, of North Carolina, moved to 
 refer the petition to the Judiciary Committee. 
 
 Mr. EDWARDS, of North Carolina, thought, 
 that, as this petition embraced a claim, it would 
 be proper to let it take the course of all other 
 claims, by referring it to the Committee of 
 Claims. 
 
 Mr. WILLIAMS said, though it was a claim, it 
 was a claim arising from the operation of a law
 
 202 
 
 ABKIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 District of Columbia. 
 
 [NOVEMBER, 1818. 
 
 of the country supposed by the petitioner to be 
 unconstitutional. Who could so well deter- 
 mine a question with regard to the constitution- 
 ality or unconstitutionality of a law, as the Ju- 
 diciary Committee ? Such cases had been usu- 
 ally referred to that committee ; and even at 
 the last session that committee had been direct- 
 ed to inquire into a fraud, said to have been 
 committed in one of the courts of the United 
 States. 
 
 On motion of Mr. SPENCEB, of New York, 
 the petition was read through, and was then 
 referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. 
 
 State of Illinois. 
 
 Mr. ANDERSON, of Kentucky, from the select 
 committee, to whom was referred the constitu- 
 tion of the State of Illinois, reported a resolu- 
 tion, declaring the admission of the State of 
 Illinois into the Union, on an equal footing with 
 the original States. 
 
 The resolution was read a first and second 
 time. Mr. ANDERSON proposed that it should 
 be engrossed for a third reading. 
 
 Mr. SPENCER, of New York, inquired whether 
 it appeared, from any documents transmitted 
 to Congress, that the State had the number of 
 inhabitants required by the law of the last ses- 
 sion, as a preliminary to its formation of a con- 
 stitution. 
 
 Mr. ANDERSON said that the committee had 
 no information on that subject before them, be- 
 yond what was contained in the preamble to 
 the constitution, which states, that the requisi- 
 tions of the act of Congress had been complied 
 with, and that the convention had therefore 
 
 exceeded to the formation of a constitution, 
 r. A said, the committee had considered that 
 evidence sufficient; and he had, in addition, 
 himself seen, in the newspapers, evidence suffi- 
 cient to satisfy him of the fact, that the popula- 
 tion did amount to forty thousand souls, the 
 number required. 
 
 The resolve was then ordered to be engrossed 
 for a third reading. 
 
 MONDAY, November 23. 
 
 Several other members, to wit : from New 
 York, DANIEL CRUGEE, PETER H. .WEXDOVEB, 
 and CALEB TOMPKINS; from South Carolina, 
 JAMES ERVIN, ELIAS EARLE, and ELDRED SIM- 
 KINS, appeared, and took their seats. 
 
 Mr. HUGH NELSON presented a memorial of 
 "William Lambert, accompanied with abstracts 
 of astronomical calculations, to ascertain the 
 longitude of the Capitol in this city, from the 
 observatory of Greenwich in England, solicit- 
 ing the adoption of measures authorizing addi- 
 tional observations to be made to test the accu- 
 racy of the result already obtained ; which was 
 referred to a select committee; and Messrs. 
 HUGH NELSON, FOLGER, SEYBERT, CRAWFORD, 
 and BATEMAN, were appointed the said com- 
 mittee. 
 
 District of Columbia. 
 
 The SPEAKER also laid before the House a 
 letter from William Cranch, Chief Justice of 
 the circuit court of the United States, for the 
 District of Columbia, transmitting a code of 
 jurisprudence for the said district, prepared 
 (by him) under the authority of the act of tho 
 29th of April, 1816, entitled "An act author- 
 izing the Judge| of the circuit court, and the 
 Attorney for the District of Columbia, to pre- 
 pare a code of jurisprudence for the said dis- 
 trict," which was referred to a select commit- 
 tee; and Messrs. HERBERT, CULBRETJI, GAB- 
 NETT, WILLIAMS of Connecticut, and ADAMS, 
 were appointed the said committee. The letter 
 is as follows : 
 
 NOVEMBER 9, 1818. 
 
 SIR : The undersigned, one of the Judges of the 
 circuit court for the District of Columbia, has the 
 honor to present, for the consideration of Congress, a 
 Code of Jurisprudence for that district, prepared un- 
 der the authority of the act of the 29th of April, 
 1816, entitled "An act authorizing the Judges of the 
 circuit court, and the Attorney for the District of Co- 
 lumbia, to prepare a Code of Jurisprudence for the 
 said district." 
 
 It is to be regretted, that the engagements of the 
 gentlemen intended by that act to have been associated 
 with him in the business, have deprived the public of 
 the benefit of their labors. This circumstance will 
 in part account for the lateness of the period at which 
 the report is made. It is, however, a work which 
 could not have been hastily done ; for, although the 
 district is small, yet almost every case requiring the 
 interposition of law, which can arise in tbe largest 
 nation, may arise in this district, and ought to be 
 provided for. 
 
 In preparing a substitute for the existing statute 
 law it was necessary, if possible, to ascertain what 
 that law was. This was not an easy task. 
 
 By the act of Congress, of the 27th of February, 
 1801. the laws of Virginia, as they then existed, were 
 to remain in force in that part of the district which 
 was ceded by Virginia, and the laws of Maryland in 
 that port which was ceded by Maryland. The laws 
 thus adopted, consisted of so much of the common 
 law of England as was applicable to the situation of 
 this country ; of the bills of rights, constitution, and 
 statutes of Virginia and Maryland, modified by the 
 Constitution and laws of the United States, and, also, 
 (in regard to that part of the district which was ceded 
 by the State of Maryland,) of such of the English 
 statutes as existed at the time of the first emigration 
 to Maryland, " and which, by experience, had been 
 found applicable to their local and other circumstan- 
 ces, and of such others as had been since made in 
 England or Great Britain, and had been introduced, 
 used, and practised by the courts of law or equity " 
 of that State. 
 
 To ascertain, therefore, what was the existing stat- 
 ute law, it was necessary to know what statutes of 
 England, enacted before the first emigration to Ma- 
 ryland, had by experience been found applicable to 
 tbe local and other circumstances of the country, and 
 what statutes since made in England or Great Brit- 
 ain, had been introduced, used, and practised by tbe 
 courts of law or equity in that State : and also what 
 statutes of England or Great Britain had been ex- 
 pressly re-enacted by the State of Virginia.
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 203 
 
 NOVEMBER, 1818.] 
 
 Annual Treasury Report. 
 
 [H. OF B. 
 
 To obtain this knowledge with as much certainty 
 ns the nature of the case would permit, it was neces- 
 sary to examine minutely the English and British 
 statutes, and compare them with the statutes enacted 
 by Virginia and Maryland. 
 
 From these three systems of statutes, to select 
 such as were most important and best adapted to the 
 circumstances of the district ; to supply such defects 
 as were -discovered, and to combine the whole into 
 one code required more deliberation, and occupied 
 more time, than was anticipated. 
 
 These circumstances must account for the appar- 
 ent delay in making the present report, which is 
 even now submitted with much diffidence. 
 
 With high consideration, the undersigned has the 
 honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 
 
 W. CRANCH. 
 
 Hon. HENTIY CLAY, 
 
 Speaker House of Representatives. 
 
 Annual Treasury Report. 
 The SPEAKER laid before the House a letter 
 from the Secretary of the Treasury, transmit- 
 ting his annual report upon the state of the 
 finances; which was ordered to lie on the table. 
 The report is as follows : 
 
 TREASDBY DEPARTMENT, Nov. 21, 1818. 
 In obedience to the directions of the " Act supple- 
 mentary to the Act to establish the Treasury De- 
 partment," the Secretary of the Treasury respectfully 
 submits the following report and estimates : 
 
 Revenue. 
 
 The net revenue arising from duties upon imports 
 and tonnage, internal duties, direct tax, public lands, 
 postage, and incidental receipts, during the year 1816, 
 amounted to $36,743,574 07, viz : 
 Customs ----- $27,569,769 71 
 Internal duties - - - - 4,396,133 25 
 Direct tax - - - - 2,785,34320 
 
 Public lands, exclusive of Missis- 
 sippi stock _ ... 1,754,487 38 
 Postage and incidental receipts - 237,840 53 
 
 $36,743,574 07 
 
 And that which accrued from the 
 
 same sources during the year 1817, 
 
 amounted to 24,387,993 08, viz : 
 Customs (see statement A) - - $17,547,540 89 
 Internal duties and direct tax (see 
 
 statement B) - - - - 4,512,287 81 
 Public lands exclusive of Mississippi 
 
 stock (see statement C) - - 2,015,977 00 
 Postage and incidental receipts - 312,187 38 
 
 $24,387,993 08 
 
 It is ascertained that the gross amount of duties 
 on merchandise and tonnage, which have accrued 
 during the three first quarters of the present year ex- 
 ceeds si> 1,000, 000, and that the sales of the public 
 lands, during the same period, greatly exceed, both 
 iu quantity and value, those of the corresponding 
 quarter of last year. 
 
 The payments into the Treasury during the three 
 first quarters of the year, are estimated to amount to 
 |17,1(J7,862 26, viz: 
 
 Customs $13,401,409 65 
 
 Internal revenue and direct tax - 993,574 36 
 Public lands, exclusive of Missis- 
 sippi stock - 1,875,731 20 
 Interest upon bank dividends - 525,000 00 
 Postage and incidental receipts - 49,438 19 
 Repayments into the Treasury - 322,708 86 
 
 And the payments into the Treasu- 
 ry during the fourth quarter of 
 the year, from the same sources, 
 are estimated at 
 
 $17,167,862 26 
 
 6,000,000 00 
 
 Making the total amount estimated 
 to be received into the Treasury 
 during the year 1818 - 22,167,862 26 
 
 Which added to the balance in the 
 Treasury on the 1st day of Janu- 
 ary last, exclusive of $8,809,- 
 872 10 in Treasury notes amount- 
 ing to 6,179,883 38 
 
 Makes the aggregate amount of - $28,347,745 64 
 
 The application of this sum, for the 
 year 1818, is estimated as follows : 
 To the 30th September the pay- 
 ments(exclusive of 9,148,237 40 
 of Treasury notes, which had been 
 drawn from the Treasury and can- 
 celled) have amounted to $16,760,- 
 337 05, viz : 
 
 Civil, diplomatic, and miscellaneous 
 expenses - $3,289,806 28 
 
 Military service, in- 
 cluding arrearage 5,620,263 08 
 
 Naval service, includ- 
 ing the permanent 
 appropriation for 
 the gradual in- 
 crease of the Navy 2,383,000 00 
 
 Public debt, exclu- 
 sive of the $9,148,- 
 237 40 of Treasury 
 notes, which have 
 been drawn out of 
 the Treasury and 
 cancelled - 5,467,267 69 
 
 During the 4th quar- 
 ter it is estimated 
 that the payments 
 will amount to $9,- 
 475,000, viz: 
 
 Civil, diplomatic, mis- 
 cellaneous expenses 520,000 00 
 
 Military service - 1,175,000 00 
 
 Naval service - 575,000 00 
 
 Public debt to 1st of 
 
 January, 1819 - 7,205,000 00 
 
 Making the aggregate amount of $26,235,337 05 
 
 And leaving, on tho 1st day of Jan- 
 uary, 1819, a balance iu the 
 Treasury, estimated at - - $2,112,408 59 
 
 Of the Estimates of the Public Revenue and Expendi- 
 tures for the year 1819. 
 
 In the annual report of tho state of the Treasury 
 of the 6th of December, 1817, the permanent revenue
 
 204 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OP R. 
 
 Stale of Illinois Slavery. 
 
 [NOVEMBER, 1818. 
 
 was estimated at $ 24,525,000 per annum ; and the 
 annual expenditure, according to the then existing 
 laws, was stated at $21,946,351 74. By the acts of 
 the last session of Congress, the internal duties, esti- 
 mated at $2,500,000 per annum, were repealed, 
 whilst the expenditure was augmented to nearly 
 $ 25,000,000 ; and that of the ensuing year is esti- 
 mated at not less than $24,515,219 76. 
 
 The apparent deficit produced by these acts, and 
 by the application of more than $2,500,000 to the 
 payment of the interest and redemption of the prin- 
 cipal of the public debt, beyond the annual appropri- 
 ation of $10,000,000 for that object, has been sup- 
 plied by the receipts into the Treasury on account of 
 the arrearage of the direct tax and internal duties, 
 and by the balance of more than $6,000,000, which 
 was in the Treasury on the first day of January, 
 1818. 
 
 These temporary sources of supply being nearly 
 exhausted, the expenditure of the year 1819 must 
 principally depend upon the receipts into the Treas- 
 ury from the permanent revenue during that year. 
 As was anticipated in the last annual report, the re- 
 action produced by the excessive importations of for- 
 eign merchandise, during the years 1815 and 1816, 
 acquired its greatest force in the year 1817. 
 
 It is presumed that the revenue which shall accrue 
 during the present year from imports and tonnage, 
 may be considered as the average amount which 
 will be annually received from that source of the 
 revenue. 
 
 It is ascertained that the bonds taken for securing 
 duties which were outstanding on the 30th day of 
 September last, exceeded $23,000,000, and the re- 
 ceipts into the Treasury from that source of revenue 
 during the year 1819, are estimat- 
 ed at ----- $21,000,000 00 
 Public lands - 1,500,000 00 
 
 Direct tax and internal duties - 750,000 00 
 Bank dividends at six per cent. - 420,00000 
 First payment of bonus due by 
 
 Bank of the United States - 500,000 00 
 
 Postage and incidental receipts - 50,000 00 
 
 Amounting together to - $24,220,000 00 
 
 Which, added to balance in the 
 Treasury on the first day of 
 January, 1819, estimated at - 2,112,408 59 
 
 Makes the aggregate amount of $26,232,408 59 
 
 In presenting this estimate of receipts for the year 
 1819, it is necessary to premise that the sum to be re- 
 ceived from the customs is less than what, from the 
 amount of the outstanding bonds, would under ordi- 
 nary circumstances be received. The amount of the 
 sales of public lands during the last year, and the sum 
 due at this time by the purchasers, would justify a 
 much higher estimate of the receipts from that im- 
 portant branch of revenue, if the most serious diffi- 
 culty in making payments was not known to exist. 
 The excessive issues of the banks during the suspen- 
 sion of specie payments, and the great exportation of 
 the precious metals to the East Indies during the pres- 
 ent year, have produced a pressure upon them which 
 has rendered it necessary to contract their discounts 
 for the purpose of withdrawing from circulation a 
 large proportion of their notes. This operation, so 
 oppressive to their debtors, but indispensably neces- 
 sary to the existence of specie payments must be con- 
 
 tinued until gold and silver shall form a just propor- 
 tion of the circulating currency. In passing through 
 this ordeal, punctuality in the discharge of debts, both 
 to individuals and to the Government, will be consid- 
 erably impaired, and well-founded apprehensions are 
 entertained that, until it is passed, payments in some 
 of the land districts will be greatly diminished. 
 
 The extent to which the payments into the Treas- 
 ury, during the year 1819, will be affected by the 
 general pressure upon the community, which has 
 been described, and which is the inevitable conse- 
 quence of the overtrading of the banks and the 
 exportation of specie to the East Indies, n^<rra- 
 vated by the temporary failure of the ordinary supply 
 of the precious metals from the Spanish American 
 mines, cannot, at this time, he correctly appreciated. 
 Should it exceed what has been contemplated in this 
 report, the appropriations must be diminished, the 
 revenue enlarged by new impositions, or temporary 
 loans authorized to meet the deficiency. As the ex- 
 penditure of the year 1820 will be greatly reduced by 
 the irredeemable quality of the public debt, after the 
 redemption of the remaining moiety of the Louisiana 
 stock, which may be effected on the 21st day of Octo- 
 ber, 1819, a resort to temporary loans, oi;to the issue 
 of Treasury notes, to the amount of the deficiency, 
 should any occur, is believed to be preferable to the 
 imposition of new taxes, which would not be required 
 after that year. 
 
 All which is respectfully submitted. 
 
 WM. H. CRAWFORD. 
 
 State of Illinois Slavery. 
 
 The engrossed resolution declaring the admis- 
 sion of the State of Illinois into the Union, on 
 an equal footing with the original States, was 
 read a third time ; and on the question, " Shall 
 it pass ?" 
 
 Mr. TALLMADGE, of New York, assigned the 
 reasons why, in his opinion, the resolution ought 
 not to be adopted. It appeared to him, in the 
 first place, he said, there ought to be before 
 Congress some document, showing that the 
 Territory had the population required by the 
 law of last session. The recitation of the fact 
 in the preamble of the constitution he did not 
 consider as the proper sort of evidence. It was 
 not, however, upon this point that he meant to 
 rest his opposition to the adoption of the resolu- 
 tion. The principle of slavery, if not adopted in 
 the constitution, was at least not sufficiently 
 prohibited. The ordinance for the government 
 of the territory northwest of the Ohio, which 
 was in the nature of a convention between the 
 United States and the people of the States and 
 Territories to be formed out of that territory, 
 contained some provisions applicable to this 
 subject. The sixth article of that ordinance 
 provided that, in the cession of territory ac- 
 cepted by the United States from Virginia, and 
 comprising the whole north-western territory, 
 there should be neither slavery nor involuntary 
 servitude, otherwise than as a punishment for 
 the commitment of crimes; with a proviso, that 
 this provision should not be construed to pre- 
 vent the reclamation of runaway slaves. If the 
 constitution was found to comport with that 
 provision, it ought to be received by Congress ;
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 205 
 
 NOVEMBER, 1818.] 
 
 State of Illinois Slavery. 
 
 [H. OF R 
 
 if not, it ought to be rejected. The sixth article of 
 the constitution of the new State of Illinois,* in 
 each of its three sections, Mr. T. contended, con- 
 travened this stipulation, either in the letter or 
 the spirit. These sections he separately examined, 
 as to their construction and bearing, and felt him- 
 self constrained to come to the conclusion that 
 they embraced a complete recognition of existing 
 slavery, if not provisions for its future introduc- 
 tion and toleration ; particularly in the passage 
 wherein they permit the hiring of slaves, the 
 property of non-residents, for any number of 
 years consecutively. If Congress would observe 
 in good faith the terms of the convention, he 
 said, they were bound, under this circumstance, 
 to reject the constitution of Illinois, or at least 
 this feature of it. The State of Virginia, he 
 said, had ceded the territory out of which this 
 State was formed, on certain conditions, to the 
 United States ; one of which was that to which 
 he had just adverted, and it was a monument to 
 the fame of Virginia. It had often been cast as 
 a reproach on this nation, that we, who boast 
 our freedom, and pride ourselves on our inde- 
 pendence, yet hold our fellow-beings in service. 
 Americans had been represented, indeed, with 
 one hand exhibiting the declaration of independ- 
 ence, and with the other brandishing the lash 
 of despotism. "When this stigma was attempted 
 to be fixed on our country, it was a consolation 
 to him, he said, that we have it in our power 
 to cast it back again on the country from which 
 we are severed hers was the original sin, 
 which we found in existence on our emancipa- 
 tion, and which it had been impossible to eradi- 
 cate we could do no more than control and 
 regulate the evil. So far from wishing to in- 
 vade the rights of the slaveholding States, or to 
 assail their prerogatives, he believed they were 
 
 * ART. 6. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall 
 hereafter be introduced into this State, otherwise than for the 
 punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have been 
 duly convicted ; nor shall any male person, arrived at the 
 age of twenty-one years, nor female person arrived at the 
 age of eighteen years, be held to serve any person as a 
 servant, under any indenture hereafter made, unless such 
 person shall enter into such indenture while in a state of 
 perfect freedom, and on condition of a bonajide considera- 
 tion received, or to be received, for that service. Nor shall 
 any indenture of any negro or mulatto, hereafter made and 
 executed out of this State, or, if made in this State, where 
 the term of service exceeds one year, be of the least validity, 
 except those given in cases of apprenticeship. 
 
 SEC. 2. No person bound to labor in any other State shall 
 be hired to labor in this State, except within the tract reserv- 
 ed for the salt works, near Shawneetown ; nor even at that 
 place for a longer period than one year at any one time ; nor 
 shall it be allowed there after the year one thousand eight 
 hundred and twenty-five ; any violation of this article shall 
 effect the emancipation of such person from his obligation to 
 service. 
 
 SEC. 3. Each and every person who has been bound to 
 service by contractor indenture, in virtue of the laws of the 
 Illinois Territory, heretofore existing, and in conformity to 
 the provisions of the same, without fraud or collusion, snail 
 be held to a specific performance of their contracts or inden- 
 tures ; and such negroes and mulattoes as have been regis- 
 tered in conformity with the aforesaid laws, shall serve out 
 tho time appointed by said laws : Provided, however. That 
 the children hereafter born of such persons, negroes, or 
 muluttoes, shall li.-c.niu- live, the males at the age of twcnty- 
 . tli- females at the age of eighteen years. Each 
 and every child born of indentured parents shall be entered 
 with the clerk of the county in which they reside, by their 
 owner?, within six months after the birth of said child. 
 Constitution of lUinoit. 
 
 equally sensible with him of the evils of slavery, 
 and did what they conld to control and regulate 
 them. But, Mr. T. said, if Congress should 
 voluntarily recognize this feature in a constitu- 
 tion submitted for their decision, and in viola- 
 tion, too, of a compact forbidding it, they would 
 take upon themselves the unjust imputation he 
 had alluded to. Mr. T. referred to the consti- 
 tution of the State of Indiana, a State already 
 admitted from the same territory, to show how 
 carefully and scrupulously it had guarded against 
 slavery in any shape, and in the strongest terms 
 reprobated it ; and lest at some future day amend- 
 ments to the constitution should admit its intro- 
 duction, a clause of that constitution forbade 
 any amendment of that sort to be made. These 
 sentiments of the State of Indiana, Mr. T. said, 
 he reciprocated. Our interest and our honor, 
 said he, calls on us rigidly to insist on the ob- 
 servance of good faith under the article of the 
 ordinance I have referred to, so far as that no 
 involuntary service be permitted to be recog- 
 nized in the constitution of any State to be 
 formed out of that territory. 
 
 Mr. PonfDEXTEB, of Mississippi, said he fully 
 concurred with the gentleman from New York, 
 in his solicitude to expel from our country, when 
 ever practicable, any thing like slavery. It is not 
 with us, said he, a matter of choice whether we 
 will have slaves among us or not: we found 
 them here, and we are obliged to maintain and 
 employ them. It would be a blessing could we 
 get rid of them ; but the wisest and best men 
 among us have not been able to devise a plan 
 for doing it. The only question at present is 
 whether the State of Illinois has virtually com- 
 plied with her contract, and followed the ex- 
 ample of the two other States already erected 
 from the same territory. To illustrate that fact, 
 Mr. P. referred to the constitution of Ohio, the 
 erection of which State, from the Northwestern 
 Territory, the gentleman appeared to have over- 
 looked ; and showed that the article on the sub- 
 ject of slaves was almost literally copied from 
 the constitution of Ohio into that of Illinois. 
 The third section of the article in question, in 
 the latter, was the only variation, and the ne- 
 cessity of that additional provision would be 
 obvious to any gentleman who would examine 
 and reflect upon the subject. By an antecedent 
 law of the territorial government, all persons, 
 slaves or under indenture, in the territory, were 
 required to be registered, as the only way in 
 which they could be discriminated from fugi- 
 tives, &c. The constitution directs that their 
 children also shall be registered, that they may 
 be secure of enjoying" their freedom, when by the 
 constitution they become entitled. From their 
 color, (being prima facie slaves in other States,) 
 was it not more secure to the freedom of the 
 people of color, that their births, parentage, &c., 
 should be recorded in the new State, than other- 
 wise ? So far from constituting an objection to 
 it, Mr. P. said, lie considered this a valuable part 
 of the constitution of Illinois. As to children, 
 born of slaves, not being free until eighteen or
 
 206 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 State of Illinois Slavery. 
 
 [NOVEMBER, 1818. 
 
 twenty-one years of age, Mr. P. said that would 
 be no great hardship, seeing it was as soon as 
 white persons were free from their parents, or 
 from their indentures, if apprenticed. With re- 
 spect to constitutional provisions on this subject, 
 Mr. P. said, after all, it would he found impracv 
 tlcable, after admitting the independence of a 
 State, to prevent it from framing or shaping its 
 constitution as it thought proper. As to a con- 
 stitution like that of Indiana, prohibiting the 
 introduction of an amendment to it, of whatever 
 nature, if the people were to form a convention 
 to-morrow, that provision would be of no force : 
 the whole power would be with the people, whom, 
 in their sovereign capacity, no provision of that 
 nature can control. Nor could Congress prevent 
 them. Various attempts had already been made 
 in Ohio to alter that feature. In the nature of 
 free governments, no law could be irrepealable ; 
 though on this head he observed, he hoped that 
 neither Ohio, Indiana, nor Illinois would ever 
 permit the introduction of slavery within their 
 limits. He hoped, as far as we could, we should 
 expel slavery from the country. At the same 
 time, he thought that Illinois, so far as she had 
 gone, had done better than the States which had 
 preceded her in the same quarter, because she 
 had provided for the security of the freedom of 
 negroes, mulattoes, &c., and to prevent them 
 from being kidnapped, by causing them to be 
 registered. 
 
 Mr. ANDERSON, of Kentucky, repeated what 
 he had said on Friday last, respecting the pop- 
 ulation of Illinois, and his own conviction that 
 it was of the required amount. If on this sub- 
 ject Congress had been very scrupulous, Mr. A. 
 said, he would have directed a census of the 
 population to be taken by persons appointed by 
 the United States for that purpose ; but they 
 had always heretofore in like cases submitted to 
 Territorial counts and Territorial results, and he 
 did not see why they should not do the same in 
 the present case. All that was necessary was 
 that they should be reasonably satisfied of their 
 accuracy. With respect to the other objection 
 of the gentleman, he thought he could satisfy 
 him that his position was manifestly incorrect. 
 It would be seen, on reading the articles of ces- 
 sion by Virginia, that no condition, such as the 
 gentleman supposed, was annexed to it, respect- 
 ing slavery. The conditions she required were 
 of a different character, and this provision re- 
 specting slavery had been prescribed by Con- 
 gress, among other articles framed for the gov- 
 ernment of the Territory thus ceded. Virginia 
 had no concern in it, except so far as she was 
 represented on the floor of Congress, when the 
 ordinance was passed. Still less were the peo- 
 ple of the Northwestern Territory a party to 
 the compact, as the gentleman supposed it, not 
 being represented at all, nor consulted on the 
 occasion. Congress then are not in this respect 
 bound by any pledge, nor by any thing but a 
 sense of expediency, co-operating with the like 
 sense of the people of Illinois. The conditions 
 reserved by Virginia on making the cession 
 
 were that a certain number of States should be 
 
 far from Virginia requiring the abolition of 
 slavery, doubts had arisen whether, under the 
 stipulations she made on ceding the Territory 
 to the United States, Congress should JKISS the 
 ordinance which they subsequently enacted. 
 Serions doubts had arisen, after stipulating to 
 make three States, whether Congress had a 
 right to prescribe any condition respecting 
 slavery, &c. ; not, Mr. A. said, that he would 
 destroy the ordinance, but ho meant to state 
 only how far its scope extended. There was 
 nothing unconstitutional, in any view, in Con- 
 'gress accepting what the people of Illinois have 
 done, if they thought proper ; since the consent 
 of the two contracting parties (supposing the 
 ordinance to be a compact) would thus be given. 
 With respect to the nature of the provisions re- 
 ferred to in the constitution, the gentleman who 
 preceded him had clearly shown that they had 
 been misunderstood by the gentleman from New 
 York. 
 
 Mr. TALLMADGE replied. In referring to the 
 ordinance, as binding Congress not to permit 
 slavery, in any of the States formed from the 
 Northwestern Territory, he conceived Congress 
 to be bound by a tie not to be broken : but, if 
 in this he was wrong, and Congress are bound 
 by nothing but their sense of expediency, that 
 tie became ten thousand times more strong. 
 Are we, said he, to be drawn into a discussion 
 of slavery, its merits and demerits, on abstract 
 principles? He would not enter into such a 
 discussion ; but must persist in stating it as his 
 opinion, that the interest, honor, and faith of 
 the nation, required it scrupulously to guard 
 against slavery's passing into a territory where 
 they have power to prevent its entrance. Mr. T. 
 again enumerated the provisions in the consti- 
 tution of Illinois, to which he objected, and 
 made further remarks on them. He consider- 
 ed it such, that to accept it, would be to violate 
 a pledge solemnly given, and, if not a stipula- 
 tion, yet, so simultaneously given, as to amount 
 to a compact with Virginia. With respect to 
 the power of a State to change its constitution, 
 ho was not prepared to say that a State was, in 
 that respect, under no restraint. Would gentle- 
 men admit a State into the Union to-day under 
 
 to call a convention to-morrow, and change its 
 form of government to a monarchy ? That 
 State would cease, by the very act, to be a 
 component part of the Union, and the same re- 
 sult would follow, he presumed, if a State were 
 to violate the condition on which it was ad- 
 mitted into this Union, by admitting the intro- 
 duction of slavery. 
 
 Mr. LIVEUMOEE requested the yeas and nays 
 on the decision of this question. 
 
 Mr. HARBISON said, that, as a Representative 
 of Ohio, he protested against the doctrine of the 
 gentleman from New York. He could assure
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 207 
 
 NOVEMBER, 1818.] 
 
 Bank of the United States. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 the gentleman that the people of that State 
 were fully aware of their privileges, and would 
 never come to this House, or to the State of 
 New York, for permission so to alter their consti- 
 tution as to admit the introduction of slavery, 
 the object of the gentleman's abhorrence, as, 
 said Mr. II., it is of mine. They had entered 
 into no compact which had shorn the people of 
 their sovereign authority. Mr. H. proceeded 
 to make some remarks respecting the operation 
 of the ordinance, cessions, &c. Though there 
 we:v -laves iu that country when ceded, there 
 had been none in that part of it from which the 
 State of Ohio had been formed, so that no pro- 
 vision had been necessary respecting them in 
 the constitution of that State. In Indiana, the 
 question relating to this description of property 
 had been reserved for the decision of the courts 
 of justice, &c., and he sincerely wished that 
 Illinois had either emancipated its slaves or fol- 
 lowed the example of Indiana. In regard to 
 the supposed compact, however, and its efficacy, 
 Mr. II. said, he had always considered it a dead 
 letter. He could not put his hand on the page, 
 or on the letter, but he believed it would be 
 found that, in one of the pages of the Federalist, 
 the authority of which he presumed, at least, 
 the gentleman from New York would respect, 
 Alexander Hamilton had expressly declared the 
 same opinion. He could not believe, he said, 
 that Congress would refuse to accept the State 
 of Illinois on the ground of that compact : for 
 his part, he wished to see that State, and all 
 that Territory, disenthralled from the effect of 
 articles to which they never gave their assent, 
 and to which they were not properly subject. 
 This much he wished, however he was opposed 
 to slavery, and should lament its introduction 
 into any part of the Territory. 
 
 After a few further remarks, from Mr. TALL- 
 MADGE, Mr. ANDERSON, and Mr. STORES, the 
 question on the passage of the resolution was 
 decided in the affirmative yeas 117, nays 34, 
 us follows : 
 
 YKAS. Messrs. Anderson of Pennsylvania, Ander- 
 son of Kentucky, Austin, Baldwin, Barbour of Vir- 
 ginia, Bateman, Bayley, Beecher, Bellinger, Bloom- 
 field, Blount, Boden, Bryan, Burwell, Butler of New 
 York, Butler of Louisiana, Campbell, Claiborne, 
 Cobb, Colston, Cook, Crawford, Cruger, Culbreth, 
 Cushman, Desha, Drake, Edwards, Ervin of South 
 Carolina, Floyd, Garnett, Hall of North Carolina, 
 Harrison, Hendricks, Herbert, Hogg, Holmes, Hop- 
 kinson, Hostetter, Hubbard, Irving of New York, 
 Johnson of Kentucky, Jones, Kinsey, Kirtland, Lawyer, 
 Lewis, Lincoln, Linn, Little, McLane of Delaware, 
 McCoy, Marchand, Mason of Massachusetts, Mercer, 
 Middleton, Robert, Moore, Samuel Moore, Mosely, 
 Mumford, H. Nelson, T. M. Nelson, New, Newton, 
 Ogden, Ogle, Owen, Palmer, Patterson, Pegram, 
 Peter, Pindall, Pitkin, Pleasants, Poindexter, Porter, 
 Quarles, Rhea, Rice, Robertson, Rogers, Rnggles, 
 Sampson, Sawyer, Schuyler, Scudder, Settt 
 Sherwood, Silsbee, Simkins, Slocumb, S. Smith, 
 Ballard Smith, Alexander Smith, J. S. Smith, Speed, 
 Spencer, Stewart of North Carolina, Storrs, Stuart of 
 Maryland, Tarr, Terrell, Terry, Tompkins, Trimble, 
 
 Tucker of South Carolina, Upham, Walker of North 
 Carolina, "Walker of Kentucky, Wallace, Westcrlo, 
 Whiteside, Wilkin, Williams of Connecticut, Williams 
 of New York, Williams of North Carolina 117. 
 
 NAYS. Messrs. Adams, Bennett, Boss, Clagett, 
 Crafts, Darlington, Ellicott, Folger, Gage, Gilbert, 
 Hale, Hasbronck, Hunter, Huntington, Livermore, 
 Wm. Maclay, Wm. P. Maclay, Merrill, Morton, Mur- 
 ray, Jeremiah Nelson, Orr, Reed, Rich, Richards, 
 Savage, Seybert, Southard, TaUmadge, Taylor, 
 Wendover, Whitman, Wilson of Massachusetts, and 
 Wilson of Pennsylvania 34. 
 
 The resolution was passed, and sent to the 
 Senate for concurrence. 
 
 TUESDAY, November 24. 
 Another member, to wit, from Massachusetts, 
 SAMUEL 0. ALLEN, appeared, and toot his seat. 
 
 WEDNESDAY, November 25. 
 Several other members, to wit : from Virginia, 
 JOHN TYLER, JAMES JOHNSON, and GEOBGE F. 
 STROTHER ; and, from South Carolina, WILLIVM 
 LOWXDES, appeared, and took their seats. 
 
 Bank of the United States. 
 
 Mr. SPENCER, of New York, offered for con- 
 sideration the following resolution : 
 
 Resolved, That a committee be appointed to inspect 
 the books and examine into the proceedings of the 
 Bank of the United States, and to report whether the 
 provisions of its charter have been violated or not; 
 and particularly to report whether the instalments 
 of the capital stock of the said bank have been paid 
 in gold or silver coin, and in the funded debt of the 
 United States, or whether they were, in any instance, 
 and to what amount, paid by the proceeds of the 
 notes of stockholders, discounted for that purpose; 
 and also to report die names of those persons who 
 now own, or who have owned, any part of the capital 
 stock of the said bank, and the amount of discounts, 
 if any, to such persons respectively, and when made ; 
 and also to report whether the said bank, or any of 
 its offices of discount and deposit, have refused to pay 
 the notes of the bank in specie on demand, and have 
 refused to receive in payment of debts due to them, or 
 either of them, the notes of the bank, and whether the 
 bank or any of its offices of discount, or any of their 
 officers or agents have sold drafts upon other offices, or 
 upon the bank, at an advance, and have received a 
 premium for such drafts ; also, the amount of the 
 notes issued payable at Philadelphia, and at each 
 office of discount respectively, and the amount of 
 capital assigned to each office, together with the 
 amount of the public deposits made at the bank 
 and at each office, and an account of the transfers 
 thereof, and the total amount of bills and notes dis- 
 counted at the bank and its several offices since its 
 organization ; that the said committee have leave to 
 meet in the city of Philadelphia, and to remain there as 
 long as may be necessary ; that they shall have power 
 to send for persons and papers, and to employ the re- 
 quisite clerks, the expense of which shall be audited 
 and allowed by the Committee of Accounts, and 
 paid out of the contingent fund of this House. 
 
 Mr. SPENCEE remarked, on introducing this 
 motion, that it was with considerable reluctance 
 he had submitted it to the House a reluctance,
 
 208 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OP R.] 
 
 Claim of Beaumarchais. 
 
 [NOVEMBER, 1818. 
 
 however, proceeding solely from his inability to 
 do justice to the subject, and not from any doubt 
 of the necessity or of the propriety of the pro- 
 ceeding. Ho had waited till this day, in the 
 hope that some member, whose experience was 
 more extensive than his own, would have 
 moved the inquiry ; but, having been in this 
 respect disappointed, he had felt it his im- 
 perious duty to do it. As to the authority of 
 this House to make the investigation, he thought 
 there could be little doubt. If there should be 
 any doubt on the mind of any gentleman on 
 this subject, he referred him to the 23d section 
 of the act establishing the bank, which express- 
 ly authorized an examination of the books of 
 the bank when required, by a committee of 
 Congress. As to the necessity of the inquiry 
 proposed, he presumed there were few of those 
 near him who were not aware of the agitation 
 which exists in the public mind on this subject, 
 and who did not perceive that, from one end of 
 the country to the other, loud complaints were 
 made against the conduct of the officers of the 
 bank. It was necessary for him to state, Mr. 
 S. said, as he did explicitly state, that he meant 
 to implicate the conduct of the bank in no re- 
 spect ; on that point he had formed no opinion, 
 and would form none, until the facts reported 
 by the committee should justify him in drawing 
 his conclusions on the subject. He was neither 
 hostile to the bank, nor particularly friendly ; he 
 owed nothing to it ; he was the proprietor of 
 none of its stock, nor, that he knew of, were 
 any of his friends. Bat, that complaints existed 
 against the bank, he well knew ; and, whether 
 well or ill-founded, it was equally due to the 
 nation and to the bank that a fair inquiry should 
 take place, and such a report be made as would 
 show that the complaints were unjust, if such 
 should prove to be the fact, or, if otherwise, 
 should exhibit the specific instances of miscon- 
 duct which the committee should be able to dis- 
 cover. The objects specified in the resolve, 
 Mr. S. said, were all those respecting which, to 
 his knowledge, complaints had been made ; and 
 they were subjects respecting which it was at 
 least certain that the nation required informa- 
 tion. The friends of the bank, he thought, 
 ought to solicit the inquiry proposed; they 
 should be anxious that a full investigation should 
 take place, and that, too, by a committee having 
 no resentments against the bank to gratify, nor 
 any feelings of friendship or attachment to bias 
 them against it by a committee, depending on 
 their own inspection for facts, and not on infor- 
 mation of a general nature derived from the 
 officers of the bank. A full and fair view of 
 the whole subject, thus obtained, would be at- 
 tended with the most happy consequences to the 
 nation and to the bank. If it should be shown 
 that immense discounts had not been made to 
 particular persons, for the purpose of speculation 
 merely ; that, by this means, the stock of the 
 bank had not been blown up into a bubble 
 which had now burst ; that the bank had dis- 
 tributed its accommodations with a view to the 
 
 accommodation of the community rather than 
 of individuals ; that it had used its best exer- 
 tions to accomplish, what was one of the objects 
 of its establishment, the equalization of the 
 currency, as far as practicable ; if it had done 
 all this, and fairly endeavored to meet the public 
 expectations, although it may have failed in 
 that object, it would become an act of justice 
 to rally around the institution, to sustain and 
 give it credit, because no one could doubt 
 the utility of such an institution to the nation, 
 if properly conducted. "With these observa- 
 tions, Mr. S. submitted the resolution to the will 
 of the House. 
 
 Mr. MoLANE, of Delaware, rose, he said, not to 
 offer any opposition to the inquiry, but merely 
 to request time to give to the subject of the res- 
 olution such a consideration as its importance 
 deserved. It would be recollected by the House, 
 that a resolution had passed the Senate during 
 the last session, calling on the Secretary of the 
 Treasury to lay before Congress a particular 
 account of the state and transactions of the 
 bank. This report might be expected shortly 
 to be laid before Congress ; and in that report 
 would, perhaps, be embraced all the informa- 
 tion required by the resolve. Although rumors 
 had existed, Mr. McL. said, with regard to cer- 
 tain transactions in the bank, he thought it 
 would be well not to institute an inquiry hastily 
 on the foundation of mere rumor. He wished 
 the resolution to lie on the table for a day, or 
 for a longer time, that the House might have 
 time to reflect on it. He, therefore, moved that 
 it lie on the table, and be printed. 
 
 Mr. SPENCER said he had no sort of objection 
 to this course ; but he hoped that, after gentle- 
 men should have reflected on it, they would be 
 disposed to take it up and act on it at an early 
 day. 
 
 THTJESDAY, November 26. 
 Another member, to wit, from Ohio, SAMTIEL 
 HEEEICK, appeared, and took his seat. 
 
 Claim of Beaumarchais. 
 
 The House then resolved itself into a Commit- 
 tee of the Whole, Mr. SMITH of Maryland in 
 the chair, on the bill for the relief of the heirs 
 and representatives of Caron de Beaumarchais. 
 
 [The magnitude of this claim makes it an 
 important one, and the long interval of time 
 which has elapsed since the debt was contracted, 
 has at once trippled the amount of the debt, 
 and involved in some obscurity the question of 
 the justice of the claim. In the report of the 
 committee to whom the subject was referred 
 at the last session, and on which this bill is 
 founded, the members of the committee were 
 unanimous. This report, which is an elaborate 
 and able one, was read through to-day by the 
 Clerk. A report of a committee of a former 
 Congress, adverse to the claim, and equally 
 elaborate, was also read through.] 
 
 After the reading of these documents
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 209 
 
 NOVEMBER, 1818.] 
 
 Bank of the United States. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 Mr. BASSETT made a few remarks on the 
 merits of this claim, impressively urging on the 
 House the j ustice of giving to the claim a liberal 
 and serious consideration. He stated the im- 
 portant services rendered to the United States 
 by M. Beaurnarchais, and the reduced fortunes 
 of his heirs. After reading the -warm expres- 
 sion of thanks to that gentleman by the Con- 
 tinental Congress, and stating that his aid had 
 essentially contributed to some of the most im- 
 portant and successful events of the Eevolution- 
 ary war, Mr. B. expressed his hope that the 
 door would not be closed in the face of his rep- 
 resentatives, suing for a debt justly due by 
 the United States, and the want of which had 
 impoverished them. 
 
 Mr. PITKIX said that this claim was of that 
 nature, and of that amount, too, which required 
 a cool consideration of its nature ; and that the 
 House should closely examine into its merits for 
 themselves. With regard to this claim, some 
 of the documents unfavorable to it had been 
 destroyed at the time of the invasion of 1814; 
 others were not generally accessible, or not 
 generally understood. As gentlemen could not 
 have had time to look over the papers at the 
 present session, and it was, withal, growing late, 
 he moved that the committee should rise, 
 that, on meeting again, gentlemen might be 
 better prepared than at present to go into a con- 
 sideration of the question. 
 
 Whereupon the committee rose, and obtained 
 leave to sit again. 
 
 FBIDAY, November 27. 
 Another member, to wit, from Virginia, WIL- 
 LIAM LEE BAIL, appeared, and took his seat 
 
 Claim of Beaumarchais. 
 
 The House then again resolved itself into a 
 Committee of the Whole on the bill for the re- 
 lief of the heirs of Caron de Beaumarchais. 
 
 Mr. PITKLN-, of Connecticut, opened the de- 
 bate, in opposition to the bill, in a speech which 
 occupied in the delivery the whole of the day's 
 sitting. In the outset, he remarked on the im- 
 portance of the subject in hand ; the interest it 
 had excited, and the feeling it had produced in 
 the old Congress, as well as under the present 
 Government, whenever it had presented itself 
 for consideration. During the existence of the 
 war of the Revolution, some of the documents 
 relating to it had miscarried, and some had been 
 stolen in their transmission; others had been 
 since destroyed by fire, or overlooked in the mass 
 of public papers. Hence the claim had been 
 involved in much mystery, requiring close in- 
 vestigation to unravel it. Mr. P. then proceed- 
 ed to the examination of the subject, as it had 
 been viewed by the Commissioners of the I'nited 
 States at Paris, by the French Government, and 
 by the claimants. In the course of his argu- 
 ment, he read extracts from letters of Arthur 
 Lee, Benjamin Franklin, and Silas Deane; from 
 the American and French diplomatic volumes ; 
 VOL. VI U 
 
 from Gordon's history, and from various other 
 sources. From all these documents, and con- 
 necting all the facts disclosed by them together, 
 Mr. P. thought the conclusion irresistible, that 
 the supplies furnished by Caron de Beaumarchais 
 had been a gratuitous aid by the Government 
 of France, and not a private transaction of 
 Beaumarchais. The French Government, which 
 had always disclaimed all expectation of re- 
 payment of the aid thus afforded, under the 
 critical circumstances hi which it was then 
 placed, Mr. P. contended, had availed itself of 
 the cover of a mercantile transaction, and of 
 the agency of Beaumarchais as the ostensible 
 shipper of supplies ; that it had done so, the 
 public disavowal of any agency in this matter 
 was no proof to the contrary, being a part of 
 the policy of concealment which dictated the 
 employment of mercantile agency in the first 
 instance. This claim, therefore, Mr. P. consider- 
 ed as wholly unsustained, and founded on an 
 attempt on the part of Beaumarchais to aggran- 
 dize himself and family, by taking advantage 
 of the secret agency in which his name had 
 been employed, and that of the Government 
 and its officers wholly concealed, to claim re- 
 muneration from the United States for the sup- 
 plies sent, as if the matter had been a specula- 
 tion of his own. 
 
 After Mr. P. had concluded his remarks, 
 the committee rose, and obtained leave to sit 
 again. 
 
 MONDAY, November 30. 
 Two other members, to wit : JAMES B. MASOX, 
 from Ehode Island, and JOEL ABBOTT, from 
 Georgia, appeared, and took their seats. 
 
 Bank of the United States. 
 
 The House having agreed now to proceed to 
 the consideration of the resolution moved by 
 Mr. SPENCEE, of New York, a few days ago, 
 
 Mr. McLAXE, of Delaware, said, he had no 
 objection to the object of the proposed inquiry, 
 though he had some objection to the form given 
 to it. He thought it contemplated a wider 
 scope of inquiry than was within the power of 
 Congress. He referred to the act incorporat- 
 ing the bank, and quoted so much of it as re- 
 served to Congress the power to appoint a com- 
 mittee to examine its books, &c., for the pur- 
 pose of ascertaining whether or not the bank 
 has violated its charter. He drew a distinction 
 between this power and that of appointing a 
 committee to inspect the books and proceedings 
 of the bank, for the purpose of reporting to this 
 House and publishing to all the world all its 
 transactions, of whatever nature. The specifi- 
 cation of the objects of inquiry was so little ne- 
 cessary to the main object of the resolution, 
 that it would lose nothing of its effect by strik- 
 ing them all out. The inquiry into the amount 
 of discounts to a particular class of individuals, 
 for example, he considered as exceptionable. 
 The right of lending money is vested in the
 
 210 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 Bank of the United States. 
 
 [NOVEMBER, 1818. 
 
 bank, at its discretion, to whomsoever it shall 
 choose. If it have even exercised that power 
 indiscreetly, it is immaterial to this House, with 
 reference to a violation of its charter, (the ob- 
 ject of inquiry,) to whom discounts have been 
 made. If the House went so far as was pro- 
 posed in this respect, it should go further. It 
 should authorize a report to be made of the 
 names of all those who have applied for dis- 
 counts at the bank, and been refused ; and also 
 an inquiry into the character and solvency of 
 all those persons, in order to make that branch 
 of the inquiry effectual. The necessary powers 
 in this respect, Mr. McL. said, the committee of 
 this House would have, under the charter, 
 without a specification of the objects of inquiry ; 
 if the committee had not, under the charter, 
 the powers proposed to be given to it, the spe- 
 cification would not confer them. Since, then, 
 the specification was unnecessary, and the res- 
 olution, divested of it, would answer every ob- 
 ject the gentleman had in view, Mr. McL. 
 moved to amend the resolution, by striking out 
 all that part of it after the words " violated or 
 not," near the beginning, to the word "organ- 
 ization," near the end of it, inclusive. This 
 would leave the inquiry as broad and compre- 
 hensive as the nature of the subject would 
 permit, and would divest the resolve of its ob- 
 jectionable features. 
 
 Mr. SPENOEE opposed the amendment moved 
 by Mr. MOLANE. As to the powers of the 
 House, the language of the resolution was that 
 of the charter, respecting the power of inquiry 
 reserved to Congress. The gentleman seemed 
 to suppose that a committee of Congress, ap- 
 pointed for the purpose, might report whether 
 the charter was violated or not, but were not 
 at liberty to report the facts on which that 
 opinion was founded. But, Mr. S. said, when 
 a power is given, the means of carrying that 
 power into execution are also given. If the 
 power were given to inquire whether the char- 
 ter of the bank had been violated or not, it irre- 
 sistibly followed, that the power was also given 
 to report the facts which had led to that con- 
 clusion. But the gentleman objected, that such 
 a report would involve the exposure of private 
 accounts. Mr. S. said he thought he had not 
 examined the resolution with his usual atten- 
 tion ; if he would read it again, he would find 
 that no private account whatever was proposed 
 to be examined, except the accounts of the 
 stockholders, so far as to the amount of dis- 
 counts which they may have received. No in- 
 quiry was proposed as to the balance of private 
 individuals' accounts ; none as to their deposits ; 
 none as to the amount of the debts which they 
 may now owe to the bank, but the aggregate 
 amount of discounts to the individual stock- 
 holders since the commencement of the opera- 
 tions of the bank. The resolution does not 
 imply that the stockholders were not justly en- 
 titled to the accommodation they have received, 
 nor does it question their solvency; but the 
 particular inquiry objected to is essential, said 
 
 Mr. S., to enable us to make up our minds whe- 
 ther the bank has acted correctly or not. The 
 object of the resolution, Mr. S. went on to say, 
 did not appear to be precisely understood, per- 
 haps owing to his own neglect not more care- 
 fully to explain it. Its object was twofold ; to 
 inquire, first, whether there had been a viola- 
 tion of the charter or not ; and, secondly, whe- 
 ther improper discounts had not been made to 
 stockholders, &c. The mode of violation of 
 the charter being pointed out in that instrument, 
 needed no more precise definition than that con- 
 tained in the first clause of the resolve. Then 
 followed, however, in the resolution, other ob- 
 jects of inquiry, regarding the particular in- 
 stances of alleged misconduct to which the 
 attention of the public has been directed. To 
 accomplish this object another power had been 
 given, to send for persons and papers. It did 
 not follow, because the committee was to re- 
 port on these particular instances, that the com- 
 mittee was to derive its information from the 
 books of the bank alone. There were other 
 means at their disposal ; they might examine 
 papers not belonging to the bank, and persons 
 having personal knowledge of its transactions. 
 An objection had been raised, as he had un- 
 derstood, and to which (though not yet urged 
 in this House) he would advert, that this speci- 
 fication of particular points of inquiry appeared 
 to contain a censure upon the bank, or on the 
 conduct of its officers. It was not so intended, 
 Mr. S. said, nor did he think such an inference 
 could be fairly drawn from the words of the 
 resolve. It embraced some points of inquiry 
 involving no misconduct in their result that, 
 for example, respecting the refusal of the bank 
 to pay specie for the notes of its branches, &c. 
 There were few who would say that that meas- 
 ure was an evidence of misconduct on the part 
 of the bank, much less that it was a violation 
 of its charter ; because such a measure may 
 have been necessary and unavoidable in the 
 present state of the money concerns of the 
 country. The resolution was not intended to 
 convey charges against the bank, but to embrace 
 all the topics respecting which the public mind 
 had been agitated, and to obtain a report there- 
 on from a respectable committee of this House. 
 As to the facts which rendered such an inquiry 
 necessary, it had been suggested that mere 
 general rumor was not a sufficient foundation 
 for this House to act upon. Mr. S. said, he 
 had meant to be understood as having intro- 
 duced this resolution, not under the influence 
 of general rumor merely, but, as he now stated, 
 he had individual information which left him 
 no doubt of the truth of most of the allegations 
 which he had heard on this subject. With re- 
 spect to the fact of the payment of the second 
 instalment by discounts to the stockholders, the 
 letter of Mr. Lloyd to a committee of this House, 
 and now on its files, established that fact ; and 
 from the circular letters of the cashiers of the 
 bank and its branches, published for informa- 
 tion in the public prints, he had evidence of the
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 211 
 
 NOVEMBER, 1818.] 
 
 Bank of the United States. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 refusal to pay the notes of the bank or its 
 branches, except where issued. There seem- 
 ed, therefore, to be sufficient information to au- 
 thorize an inquiry sufficient, at least, to induce 
 a belief that there was something to excite the 
 agitation which all knew to exist in the public 
 mind. It had, indeed, appeared to him to be 
 due from him to the House, to state what 
 charges he had heard against the bank, and 
 what were the objects to which he was led to 
 direct the inquiries of the committee. It had 
 appeared to him proper, also, to let the bank 
 and the community know to what objects the 
 inquiry was pointed. He could see no harm 
 from the specific designation of the objects of 
 the inquiry ; but, on the contrary, he said, good 
 might be anticipated, for the reasons already 
 stated. "With these views he could not assent 
 to the modification proposed, and should feel it 
 to be his duty to vote against it. 
 
 Mr. LOWNDES, of South Carolina, commenced 
 his remarks in favor of the proposed amend- 
 ment, by saying that he should not vote for it 
 from any apprehension of defect of power in the 
 House to prosecute the inquiry in the terms 
 proposed. He had no doubt of the power of 
 the House, if the public interest required it, 
 to direct a committee to make such a report. 
 He decidedly objected, however, to the specifi- 
 cations proposed to be stricken out, on the 
 ground that, if retained, the inference would 
 follow, that certain allegations were therein 
 embraced, the truth of which being confirmed 
 by inquiry, the censure of Congress if not the 
 penalty due to a violation of the charter, would 
 follow of course. If a committee should be 
 directed to inquire whether the bank has viola- 
 ted its charter, and, particularly, whether it has 
 paid its instalments by discounts, &c., the im- 
 pression would be made on the mind of every 
 man that the committee had nothing to do but 
 to ascertain these facts, to prove the charter of 
 the bank to have been violated. It did not 
 comport with justice, nor, Mr. L. thought, with 
 the dignity of the House ; in a case, too, where 
 the gentleman himself knew the principles in- 
 volved to be susceptible of much argument and 
 discussion for and against them, to force the 
 public mind, as it were, to the conclusion that, 
 certain facts being proved, the charter of the 
 bank will be proved to have been violated. 
 Therefore, he was in favor of excluding the 
 specifications : with regard to the objects of 
 them, he had no objection whatever to an in- 
 quiry on those and all others that might be sug- 
 gested. The nation, said he, has a deep interest 
 in the conduct and management of the bank ; 
 our duty to the people whom we represent, the 
 national interest as owners of a large portion of 
 the stock, its interest in the revenues being 
 wholly payable in the notes of that bank, will 
 justify us in a constant and vigilant attention to 
 its proceedings. If there had been a doubt 
 whether the conduct of the bank had been 
 proper or not, Mr. L. said, the House was fully 
 justified in investigating into the facts, and in- 
 
 quiring whether abuses had been committed or 
 not. Such an investigation he considered at 
 present not only interesting to the public, but 
 necessary to the bank. Many imputations had 
 been thrown on the bank, the result of disap- 
 pointed expectations, where the expectations 
 themselves had been unreasonable ; and it was 
 the interest of the bank that a full inquiry should 
 take place. Recurring to the observation of 
 the effect the specifications in the resolution 
 would have on the public mind, Mr. L. said, 
 while he would therefore exclude them, at the 
 same time voting for any inquiry in its broadest 
 shape, he would remind gentlemen of some cir- 
 cumstances connected with the contents of the 
 resolve. The mover of it had himself referred 
 to a report made by a committee of this House 
 appointed to inquire into the subject of the 
 payment of the second instalment on the stock 
 of the bank by discounts a report made at a 
 time when, if that course had been wrong, it 
 was in the power of Congress to have prevented 
 it. The fact of a general regulation having been 
 adopted for discounting notes for payment of 
 the second instalment, was acknowledged to 
 the committee, who yet reported to this House 
 a recommendation that the committee be dis- 
 charged from the further consideration of the 
 subject. 
 
 Mr. L. said he would not now enter into an 
 investigation of the conduct of the bank on 
 that occasion ; his impression at the tune had 
 been, that the arrangement was beneficial to 
 the community, by facilitating and expediting 
 the organization of the bank, &c. ; but that it 
 was an imprudent one, on the part of the di- 
 rectors of that institution, whose object it should 
 be to adhere to the very line of their duty, as 
 pointed out by the charter. The point, how- 
 ever, to which he desired to call the attention 
 of the House, was, that when the corrective and 
 remedy were in their hands, if the act was 
 wrong, a committee having been instructed to 
 inquire into it, and having reported the fact, 
 the House had not thought proper to interfere 
 at all in the business. Under these circum- 
 stances, said he, it would be harsh indeed, at 
 this late hour, availing ourselves of the new 
 lights which experience has afforded us, to cen- 
 sure the bank for having done that to which, at 
 the time, we tacitly consented. A distinction, 
 of course, must be drawn between the second 
 and third instalments, in regard to the mode of 
 payment ; the payment of the latter by notes, 
 discounted for that purpose, every body antici- 
 pated. The bank was then in full operation, 
 discounting all good paper offered to it, and 
 could not be expected to pass a law of exclusion 
 in regard to its own stockholders, who had as 
 fair a claim at least as others to accommodation ; 
 indeed, there never perhaps had gone a bank 
 into operation in which the same thing had not 
 occurred ; it was therefore expected of the Bank 
 of the United States in regard to the third in- 
 stalment on its stock, and could not be consid- 
 ered as forming a ground of complaint against
 
 212 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R] 
 
 Bank of the United States. 
 
 [NOVEMBEU, 1818. 
 
 it. Another specific object of the inquiry was, 
 whether the bank or its branches had sold drafts 
 and received a premium thereon. The gentle- 
 man from New York had stated, with great 
 candor, as he understood him, that he did not 
 consider it an imputation on the bank that it 
 had refused to pay specie for its notes at any 
 other branch than that from which they issued ; 
 and that he therefore did not mean to contend 
 that the bank ought to have made its paper and 
 that of its branches payable indifferently at the 
 bank or at any and all of its branches. Con- 
 nected very closely with this subject, Mr. L. 
 said, was the practice of selling drafts on dis- 
 tant banks for a premium. He knew, he said, 
 that much of the disapprobation of the conduct 
 of the bank proceeded from the disappoint- 
 ment of an expectation that it would emit 
 and sustain a currency which should be of equal 
 value throughout the Union ; and, it might be 
 of some importance, as many of the members of 
 the present Congress were not members of the 
 last, to advert to circumstances which proved 
 that the expectation referred to was never en- 
 tertained in this House at the time the bank 
 was incorporated. The Congress which preceded 
 that by which the bank was established, Mr. 
 L. said, had had under its consideration a bill for 
 establishing a bank, one clause of which did 
 provide that the bank and all its branches should 
 be obliged to pay the notes of each other ; by 
 which means, if practicable, the paper of all 
 would have been everywhere of an equal value. 
 That clause, however, was not inserted in the 
 bill which actually passed. If there were no 
 other, this would be sufficient proof, from the 
 records of the House, that it was not expected 
 that a currency that should be everywhere of 
 equal value would be established. But, further: 
 in the act of incorporating the bank, there is a 
 provision that the bank shall charge nothing to 
 the Government for difference of exchange. 
 Was this not, Mr. L. asked, positive proof that 
 it was expected that the bank would charge in 
 some cases the difference of exchange ? Was it 
 not proof that it was the expectation of the 
 framers of the law that the present state of 
 things would result ? He would not enter at 
 all into the general question whether it would 
 or would not be possible for the Bank of the 
 United States to equalize, without great loss, 
 the exchange between different sections of the 
 country, if by their charter they were bound to 
 do so. If it were practicable, it would be even 
 now their interest to do it ; but, Mr. L. said, he 
 believed it would be wholly impracticable. The 
 question was not, however, whether it was 
 possible for the United States to effect it, whe- 
 ther it would be beneficial to the country or 
 to the institution, but Avhether the bank was 
 bound to effect the object. The exclusion of 
 the clause having this object, after it had 
 been included in a like bill before Congress, 
 at the preceding session, and, in addition, the 
 express exception of the Government from all 
 charge for difference of exchange, showed that 
 
 it was not expected of the bank. If, however, 
 he were to go into the discussion of the practi- 
 cability of establishing a circulating medium of 
 equal value in every part of the country, it 
 would appear not only that in the reason of 
 the thing it was not practicable, but experience 
 also would show that in a large empire it is 
 visionary to look for it. Even in England, as 
 gentlemen well knew, when the bank paid in 
 specie, the value of a bank note in different 
 parts of the country was not the same. There 
 was a settled rate of exchange between Edin- 
 burgh and London, and between all the impor- 
 tant towns in Great Britain ; and the Bank of 
 England, with every advantage, improved by 
 a hundred years of experience, had never been 
 able to accomplish that object. The inquiry, 
 however, was not whether the object was prac- 
 ticable or possible, but whether the bank was 
 bound to effect it ; and he bad shown that it 
 was not. Objections of a similar nature might 
 be urged to most of the specifications in the re- 
 solve ; but it was sufficient to say that, if neces- 
 sary, the committee, under the general terms of 
 inquiry, would feel themselves at liberty to in- 
 quire and report on any of the points in ques- 
 tion ; that no additional power could be confer- 
 red on the committee by descending to particu- 
 lars ; and that to retain the specification might 
 produce an impression that the House had de- 
 termined certain facts, if proved to be conclu- 
 sive against the bank, whilst the House had, in 
 fact, expressed no opinion upon them. There 
 was another objection, of a different kind, to 
 the terms of the resolve as it now stood : that 
 it specified certain objects, to which it in a man- 
 ner thus limited the proposed inquiry, whilst, 
 in his opinion, there were many facts not re- 
 ferred to, equally if not more important to the 
 bank, and to the public interests, than those 
 which were. Without justifying or censuring 
 the conduct of the bank, without expressing, in 
 a parenthesis, or by inuendo, an opinion unfa- 
 vorable to it, Mr. L. said he thought it would 
 be proper to institute a committee of inquiry. 
 and leave them, on their own responsibility, to 
 settle the principles on which they should pro- 
 ceed in it, and to report accordingly. He was 
 in favor of leaving the committee wholly un- 
 fettered, except by their own opinion of what 
 was required by the public good ; and therefore 
 hoped the amendment would be agreed to. 
 
 The question was then taken on the resolu- 
 tion as amended, BO as to read as follows : 
 
 Resolved, That a committee be appointed to in- 
 spect the books and examine into the proceedings of 
 the Bank of the United States, to report thereon, and 
 to report -whether the provisions of its charter have 
 been violated or not ; that the said committee have 
 leave to meet in the city of Philadelphia, and remain 
 there as long as may be necessary ; that they shall 
 have power to send for persons and papers, and to 
 employ the requisite clerks ; the expense of which 
 shall be audited and allowed by the Committee of 
 Accounts, and paid out of the contingent fund of this 
 House.
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 213 
 
 DECEMBER, 1818.] 
 
 General John Stark. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 And it was passed in the affirmative. 
 Messrs. SPENCEB, LOWNDES, MoLANE, BRYAN, 
 and TYLER, were appointed the said committee. 
 
 TUESDAY, December 1. 
 Mr. MIDDLETON presented the petition of the 
 Marquis cle Vienne, stating, that he served as a 
 Colonel in the service of the United States, in 
 the Revolutionary war ; that he was then rich 
 and refused to receive any compensation, but 
 that, having been reduced to poverty by the 
 revolutions in France, he is now compelled to 
 seek a remuneration for his said services, from 
 Congress, and praying to be paid such sum as 
 may be thought a just equivalent therefor; 
 which petition was referred to a select commit- 
 tee ; and Mr. MIDDLE-TON, Mr. HAEHISON, and 
 Mr. COLSTON, were appointed the said commit- 
 tee. 
 
 Migration of Slaves. 
 
 Mr. LINN, of New Jersey, offered the follow- 
 ing resolution : 
 
 " Resolved, That the committee appointed on so 
 much of the Message of the President of the United 
 States as relates to the unlawful introduction of 
 slaves into the United States, be instructed to inquire 
 into the expediency of passing a law prohibiting the 
 migration or transportation of slaves .or servants of 
 color from any State to any other part of the United 
 States, in cases where, by the laws of such State, 
 such transportation is prohibited ; and that they have 
 leave to report by bill or otherwise." 
 
 Mr. LINN said, in introducing his resolution, 
 that it related to a subject of much interest in 
 his part of the country, and, as the resolution 
 only proposed an inquiry, he hoped it would 
 not be objected to. 
 
 Mr. POINDEXTER, of Mississippi, objected to 
 it. Any man, he said, had a right to remove 
 his property from one State to another, and 
 slaves as well as any other property, if not pro- 
 hibited from doing so by the State laws. With 
 tin iso laws, whatever they were, the United 
 Stutos, he said, had no right to interfere. 
 The idea was a perfectly novel one, that there 
 should be a double set of penal statutes on the 
 same subject one set by the States, and one 
 by the United States and that the military 
 force of the United States should be employed 
 to carry into effect the penal statute of any 
 State. How were the United States to inter- 
 fere on this subject? What judicial tribunal 
 would they resort to, to effect the object con- 
 templated ? Any penal statute they could pass 
 on the subject, Mr. P. said, would be entirely 
 nugatory, as it could not be carried into effect ; 
 and he was therefore opposed even to an in- 
 quiry into the matter. 
 
 Mr. COLSTON, of Virginia, in addition to what 
 had fallen from Mr. POINDEXTEE in opposition 
 to tho resolution, suggested that it was perfectly 
 within the power of the State sovereignties to 
 execute any law they might enact on this sub- 
 
 ject, more effectually than they could do by the 
 aid of the authority of the United States. 
 
 The question on the passage of the resolve 
 was then taken, and decided in the negative. 
 
 General John Stark. 
 
 The bill for granting a pension of sixty dol- 
 lars per month to Major General John Stark, 
 was read a third time. 
 
 On the question, " Shall the bill pass?" 
 
 Mr. W. P. MACLAY asked for information of 
 the committee who reported the bill, as no 
 written report had accompanied it, on what 
 grounds it stood ; whether the pension was 
 granted because of indigence on the part of 
 General Stark, or for what other reason? 
 
 Mr. HARBISON, of Ohio, said his friend from 
 Georgia, (Mr. COBB,) could not have been present 
 when this subject was before the House at the 
 last session, or he would not have asked the infor- 
 mation which he now desired. He had supposed 
 his friend from Georgia was better acquainted 
 with the history of his country, than not to know 
 the merits and distinguished Revolutionary ser- 
 vices of this hoary veteran. At the darkest 
 period of the Revolution, General Stark had 
 rendered the most important services to his 
 country ; and those services were not occasion- 
 al, but were prolonged to the close of the con- 
 test. It was now said that this worthy was in 
 indigent circumstances, and debilitated by old 
 age ; that, if not soon bestowed, he would not 
 live to enjoy the aid about to be afforded to 
 him. Was it possible, Mr. H. asked, that an 
 American Congress could behold so distinguish- 
 ed a patriot, as he is, sinking into the grave in 
 the want of every necessary of life, or that they 
 would coldly place him among the mass of pen- 
 sioners under the general act of last session ? 
 For his part, he would give out the last dollar 
 in the Treasury for the relief of General Stark. 
 With him, he said, it was not a matter of choice 
 to vote for the bill ; it was an imperious duty. 
 
 Mr. LIVEBMORE said, that as a member of this 
 House, and as a citizen of New Hampshire, he 
 was grateful to the gentleman from Ohio for 
 the manner in which he had expressed himself 
 on this occasion. He would only add that, as 
 to the circumstances of General Stark, they 
 were, to his personal knowledge, very reduced. 
 He was, as to personal exertion for his support, 
 at the age of ninety years, wholly helpless. 
 He might or might not be owner of a small 
 farm ; but, if so, it was an unproductive one. 
 He was, and had been for some time, dependent 
 for support on his children, themselves in very 
 moderate circumstances. This was the true 
 situation of General Stark. 
 
 Mr. COBB said, if it was true, as suggested by 
 the gentleman from Ohio, that he was not well 
 versed in the Revolutionary history, should he 
 want information on that head, he should know 
 where to apply ; for the gentleman himself was 
 a living chronicle of the occurrences of that 
 day. He did not, he said, doubt the merits of 
 General Stark; but he had yet no evidence
 
 214 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R] 
 
 Surviving Revolutionary Officers. 
 
 [DECEMBER, 1818 
 
 that the pension ought to be granted. The 
 House had been told he was very old and in- 
 firm. But, if the House were to grant pensions 
 to the old and infirm, where would they draw 
 the line at which they would stop ? Are we 
 to be told, said he, that it is to Eevolutionary 
 officers only that pensions are to be granted? 
 Some twenty or forty years hence, may not the 
 same argument, by the aid of this precedent, 
 be applied to General Jackson, General Brown, 
 General Scott, or any other general who dis- 
 tinguished himself during the late war? He 
 was free to say, for himself, that he thought the 
 pension list had already been swelled to an 
 amount which absolutely jeopardized the Treas- 
 ury, or soon would at the rate at which it still 
 increased. 
 
 _ Mr. LIVEBMOBE said, General Stark had worn 
 himself out in the service of his country, in his 
 youth, and had since supported himself as well 
 as he could. He was in service before the Rev- 
 olution, and during that trial he did the nation 
 great service and himself great honor. At an 
 early period of the Rovolution, when every 
 patriot was called a traitor, Stark was in the 
 foremost rank. He was in the field at Benning- 
 ton, and animated the courage of others by his 
 conduct and example. All the inhabitants of 
 New Hampshire, and of the Green Mountains, 
 flocked where Stark was; where he fought, 
 they fought and bled ; had he died, they would 
 have died with him. 
 
 Mr. BUTLEB, of New Hampshire, gave some 
 further information respecting General Stark. 
 He was, he said, the only surviving general 
 officer of the Revolution, now declining in old 
 age, extremely poor, and long supported by his 
 sous, who were not very well able to do it. 
 This, Mr. B. said, might be the last opportunity 
 Congress could have of contributing to the re- 
 lief of his wants. As a precedent had been 
 demanded, Mr. B. quoted the pension granted 
 at the last session to General St. Clair as di- 
 rectly in point. General Stark, he added, had 
 served during the whole French war, and no 
 man had afterwards done more than him to 
 assert and establish the independence of his 
 country. 
 
 The question on the passage of the bill was 
 decided in the affirmative, without division. 
 
 WEDNESDAY, December 2. 
 
 Another member, to wit, from Pennsylvania, 
 JOSEPH HEISTEE, appeared, and took his seat. 
 
 A new member, to wit, from North Carolina, 
 WILLIAM DAVIDSON, elected to supply the va- 
 cancy occasioned by the resignation of Daniel 
 M. Forney, also appeared, was qualified, and 
 took his seat. 
 
 THURSDAY, December 3. 
 Another member, to wit, from Pennsylvania, 
 LEVI PAWLING, appeared, and took his seat. 
 
 FEIDAY, December 4. 
 
 Another member, to wit, from Massachu- 
 setts, TIMOTHY FULLEB, appeared, and took his 
 seat. 
 
 Mr. JOHN MoLEAN appeared, produced his 
 credentials, was qualified, and took his seat as 
 the Representative of the State of Illinois in 
 this House. 
 
 Claim of Beaumarchais. 
 
 The House again resolved itself into a Com 
 mittee of the Whole, on the bill reported by 
 the select committee for the relief of the heirs 
 of Caron de Beaumarchais. 
 
 Mr. TALLMADGE resumed the debate on this 
 subject, and spoke about an hour in opposition 
 to the claim and the bill. He was followed by 
 Mr. BASSETT, in a speech of about the same 
 length, in support of the claim, and in defence 
 of the report of the committee thereon. 
 
 Mr. BALDWIN added some remarks on the 
 same side, and in reply to gentlemen who had 
 opposed the claim ; after which, the committee 
 rose, and reported the bill without amendment 
 to the House ; when the question was taken 
 whether the bill should be engrossed and read a 
 third time and decided in the negative. 
 
 And so the said bill was rejected. The House 
 adjourned to Monday. 
 
 MONDAY, December Y. 
 
 To other members, to wit : from Maryland, 
 SAMUEL RINGGOLD, and from Ohio, PETEK 
 HITCHCOCK, appeared, and took their seats. 
 
 Surviving Revolutionary Officers. 
 
 Mr. JOHNSON, of Kentucky, from the com- 
 mittee appointed on the petition of William 
 Jackson, solicitor for the surviving officers of 
 the Revolutionary Army, and to which were 
 referred sundry petitions of said officers, and of 
 inhabitants of the United States on their behalf, 
 made a detailed report upon said petitions; 
 which was read, and committed to a Committee 
 of the Whole. It is as follows : 
 
 That, on the 21st of October, 1780, by resolution 
 of Congress, it was provided that the officers who 
 shonld continue in service to the end of the war, 
 should be entitled to half-pay during life, to com- 
 mence from the time of reduction. This stipulation 
 emanated from a previous resolution of Congress, 
 which, promised seven years' half-pay to the same 
 class of officers, excepting those who might hold any 
 office of profit under the United States, or any of the 
 States. 
 
 By another resolution of Congress, in January, 
 1781, the stipulation was so extended as to embrace 
 the hospital department and medical staff. In tlje 
 beginning of the year 1783, a memorial was pre- 
 sented to Congress, from a committee of the officers 
 of the army under the immediate command of Gen- 
 eral WASHINGTON, proposing relinquishment of the 
 half-pay for life, on condition that an equivalent 
 should be provided, either by the payment of a gross 
 sum or by a full compensation for a limited time. 
 This proposition, which originated with officers of the
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 215 
 
 DECEMBER, 1818.] 
 
 Surviving Revolutionary Officers. 
 
 [H. OP R. 
 
 army, grew out of a conviction that the half-pay fo 
 life was regarded by their fellow-citizens as savoring 
 too much of the spirit of a privileged order, whicl 
 rendered the measure unpopular with many of th 
 community ; and the proposition, on the part of th 
 officers, to relinquish the payment for life, was, anc 
 ever will be, viewed as an act of the most distin- 
 guished patriotism, in perfect accordance with tha 
 entire devotion to the country, which is so strikingly 
 manifested in all their sufferings, sacrifices, anc 
 services. 
 
 Congress, well apprised of the prevailing objection 
 to the allowance for life, which had been adoptee 
 only from necessity, readily embraced the occasion o 
 removing a measure objectionable in its principles 
 by a commutation of five years' full pay in lieu of the 
 half pay for life, in a resolution of March 22d, 1783, 
 which provided that such officers as were then in 
 service, and should continue therein to the end of the 
 war, should be entitled to receive the amount of five 
 years' full pay in money, or securities on interest, a 
 six per cent, per annum, as Congress should find most 
 convenient, instead of the half-pay promised for life 
 by the resolution of October 21st, 1780; the said 
 securities to be such as should be given to other cred- 
 itors of the United States, provided it should be at 
 the option of the lines of the respective States, and 
 not of officers individually of those lines, to refuse or 
 accept the same. The commutation was acceded to 
 by the officers generally, in the manner pointed out ; 
 and, at the reduction of the army, they received com- 
 mutation certificates for the amount prescribed. The 
 memorialists state a variety of facts, and present 
 many considerations, to prove that, by the commu- 
 tation, great injustice has been done to the officers 
 originally entitled to half-pay for life, and their ob- 
 ject is to induce the Government to resume the orig- 
 inal contract of half-pay for life upon certain terms 
 therein expressed ; and the memorial concludes with 
 a specific prayer, that an act may be passed direct- 
 ing the accounting officers of the Treasury to adjust 
 '"the claim of each surviving officer of the Revolu- 
 tionary Army of the United States, who, by the re- 
 solves of Congress, was entitled to half-pay for life, 
 calculating the amount of the principal of the ar- 
 rearages from the time of his reduction, and deduct- 
 ing therefrom five years' full pay ; and the balance 
 of arrearages being thus ascertained, to issue a cer- 
 tificate, bearing an interest of six per centum per 
 annum, to the officer for the amount of said balance ; 
 and the officer to be thenceforth entitled to receive 
 half-pay, in half-yearly payments, for and during the 
 term of his natural life. The committee have en- 
 deavored to investigate the subject with all the can- 
 dor and attention which its merits require ; and in 
 any point of view, difficulties of no ordinary magni- 
 tude presented themselves. 
 
 When contemplating the eminent services and gen- 
 erous sacrifices of that illustrious band, the commit- 
 tee could not withhold a favorable report to the full 
 extent of the prayer of the petitioners, could they be 
 governed alone by feeling. The resources of the na- 
 tion would never repay the debt of gratitude which is 
 due to the patriots and sages of the Revolution, whose 
 counsels and achievements so essentially contributed 
 to the establishment of that freedom and independ- 
 ence, from which so many blessings flow. AY.-is tin- 
 prayer of the petitioners asked as a gratuity only, 
 new difficulties would arise ; other classes of citizens, 
 equally meritorious, and much more numerous, 
 
 whose sacrifices were not less extensive, would have 
 equal claims, and merit equal attention. The whole 
 Revolutionary struggle was marked with public sac- 
 rifices and public devotion ; every class of citizens 
 endured with cheerfulness the privations and losses 
 to which those trying times subjected them, and in 
 the happiness and independence of the country which 
 followed every member of the community found its 
 best reward ; and however desirable it may be that 
 every sacrifice, in time of great public calamity, may 
 receive a pecuniary requital, the American Revolu- 
 tion demonstrates its impracticability, and necessity 
 requires that the munificence of Government should 
 have some limitation. Well aware of this view of 
 the subject, the claim of the memorialists is predica- 
 ted upon contract and legal obligation. In the light 
 of justice, therefore, the committee have also con- 
 sidered this subject ; and it is with feeh'ngs of ex- 
 treme regret they find themselves compelled, in duty, 
 to differ in opinion with the memorialists in the 
 prayer of the petition. 
 
 The resolution of Congress, under which the claim 
 for the half-pay was commuted, was proposed by the 
 officers, and the commutation voluntarily accepted by 
 them in the manner specified. The memorialists 
 also urge their claim upon the supposition that the 
 commutation was not an equivalent for the original 
 stipulation, that more than five years' full pay was 
 then equitably due. The committee, on this point, 
 are of opinion, that a just estimate was made by the 
 parties when the commutation was agreed upon, un- 
 der all the circumstances of the case, and ought not 
 to be revised at this day. But, if it were necessary 
 to look for relief, by reviewing the comparative 
 amount, it will be found that the interest of five 
 years' full pay, at six per cent per annum, is equal 
 to three-fifths of the whole amount of half-pay for 
 life : for example, take the advance to a captain, of 
 five years' full pay, at forty dollars per month, $2,400, 
 the annual interest on which would make the sum of 
 B144, at six per centum, and the whole amount of 
 half-pay would make the sum of $240 per annum. 
 
 The advance of five years' full pay will also be 
 xrand equal to the present worth of half-pay for more 
 than fifteen years. The committee cannot, therefore, 
 discover such a great inadequacy in the amount stip- 
 ulated. The resolution of March, 1783, provided 
 that the five years' full pay should be in money, or 
 securities on interest at six per cent, per annum, as 
 Congress should find most convenient ; the said se- 
 curities being such as should be given to the other 
 creditors of the United States. 
 
 Congress found it most convenient to pay in secu- 
 rities on interest, and for this purpose gave certifi- 
 cates conformable to the stipulation ; the only evi- 
 dence of debt in their power, and the same as were 
 given to other creditors of the United States ; the 
 "aith of the nation was pledged for the payment of 
 these certificates, and the pledge was subsequently 
 edeemed by the payment of the nominal amount, 
 vith interest, in gold or silver, or equivalents, in the 
 lands of the officer or his assignee. If the officers 
 jould not command the money in hand for these 
 sertificates, neither could they have done so at that 
 ay for their half-pay, had there been no commuta- 
 ion : gold and silver were not in the reach of Gov- 
 nment at that period. This is suggested only to 
 how that the mode of payment alone was changed, 
 nd that the commutation was granted as a fair 
 equivalent.
 
 216 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R] 
 
 Foreign Merchant Seamen. 
 
 [DECEMBER, 1818. 
 
 Upon the view taken by the memorialists, the 
 committee could not see any justice in confining the 
 prayer of the petitioners to those only who still sur- 
 vive. To provide for those, upon the principle of 
 justice and legal obligation, and suffer the dead to 
 be forgotten, would be but a partial remuneration ; 
 the heirs of the deceased would have equal claims 
 upon the Government as the officer who survives. 
 Again, the memorialists ask a resumption of the 
 original contract, to which the same objections may 
 be urged as in the year 1783. If then deemed ob- 
 jectionable, because not in accordance with the gen- 
 ius of our institutions, nor congenial with the senti- 
 ments of the American people, it may be equally so 
 at this day. Upon the most extensive view which 
 the committee have taken of this subject, they have 
 found difficulties still thickening, and, to answer the 
 prayer of the petition to its extent, would, in the 
 opinion of the committee, go to establish a principle 
 fraught with much evil Conscious, at the same 
 time, of the merits and worth of these distinguished 
 heroes, whose devotion and deeds have given such 
 glory and such happiness to our country : conscious 
 of their patriotism and valor, which have imposed 
 lasting obligations upon the grateful remembrance 
 of the nation, the committee could not reconcile to 
 their feelings or duty, an entire rejection of the me- 
 morial : and they have looked for a combination of 
 the principles of equity and of gratitude, on which 
 might be rewarded, in some little degree, the labor 
 and sufferings of the memorialists, without involving 
 future difficulties, in the establishment of a dangerous 
 precedent : this principle has been found in the de- 
 preciation of the commutation certificate, and the 
 losses sustained by the untimely sale of these certifi- 
 cates. It is a well-attested fact, that most of those 
 certificates were sold at an amount of not more than 
 from one-fifth to one-tenth of their nominal value. 
 Gold and silver not being in the power of the Gov- 
 ernment, the pressing and immediate want of the 
 holders rendered it necessary for them to dispose of 
 their certificates at any price ; and, upon this view 
 of the subject, the committee recommend the follow- 
 ing resolution : 
 
 Re solved, That each officer of the Revolutionary 
 army who was entitled to half-pay for life under the 
 several resolves of Congress upon that subject, and 
 afterwards, in commutation thereof, received the 
 amount of five years' full pay, in certificates or secu- 
 rities of the United States, shall now be paid, by the 
 United States, the nominal amount of such certificates 
 or securies, without interest, deducting therefrom 
 one-eighth part of the said amount. 
 
 Foreign Merchant Seamen. 
 
 The House then resolved itself into a Com- 
 mittee of the Whole, on the bill to authorize 
 the apprehension of foreign seamen desertinj 
 
 States. The bill having been read through 
 
 Mr. SMITH, of Maryland, briefly explained the 
 object of the bill. He stated the nature of con- 
 tracts made by seamen with captains for voy- 
 ages ; which, being violated by the desertion of 
 seamen in the port of destination, or at any 
 time before the termination of the voyage, some- 
 times broke up the whole voyage, and ruined 
 those concerned in it. He further stated that 
 in all other countries there were regulations for 
 
 enforcing the observance of these contracts, of 
 which we, in common with others, enjoyed the 
 benefit. These regulations the present bill pro- 
 posed to reciprocate, by establishing similar 
 regulations on our part. 
 
 Mr. NEWTON, as chairman of the committee 
 who reported the bill, further explained its ob- 
 ject. To obtain information on the subject, he 
 said, a letter was at the last session addressed 
 to the Secretary of State, to inquire whether 
 the captains of American vessels had in foreign 
 ports the same privileges granted them, to en- 
 able them to recover their seamen, which were 
 Sroposed to be allowed by this bill to foreigners 
 i our ports. To this letter an answer had 
 been received, which Mr. N. read to the House, 
 and which had satisfied the committee, as he 
 presumed it would the House, of the propriety 
 of passing the bill* 
 
 On motion of Mr. WHITMAN, an amendment 
 was made to the details of the bill, the effect of 
 which was to extend the power of carrying the 
 law into execution, to all civil magistrates. 
 
 The question being then about to be put on 
 the committee's rising and reporting the bill 
 
 Mr. CLAY (Speaker) said he was not prepared 
 to say that this bill ought to be reported to the 
 House. If the principle of it was correct, the 
 details were exceptionable. The principle was, 
 that if a seaman, arriving in the ports of the 
 United States, quits the service of the master of 
 the vessel with whom he has contracted, with- 
 out permission, he should be surrendered with- 
 out trial to the captain. The pretext for estab- 
 lishing this principle was, that other States ex- 
 tend to us the privilege now proposed to be 
 granted to them. Mr. C. said he was by no 
 means satisfied of the propriety of this excep- 
 tion of seamen from the rules applying to all 
 other citizens of foreign countries. He was not 
 satisfied that a seaman, having contracted to 
 perform a voyage, should, under no possible cir- 
 cumstances, be excused from the performance 
 of that contract. Yet, according to this bill, 
 without inquiry into the facts, without exami- 
 nation into the treatment the seaman may have 
 
 * The letter is as follows: 
 
 DEPABTMENT OP STATE, Jan. 3, 1818. 
 
 SIB : In answer to the inquiries in your letter of the 25th 
 ultimo, with reference to the subject of the resolution en- 
 closed in it, I have the honor to state, that in all the mari- 
 time States of Europe, with which I have been personally 
 conversant, there are magistrates invested with authority to 
 arrest seamen, deserters from foreign merchant vessels in 
 their ports, and to restore them to the masters of the vessels 
 to which they belong, conformably to their contracts in the 
 shipping papers. The process in such cases is, as by their 
 nature it must be, to prove efficacious, immediate, and sum- 
 mary ; and the masters Of American vessels have the benefit 
 of it, in common with others. In the city of London, the 
 authority is vested in the Lord Mayor ; and, at other places 
 in Great Britain, in the ordinary police magistrates. I do 
 not recollect having ever known an instance in which mas- 
 ters of American vessels were denied the benefit of such 
 processes, unless in coses when, by the laws of the country, 
 the deserting seaman was, on other accounts, liable to be 
 detained. The practice is, so far as I have known, the same 
 very part of the European continent. 
 
 I am, with great respect, sir, your very humble and obe- 
 dient servant," ' JOHN QflXCY ADAMS. 
 
 THOMAS NEWTON, ESQ., Chairman, <&c.
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 217 
 
 DECEMBER, 1818.] 
 
 Foreign Merchant Seamen. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 received on the voyage, the seaman was to be 
 bound hand and foot, and delivered over to the 
 captain whose service he had perhaps been com- 
 pelled by tyranny or abuse to quit. I care not, 
 said Mr." C., Avhat is done in other countries on 
 the subject; then- regulations in this respect 
 form in my mind no justification of the pro- 
 visions of this bill. The details of the bill, he 
 said, were moreover objectionable. The deli- 
 cate class of cases arising out of our naturaliza- 
 tion laws would be seriously affected by its pro- 
 visions. Suppose a person who, naturalized 
 according to our laws, would prima facie be 
 considered by ninety-nine out of a hundred as a 
 foreigner, to be demanded by a foreign captain 
 as a deserter he would, on his affirmation, be 
 given up, and thus an American citizen would 
 be subjected to this odious provision. Gentle- 
 men might say, they did not mean to carry the 
 principle so far ; but, Mr. C. said, such an in- 
 terpretation might be given by the magistrate 
 before whom the seaman was brought. He 
 never could consent, that, in every case of a 
 seaman leaving his ship, or of any other descrip- 
 tion of persons, because a contract has been al- 
 leged to be violated, without inquiry into the 
 ground of complaint, however just it might be, 
 the alleged offender should be surrendered. If 
 the bill was adverted to, it would be found that 
 two facts only were necessary to authorize the 
 surrender: first, that the party should have 
 made a contract ; and, secondly, that he should 
 have quitted the service of the master within 
 the limits of the United States. Were gentle- 
 men prepared to say, that in no possible case a 
 seaman might be justified in quitting the mer- 
 chant service ? If there was a possibility of 
 such j ustification, Mr. C. said, they ought not to 
 give their assent to this bill. He knew, he said, 
 that commerce and navigation, to a certain ex- 
 tent, make slaves ; but that slavery should not 
 be made unnecessarily severe. If in every in- 
 stance we are to follow foreign examples in our 
 statutes and usage, to what lengths may we not 
 go ? Impressment of seamen for national ships, 
 said he, is a foreign practice : we may be called 
 upon, on the principles of imitation, to sanction 
 that practice. But, said Mr. 0., if our Navy 
 could be maintained only by impressment, dear 
 as I consider that Navy to the interest and to 
 the glory of the country, I would see it annihi- 
 lated before I would sanction such a practice. 
 Gentlemen, therefore, he said, would not get 
 his assent to the bill by telling him what was 
 dene in foreign countries. Over our country a 
 particular genius of liberty presided : we must 
 take care not to banish it by following, step by 
 step, in the wake of other nations, and justify- 
 ing ourselves for what we do only by exhibiting 
 a precedent in what they have done before us. 
 Mr. C. had other objections to the bill. If there 
 were cases in which it was found necessary to 
 reciprocate provisions with foreign powers for 
 the security of navigation, and such cases there 
 might be, let them be settled by treaty, by iv- 
 ciprocal stipulation. If they extend in their 
 
 ports but bare civility to us, let us do the same 
 to them. On what foundation was the House 
 invited to pass a bill involving so many delicate 
 considerations, and objectionable provisions ? 
 Why, on the ground of a letter and, with- 
 out any disrespect to the author of it, a very 
 loose letter, from the Secretary of State. Mr. 
 C. here read some passages of the letter. The 
 honorable Secretary, he said, had not told the 
 House how far his personal acquaintance with 
 foreign countries extended, nor what was the 
 nature of the provisions in that country, analo- 
 gous to those of this bill ; whether in every pos- 
 sible instance a surrender is to take place; 
 whether in all cases the seaman is inextricably 
 yielded up to the captain claiming him. Mr. 
 0. said he wished, before he could act on this 
 subject, to see the laws of foreign countries, 
 and not on such a vague indefinite account of 
 them to bottom such severe provisions. We 
 have just learnt, too, said he, that, with regard 
 to that power with which we have had the 
 greatest difficulty respecting seamen, an ar- 
 rangement had been made, such as to remove 
 all causes of complaint against her. I should 
 like to see that arrangement, and examine its 
 provisions, before acting on this subject. He 
 hoped, he said, the honorable chairman of the 
 Committee of Commerce and Manufactures 
 would not hurry this bill to a decision. Let us 
 first know, said he, the provisions of the foreign 
 States with which the honorable Secretary has 
 been personally conversant. Let us, above all, 
 recollect, whatever foreign nations do, that here 
 alone liberty flourishes, and personal rights are 
 fully enjoyed ; and that whatever we do should 
 have reference to this peculiarly happy condi- 
 tion of our country, and be conformable to it. 
 
 Mr. NEWTOX said he had not the least objec- 
 tion that time should be given to the Speaker, 
 and to all the House, to obtain any information 
 they might desire on, this subject. But, he 
 said, he did not view the provisions of the bill 
 in the light which the gentleman had viewed 
 them. The bill was a transcript of the act 
 which passed as long ago as the year 1790, for 
 securing to masters the services of American 
 seamen engaging with them. Thus, it appeared, 
 that it was no new principle the bill proposed 
 to introduce into legislation, but as old as since 
 January 20, 1790. Mr. N. said he knew that 
 the practice of impressment existed in some 
 foreign countries. No one had a greater abhor- 
 rence of it than he ; and the Speaker would 
 perceive the bill proposed to confer no power to 
 take up deserters from the British or any other 
 navy, and restore them to their ships. It em- 
 braced the case of seamen deserting merchant 
 vessels only, in violation and disregard of a vol- 
 untary contract. The captain, however, must 
 also fulfil his part of the contract, and the mag- 
 istrate before whom the seamen is brought may, 
 if he choose, require proof of the fact, and de- 
 cide upon the case according to his own dis- 
 cretion. Contenting himself at the present 
 time with having nuido the suggestions, and de-
 
 218 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 Pensions to Widows and Orphans. 
 
 [DECEMBER, 1818. 
 
 siring the subject should be well understood, 
 and the information upon it be as full as pos- 
 sible, he had no objection that the bill should lie 
 on the table. 
 
 Mr. WHITMAN defended the bill. The same 
 provisions which it contains, he said, had been 
 in operation in regard to our own seamen for 
 twenty-eight years past, and are yet in force. 
 In every seaport of the United States persons 
 have been apprehended who have been alleged 
 to have violated their contracts, committed to 
 prison, and there detained until the vessel to 
 which they belong was bound to sea, and no in- 
 convenience had ever been felt from the ex- 
 ecution of the law. With regard to their being 
 delivered to the captain claiming them, without 
 a hearing, the Speaker was mistaken in that 
 particular. The act required examination be- 
 fore decision, and applied the same rules to this 
 description of contract which prevailed in regard 
 to all civil contracts. The gentleman's nice 
 scruples on the subject would apply to any case 
 in which individuals had by contract a right to 
 the personal service of any other individuals. 
 
 Mr. W. said he should suppose the gentleman 
 would be as tender of the liberties of our native 
 seamen as of foreign seamen resorting to our 
 ports ; and it appeared that similar provisions 
 had existed for near thirty years in regard to 
 American seamen, without exciting any appre- 
 hension in regard to our liberties, and without 
 endangering the rights of a single individual. 
 And are we now, said he, to be frightened by 
 bugbears, if the Speaker will excuse the remark, 
 which could alarm only the most timid imagi- 
 nation ? With respect to the reported treaty, 
 Mr. W. said that the treaty could have no bear- 
 ing on this question. He never knew a treaty 
 to contain provisions for compelling seamen in 
 
 the merchant service to return on board their 
 vessels after deserting them. Heretofore, it had 
 been supposed that the act of 1790, which was 
 rather obscurely worded, did apply to foreign 
 captains and foreign seamen as well as to those 
 of the United States; and the magistrates 
 throughout the country had so executed it. But, 
 of late, the question had been examined, and 
 the act had received a different construction. 
 It had, therefore, become necessary to supply 
 an obvious defect in the law ; in doing which, 
 Mr. W. said, he could not see the danger to the 
 natural rights of man, or the liberties of the 
 citizen or foreigners, which the Speaker ap- 
 peared to apprehend. With respect to natural- 
 ized foreigners, there could be no difficulty : the 
 seamen would have only to produce to the mag- 
 istrate the evidence of his naturalization, and 
 the magistrate could not do otherwise than in- 
 stantly liberate him. Apprehensions of abuse 
 of power were, he said, no argument against 
 necessary grants of it ; and the argument from 
 possible abuse would apply equally well to any 
 
 , other powers possessed by our magistrates as 
 to this. When it was considered that, in all for- 
 eign ports, we enjoyed the right proposed by 
 the bill to be allowed to foreigners in our ports, 
 
 it was a sort of comity due to others to adopt 
 this measure. Was it, he asked, to be consider- 
 ed a reprehensible principle, because foreign 
 Governments had adopted it, when we our- 
 selves have for many years acted on it ? Mr. 
 W. could not see any reason why the subject 
 should be deferred. The bill, he said, did not 
 affect British sailors only, but the sailors of 
 every nation. Therefore nothing which is in 
 the expected treaty, or is not in it, could ob- 
 viate the necessity of a general provision which, 
 if not necessary as to British seamen, would be 
 necessary as to all other foreign seamen visit- 
 ing our seaports. There never, however, had 
 been any negotiation between nations, that he 
 knew of, in regard to provisions such as those 
 of this bill ; and how there could be any thing 
 in the reported British Treaty about the sub- 
 ject, he could not conceive. 
 
 WEDNESDAY, December 9. 
 Another member, to wit, from Massachusetts, 
 ELIJAH H. MILLS, appeared, and took his seat. 
 
 Pensions to Widows and Orphans. 
 
 The House resumed the consideration of the 
 bill allowing half-pay pensions of five years to 
 the widows and orphans of those-soldiers enlist- 
 ed for twelve months, for eighteen months, and 
 of the militia who died within four months after 
 their return home, of sickness contracted while 
 in service. 
 
 On the question of ordering the bill to be en- 
 grossed for a third reading, a debate of consid- 
 erable length took place, in which Messrs. BAR- 
 BOTJB, HABEISON, T. M. NELSON, of Virginia, 
 JOHNSON, of Kentucky, and COMSTOOK, very 
 earnestly advocated the bill, supporting it chief- 
 ly on the ground that it was required not only 
 by humanity, but by equal justice, as the ob- 
 jects to be relieved by the bill were as much 
 entitled to relief as the widows and orphans of 
 those who died after their return home, ot 
 wounds received in service ; that the expense 
 was inconsiderable compared with the object, 
 particularly as much larger sums were lavished 
 on objects of comparative insignificance. 
 
 The bill was as earnestly opposed by Messrs. 
 SMITH, of Maryland, TAYLOB, TEREELL, SIMKINS, 
 and LIVEEMOEE, on different grounds ; but prin- 
 cipally for the reasons that the Government had 
 already gone far enough much farther than any 
 other Government in relieving the individual 
 distresses consequent on the war ; that, admit- 
 ting the provision to be proper at all, it would be 
 opening the door too wide to extend it to cases 
 of death within four months after the return of 
 the soldier to his home; that the expense 
 would be enormous ; that feelings of humanity 
 ought to have some limit in public expenditures, 
 and that such feelings, if always obeyed, would 
 find the whole Treasury insufficient; that it 
 was time to draw some line of limitation, &c. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON said that he should be among 
 the last men who would attempt to introduce
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 219 
 
 DECEMBER, 1818.] 
 
 Pension? to Widows and Orphans. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 into this country that system of sinecures and 
 pensions which had produced so much misery in 
 the other hemisphere of the world, dividing al- 
 most the whole population of Europe into two 
 very unequal divisions the one extremely rich, 
 the other miserably poor. There could, how- 
 ever, he said, be no danger of this as long as 
 our free -constitution remains. As long as the 
 money of the people is appropriated by the real 
 Representatives of the people, it will be given 
 only for an equivalent public service, or for some 
 suffering in that service, claiming the public be- 
 neficence. An examination of one of the pension 
 lists of a modern European Government would 
 present a very different aspect from that on 
 your table. Not moderate allowances for real 
 services, but enormous grants for nominal du- 
 ties, or for services to a Government whose in- 
 terests are in direct hostility to the interests of 
 the nation. It is not even the constant and un- 
 necessary wars in which these Governments 
 are engaged that have rendered their subjects 
 miserable, but the wild profusion and extrava- 
 gance of their corrupt Courts. It is this which, 
 in the language of our great countryman, 
 " obliges the European laborer to go supperless 
 to bed, and moisten his bread with the sweat of 
 his brow." 
 
 There are two kinds of suffering, said Mr. H., 
 in the public service, which are recognized by 
 our laws as giving a claim to the public bounty. 
 The one, in the case of wounds or disability in- 
 curred in the Army or Navy of the United 
 States. The other, an indirect suffering, as in 
 the case of widows or children, who had lost 
 their husbands or parents in that way. The 
 claims of the first are not questioned. It is ad- 
 mitted by all, that the man who has lost a leg 
 or an arm in serving the nation, as it lessens his 
 ability to maintain himself, should be provided 
 for during the continuance of his disability. But 
 what appears to me, said Mr. H., to be a singu- 
 lar inconsistency ; to the woman who has lost 
 her husband who supported her, the child its 
 parent, on whose exertions alone it depended 
 for maintenance and education, our laws allow 
 a limited assistance, leaving the sufferers often 
 in a worse situation than it found them. 
 
 I consider this difference, said Mr. H., at war 
 with the dictates of justice, of sound policy, and 
 the first republican principles. Permit me, Mr. 
 Speaker, said Mr. H., to ask what Avas the mo- 
 tive for the enactment of the law of 1810 in re- 
 lation to pensions? Was it to establish the 
 great national principle of indemnity to the suf- 
 ferers as far as indemnity could be given ? Or 
 was it intended as a mere temporary relief, as 
 we would throw a dollar to the beggar in the 
 street? If the first was the motive, the law 
 was entirely inadequate to its object. If the 
 second was the motive, it was, in his opinion, 
 unworthy of the nation. 
 
 Equality, in the contributions for the public 
 service, is one of the first principles of our Gov- 
 ernment. 
 
 The public burdens are to fall equally upon 
 
 all in proportion to their means. No individual 
 and no family are to furnish more than their 
 just share, either of money or of personal ser- 
 vice, without an equivalent. 
 
 And yet, here are 1,800 families who have 
 contributed more than their proportion ; some of 
 them their all for the public service. You can- 
 not, indeed, restore the husband to the widow, 
 the parent to the child but you can supply 
 their places to a considerable degree, and I 
 think that it is your duty to do it. 
 
 The principle for which I contend, said Mr. 
 H., may be more easily calculated by applying 
 it to a small community. Let us suppose, then, 
 that one hundred families were settled upon an 
 island in the Pacific Ocean, at such a distance 
 from every civilized State as to make it neces- 
 sary to form one of themselves their situation 
 would make it purely republican. All possess- 
 ing equal right, and all bound to defend their 
 little community against every aggression. The 
 savages of a neighboring island attempt to dis- 
 possess them ; a battle ensues, in which our lit- 
 tle community is victorious, with the loss of five 
 of their number killed and five wounded. The 
 situation in which they would find themselves, 
 is one for which they had not provided. The 
 wounded men would say to the others, as we 
 have been rendered unequal to the maintenance 
 of our families by wounds received for the ben- 
 efit of all, it is just that we should receive as- 
 sistance from you to cultivate our farms. The 
 claim would be readily admitted. As would, in 
 the first instance, the claims of the widows and 
 orphans of those who had fallen but at the 
 end of five years, before the children of the 
 widows had reached that age when they could 
 labor for themselves and their mothers, they 
 are told that they can receive no further aid, 
 while the wounded men are provided for for 
 life. If this principle is admitted in our Gov- 
 ernment, our militia laws are most unjust and op- 
 pressive. They require the same personal ser- 
 vice to be rendered by all, the rich and the poor. 
 But the rich married man is allowed to furnish 
 a substitute the poor married man, unable to 
 hire one, is obliged when called upon to serve 
 in person. As the poor, then, fight ah 1 your 
 battles, which is, perhaps, unavoidable, it is just 
 and right the consequences of their service 
 should fall as lightly as possible on their fami- 
 lies. In the late war, it was to their valor and 
 patriotism that you were indebted for the pres- 
 ervation of Baltimore, Norfolk, and New Or- 
 leans, and your Northern and Western frontiers. 
 It is possible that when the .great emporiums of 
 your commerce were attacked, some wealthy 
 men might have been found in the ranks with 
 their poor fellow-citizens. At Baltimore, for 
 instance, there might have been a merchant, 
 possessed of a fortune of half a million of dol- 
 lars, placed by the side of a mechanic whose 
 family depended for support on the daily labor 
 of his hands. The former might say to the lat- 
 ter, "Let us remember that we fight for our 
 country, our families, and our property ; let us
 
 220 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OP R.] 
 
 Pensions to Widows and Orphans. 
 
 [DECEMBKU, 1818. 
 
 die rather than suffer our city to be taken." 
 The latter might have answered, "As an Amer- 
 ican citizen, I shall always be willing to defend 
 my country with my life, and I was just think- 
 ing how cheerfully I would meet the enemy if 
 my situation were like yours. If you fall, you 
 leave your family in affluence ; if the lot should 
 be mine, I leave a beloved wife and children to 
 the charity of an unfeeling world. Our laws 
 are unequal and unjust ; they require the same 
 personal service of us both, when one day's la- 
 bor is of more importance to my family than 
 twenty of yours would be to your family ; that 
 I would disregard if our laws had provided that 
 in the event of my fall, the wealth which I have 
 sacrificed myself to defend should be taxed to 
 support my orphan children." 
 
 Pass but this law, sir, said Mr. H., and you 
 take from an American citizen, called on to 
 serve his country in the field, every motive 
 which would prevent him from doing his duty. 
 An American army would be a band of heroes. 
 The tenderest feelings of our nature are not in- 
 consistent with the most heroic bravery. There 
 are moments when the powerful influence of 
 domestic attachment will find its way to the 
 bosom of the warrior, but, unmingled with any 
 distressing reflections as to the fortune of his 
 family, it will only prove an incentive to the 
 performance of his duty. 
 
 Permit me, sir, said Mr. H., to give another 
 example to show the injustice and inequality of 
 the existing laws in relation to pensions. It is 
 a case as nearly similar as possible to that 
 which was stated a few days ago by my friend 
 from Virginia, (Mr. BARBOFE,) and if he will 
 give me leave, I will again introduce to the 
 House one of the widows whose case he so elo- 
 quently supported. I will take the one who 
 has received the five years' pension, and con- 
 trast the situation of herself and family with 
 that of a neighboring lady, whose husband had 
 lost a leg in the late war. Both husbands had 
 performed the same services, in the same corps, 
 and with the same rank ; one lost his life, and 
 the other his leg. To the latter yon give a pen- 
 sion for life to the former a pension for five 
 years. Is there any equality or justice in this? 
 Is it not setting a higher value upon the leg of 
 one man than the life of another ? It may be 
 paid that in the one case it is given to the indi- 
 vidual who suffered, in the other, to his family. 
 
 Sir, said Mr. H., is not the wife and the chil- 
 dren identified with the husband and parent ? 
 The misfortune of the one is the misfortune of 
 the other, and there should be no difference in 
 the relief you offer them. 
 
 The principle for which I contend (said Mr. 
 H.) is not a new one ; it is sanctioned by the 
 practice of one, at least, of the great republics 
 of antiquity, and by the opinions of some of the 
 wisest and best men that ever lived. In the 
 elegant work of the Abbe Barthelemy, entitled 
 the travels of Anacharsis, (an authentic history 
 with a fictitious title, as every one knows,) the 
 author brings his supposed traveller to Athens 
 
 at the period of one of the great national festi- 
 vals. The ceremonies were concluded by the 
 advance of a herald, followed by a number of 
 young men completely armed ; these, said he, 
 (addressing the assembled Athenians and point- 
 ing to the youths,) these are the sons of those 
 patriots who have fallen in the service of their 
 country ; they have been educated at the pub- 
 lic expense until they have reached the age of 
 manhood, and are now to be dismissed to their 
 families clothed and armed at the expense of 
 the State. Such was the law of Athens, pro- 
 mulgated by Solon, and continued without in- 
 terruption for upwards of one hundred and fifty 
 years, until she was first corrupted by the gold 
 of Philip, and her liberties finally overturned in 
 the fatal battle of Cheronea. It is mention- 
 ed by Pericles in his oration over the Athenians 
 who fell in the first campaign of the Pelopon- 
 nesian war. Eeferring to this law, he concludes 
 his speech in these remarkable words : "For 
 when virtue is best rewarded then will patriot- 
 ism most prevail." Nor is this great statesman, 
 said Mr H., the only evidence I can adduce to 
 show the good effects produced by this law to 
 the Athenians. [Here Mr. II. read an extract 
 from Stanley's life of Solon, showing the appro- 
 bation given to this law by Aristides, Plato, and 
 the ancient historian, Laertius, and then contin- 
 ued.] I consider these authorities, said he, as 
 decisive of the good effects produced by this 
 law in the republic of Athens a Government 
 more nearly assimilated to our own, as it re- 
 gards the principles upon which it was found- 
 ed, than any other, ancient or modern. After 
 the experience of a century, the ablest states- 
 men and most virtuous men declared it to be 
 one of the most powerful causes which pro- 
 duced that ardent patriotism and heroic valor 
 which distinguished the period that has been 
 emphatically denominated their age of glory. 
 
 The eulogium of Aristides upon the Atheni- 
 ans proves, to my satisfaction at least, that the 
 passage of the bill before the House will not 
 produce those ruinous consequences to the 
 Treasury which some gentlemen seem to appre- 
 hend. Himself, the incorruptible statesman 
 who presided over the finances of his nation ; 
 the honest man who suffered exile rather than 
 flatter the follies of his countrymen, affords the 
 best evidence that it produced no pecuniary 
 embarrassment to a State whose whole terri- 
 tory can scarcely be discovered upon a general 
 map of Europe. Amidst all the calamities 
 which war often brings upon a nation, the 
 Athenians adhered to this law as the sheet-an- 
 chor of their hopes. During the time it was in 
 force their city was three times taken and twice 
 razed to the ground. At the time that Pericles 
 was speaking, the whole of then- continental 
 territory was in possession of their enemies, and 
 ravaged with fire and sword. A pestilence 
 also prevailed within the city with a malignity 
 to which there is no parallel on record an 
 event which gave to a member of this House 
 (Mr. HOPKIXSON) an opportunity for an histori-
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 221 
 
 DF.CKML-ER, 1818.] 
 
 Cadets at West Point. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 cal allusion, in one of the most splendid speci- 
 mens of forensic eloquence which this country 
 has ever witnessed. 
 
 Sir, said Mr. H., I consider that a great part 
 of the money which may be taken from the 
 Treasury by the passage of this bill, will be as 
 usefully employed for the benefit of the nation 
 as it could well be. The pious and patriotic 
 mothers to whom it will be given will employ 
 it in the education of their sons, and they will 
 never cease to remind them of the obligations 
 they owe to their country. " Emulate the pa- 
 triotism of your father," will be the reiterated 
 lesson from childhood to manhood. To have 
 such lessons taught to every youth in the coun- 
 try, I, said Mr. H., should be willing to give the 
 yearly balances which may remain in the Treas- 
 ury for fifty years to come. There is something 
 in the female character admirably calculated to 
 gain an ascendency over the minds of those 
 violent but generous youths who are formed by 
 nature to act a splendid part upon the theatre 
 of the world, and who, when a proper direction 
 is given to their passions, become the friends 
 and benefactors of mankind. They listen with 
 more attention to the mild admonitions of the 
 mother than the rougher mandates of an impe- 
 rious father. It is very remarkable that the 
 great votaries of liberty, both ancient and mod- 
 ern, have received the impulse from this source. 
 The Gracchi, Brutus and Cassius of Kome, Agis 
 and Cleomenes of Sparta, our own Washington, 
 and perhaps Kosciusko, are a few out of the 
 many instances that could be adduced. 
 
 The question on engrossing the bill and order- 
 ing it to a third reading, was at length decided 
 in the affirmative yeas 87, nays 68. 
 
 The bill was ordered to be read a third time 
 to-morrow. 
 
 The House then, on motion, adjourned until 
 to-morrow. 
 
 THUBSDAY, December 10. 
 Cadets at West Paint. 
 
 The House resolved itself into a Committee 
 of the Whole on the bill, reported at the last 
 <..s>i<m, "for the admission of cadets into the 
 Military Academy ; " [directing that in all ap- 
 plications for the admission of cadets into the 
 Military Academy at West Point, a preference 
 shall be given to the sons of officers and soldiers 
 who were killed in battle, or who died in the 
 military service of the United States in the late 
 war; and that a further preference shall be 
 given to those least able to educate themselves, 
 and best qualified for the military profession.] 
 
 Mr. SMITH, of Maryland, moved to amend the 
 bill by striking out the last clause, directing " a 
 further preference to be given to those least 
 able to educate themselves, and best qualified 
 for the military profession," remarking that he 
 saw no reason for the preference, and until he 
 heard something convincing in favor of the dis- 
 crimination, he should remain of opinion that it 
 ought to be stricken from the bill. 
 
 Mr. STEOTHER addressed the committee at 
 considerable length in opposition to the object 
 of the bill, urging chiefly that it was sanctioning 
 a preference of a particular profession, and thus 
 creating a privileged order in the community ; 
 that it was virtually declaring an unnecessary 
 jealousy of the discretion now vested in the 
 War Department, implying an opinion that it 
 was not exercised properly ; and would, more- 
 over, preclude it from selecting the most fit and 
 most worthy ; and was perverting the true ob- 
 ject of the institution, which was established 
 for the general benefit, &c. 
 
 Messrs. HARRISON, and JOHNSON of Kentucky, 
 replied to the objections of Messrs. SMITH and 
 STROTHER, stating that the bill had been report- 
 ed in pursuance of a resolution adopted on the 
 motion of a late distinguished member of this 
 House, (Mr. ROBERTSON, of Louisiana ;) that the 
 provisions of the bill appeared to be required 
 by the original purpose of the institution ; that, 
 instead of creating an aristocracy, it would tend 
 to counteract any such thing. 
 
 The question on Mr. SMITH'S motion was de- 
 cided in the negative. 
 
 Mr. TAYLOR observed that, notwithstanding 
 what had been said in defence of this bill, its 
 effect was certainly to create a privileged order 
 in the country ; that, although the selection 
 proposed might be expedient and laudable to a 
 certain extent, there was no doubt that the de- 
 partment now vested with the selection would 
 keep in view, as far as was proper, the principle 
 proposed ; but it would in his opinion be highly 
 improper for Congress by a formal act to sanc- 
 tion such a distinction. In lien, therefore, of 
 the provisions at present proposed by the bill, 
 he moved the following, as a substitute : " That 
 cadets shall hereafter be admitted into the 
 Military Academy at West Point, from the re- 
 spective States and Territories, and from the 
 District of Columbia, in proportion to the mili- 
 tia returns thereof." 
 
 Mr. HARRISON reiterated his objections to the 
 amendment, and observed, in addition to what 
 he had submitted already, that the design of 
 this bill was really to get rid of a practical aris^ 
 tocracy, instead of creating one ; for it was a 
 fact, he believed, that no son of a soldier (by 
 the term he meant not also to include officers) 
 had ever yet been educated at the Military 
 Academy. Mr. H. then stated that if Mr. TAY- 
 LOR'S amendment should prevail, he would 
 move to add the following : " And that in all 
 cases the preference be given to those whose 
 parents are least able to educate them ; " and 
 intimated that he should then move an addi- 
 tional section requiring cadets to remain at the 
 Academy until the age of twenty-five years. 
 
 Mr. CLAY then rose, and moved that the com- 
 mittee rise, report progress, and then let the 
 House get rid of the whole subject. 
 
 This motion prevailed, and, the bill being re- 
 ported to the House, the committee was refused 
 leave to sit again ; and the bill was kid upon 
 the table.
 
 222 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R] 
 
 Passenger Ships. 
 
 [DECEMBER, 1818. 
 
 MONDAY, December 14. 
 
 Another member, to wit, from Delaware, 
 WnxARD HALL, appeared, and took his seat. 
 
 WEDNESDAY, December 16. 
 Arkansas Territorial Government. 
 Mr. ROBERTSON, of Kentucky, offered for con- 
 sideration the following resolution : 
 
 Resolved, That a committee be appointed to in- 
 quire into the expediency of establishing a separate 
 territorial government in that part of the new Terri- 
 tory of Missouri, lying south of thirty-six degrees and 
 thirty minutes north latitude, which is called the Ar- 
 kansas country, and which is not included in the pro- 
 posed boundary of the projected State of Missouri, 
 by the bill now before the House, for the purpose of 
 establishing a State government in part of the Terri- 
 tory of Missouri, and that the said committee have 
 leave to report by bill, or otherwise. 
 
 Mr. R. explained briefly the object of his mo- 
 tion. There being every reason to expect that 
 the people of the Territory of Missouri would 
 be authorized, at the present session, to form a 
 constitution of State government, and with cer- 
 tain limited boundaries, the whole Territory 
 being too extensive to be included within one 
 State ; that part of the Territory not included 
 within the limits of the State, would of course 
 have occasion for a separate Territorial govern- 
 ment, which, as in the case of the admission of 
 Mississippi into the Union, had been done in 
 regard to the Territory of Alabama. But, if 
 his expectation was disappointed, and an act 
 should not pass at the present session to au- 
 thorize the people of Missouri to form a State 
 government, it was yet necessary that a separate 
 Territorial government should be established. 
 This Territory, which was likely to become in 
 time one of the most populous Territories in the 
 "Union, was, from its remoteness from the pres- 
 ent seat of Government, almost without either 
 law or government. 
 
 Mr. SOOTT, of Missouri, said he did not rise to 
 oppose the resolution ; on the contrary, had he 
 a vote to give, it would be for its adoption. He 
 was not sensible that any remarks he was capa- 
 ble of making would have any influence on the 
 vote of the House, but he rose, lest his silence 
 might be construed into an opposition, which 
 he did not intend, and to repel any inference 
 that might be drawn that he had neglected his 
 duty to a part of his constituents, in not being 
 the mover of the proposition. He had intended 
 to introduce a resolution of a similar character, 
 so soon as he should receive from the Legisla- 
 ture of the Territory a memorial praying for 
 the erection of a State in the northern section 
 of the Territory, together with a certified copy 
 of the census of the whole Territory, which he 
 was in the daily expectation of receiving. This 
 data had. not yet arrived, and he felt a reluc- 
 tance, in the press of business before the House, 
 to present, voluntarily, a proposition, even for 
 the consideration of the House, without having 
 
 good authority, or some leading reason to jus- 
 tify him. He knew, however, that the situation 
 of that portion of the Territory, removed four 
 or five hundred miles from the seat of Territo- 
 rial government, called loudly for the interposi- 
 tion of the General Government. They were 
 not unfrequently without a competency of civil 
 and military officers to administer justice, or 
 keep order in the country; and although he 
 was not in possession of the census of the Terri- 
 tory, or any petition from the people of that 
 part of it, yet he was convinced that the quan- 
 tity of the population, and its respectability, 
 justified the request ; and believing, as he did, 
 that it was the wish of the people, and knowing 
 it was their interest, he hoped the House would 
 not consider the resolution premature, but that 
 it would be adopted. 
 
 The motion was then agreed to, without op- 
 position, and Messrs. ROBERTSON, BEECHER, and 
 JONES, were appointed the said committee. 
 
 Passenger Ships. 
 
 The bill to regulate passenger ships and ves- 
 sels came next in order. 
 
 Mr. NEWTON explained the necessity of this 
 bill and the nature of its provisions. The great 
 object of it was, he said, to give to those who 
 go and come in passenger vessels, a security of 
 sufficient food and convenience. In consequence 
 of the anxiety to emigrate from Europe to this 
 country, the captains, sure of a freight, were 
 careless of taking the necessary quantity of pro- 
 visions, or of restricting the number of passen- 
 gers to the convenience which their ships 
 afforded. To. show how necessary such a bill 
 as this had become, one or two facts would suf- 
 fice. In the year 1817, five thousand persons 
 had sailed for this country from Antwerp, &c., 
 of whom one thousand died on the passage. In 
 one instance a captain had sailed from a port on 
 that coast with one thousand two hundred and 
 sixty-seven passengers. On his voyage he put 
 into the Texel, previous to doing which four 
 hundred had died. After being on the passage 
 to our shores, before the vessel arrived at Phil- 
 adelphia, three hundred more had died. The 
 remainder, when the vessel reached Newcastle, 
 were in a very emaciated state from the want 
 of water and food, from which many of them 
 afterwards died. Many other cases might be 
 stated, but these would suffice to show the ab- 
 solute necessity of provisions such as those of 
 this bill. The bill restricted the number of 
 passengers to two for every five tons 1 burden 
 of the vessel. In Great Britain, formerly, but 
 one had been allowed to every five tons ; but 
 now, one to every three tons. The commit- 
 tee had been of opinion that the scale of 
 one to every two tons and a half would afford 
 every necessar> accommodation. With regard 
 to the other sections of the bill, they were gen- 
 erally similar to those of the act respecting sea- 
 men, by which a captain is obliged to take on 
 board a certain quantity of water and bread for 
 each seaman employed.
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 223 
 
 DECEMBER, 1818.] 
 
 Vevay Cultivation of the Vine. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 No objection being made to the bill, it was 
 ordered to be engrossed for a third reading. 
 
 THURSDAY, December 17. 
 Another member, to wit, from South Caro- 
 lina, STEPHEN D. MILLER, appeared, and took his 
 seat. 
 
 FRIDAY, December 18. 
 
 The SPEAKER presented a memorial of the 
 Legislative Council and House of Representa- 
 tives of the Territory of Missouri, in the name 
 and on behalf of the people of the said Territory, 
 praying that they may be permitted to form a 
 constitution and State government, with the 
 boundaries described in said petition ; and ad- 
 mitted into the Union on an equal footing with 
 the original States. Keferred. 
 
 MONDAY, December 21. 
 
 Another member, to wit, from Massachusetts, 
 SOLOMON STRONG, appeared, and took his seat. 
 
 The House then resolved itself into a Com- 
 mittee of the Whole, on the bill making appro- 
 priations for the support of the Navy of the 
 United States for the year 1819. 
 
 The bill includes the following items : 
 
 Pay of officers and seamen - $1,270,333 50 
 Provisions - 594,037 50 
 
 Medicines and all expenses of sick 36,000 00 
 Repairs of vessels - 350,000 00 
 
 Contingent expenses - 300,000 00 
 
 Repairs of navy yards, docks, &c. 100,000 00 
 Completing medals and swords - 7,500 00 
 Pay and subsistence of marine 
 
 corps - 
 
 Clothing the same - 
 Military stores for do. 
 Contingent expenses - - - 
 
 122,898 00 
 2,038 10 
 1,087 50 
 18,600 00 
 
 The bill was then reported to the House, and 
 ordered to be engrossed for a third reading. 
 
 WEDNESDAY, December 23. 
 J. J. Dufour, and others. 
 
 Mr. POINDEXTER reported, from the Commit- 
 tee of Public Lands, a bill to extend, for the 
 term of twelve months, the time allowed to J. 
 J. Dufour and his associates, of Vevay, Indiana, 
 for completing the payment for the lands pur- 
 chased by them from the United States. 
 
 On this bill arose a debate, which wholly oc- 
 cupied the House until the usual hour of ad- 
 journment, in the course of which the bill was 
 so amended as to make the extension for six, 
 instead of twelve months. 
 
 The debate was more animated than at the 
 first glance one would have expected such a 
 question to produce. The petitioners ask this 
 indulgence, because such money as they have 
 the receiver of public moneys will not take 
 from them. The bill, therefore, was supported 
 on various grounds, on the reasonableness of 
 
 the request, and on the merit of the petitioners, 
 on whom a high eulogium was pronounced. 
 The bill was opposed on the general ground of 
 the inexpediency of making a discrimination 
 between these claimants and other petitioners. 
 Messrs. POLNDEXTER, HARRISON, TAYLOR, HEN- 
 DRICKS, TRIMBLE, MERCER, and BEECHER, sup- 
 ported the bill, and Messrs. WILLIAMS of North 
 Carolina, SEHKINS, MILLS, STORRS, McCoY, SER- 
 GEANT, and DESHA, opposed it. 
 
 The question on ordering the bill to a third 
 reading having been taken by yeas and nays, 
 was decided in the affirmative yeas 73, nays 
 67. 
 
 THURSDAY, December 24. 
 Another member, to wit, from Tennessee, 
 GEORGE W. L. MARR, appeared, and took his 
 
 MONDAY, December 28. 
 
 Mr. IRVING presented a petition of "The 
 New York Society for promoting the Manu- 
 mission of Slaves, and protecting such of them 
 as have been or may be liberated ; " praying 
 that some effective provisions may be made 
 to abolish the African slave trade, in any 
 arrangement which may be hereafter defini- 
 tively entered into between this country and 
 Spain, or the South American provinces. 
 
 Mr. SERGEANT presented a memorial from 
 the American Convention for promoting the 
 Abolition of Slavery, and improving the condi- 
 tion of the African race, praying that the acts 
 respecting the illicit introduction of slaves into 
 the United States may be so amended, as that 
 any person so introduced shall be declared free ; 
 and that the situation of slavery within the 
 District of Columbia may be considered, and a 
 plan devised, for its gradual and certain termi- 
 nation within said District. Referred to the 
 committee on the part of the President's Mes- 
 sage which relates to the illicit introduction of 
 slaves within the United States. 
 
 Vevay Cultivation of the Vine. 
 Mr. PINDALL, after stating that information 
 had come to his knowledge since the decision 
 of the House, on Thursday last, against the bill 
 for the relief of J. J. Dufour and others, which 
 he thought had a material bearing on the ex- 
 pediency of extending relief, in some shape, 
 to the petitioners, and after entering into some 
 reasons which, from reflection and further in- 
 vestigation, had occurred to him, in support of 
 the motion he rose to make, moved to reconsider 
 the vote which rejected the bill, and to bring 
 it before the House to receive the modification 
 which he thought would entitle it to the sanc- 
 tion of the House. 
 
 Mr. LINCOLN, of Mass., spoke as follows : 
 Mr. Speaker : I place my vote on the broad 
 basis of national policy the policy of encourag- 
 ing emigration, and the culture of the vine. 
 When I am told that the inhabitants of the little
 
 224 
 
 ABKIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OP R.] 
 
 Exports. 
 
 [JANUARY, 1819. 
 
 village of Vevay are the countrymen of the 
 illustrious Tell, that they are planters of the 
 vine, and industrious and virtuous people, de- 
 lighting in the exercise of the rights of hospital- 
 ity, I find my sympathy strongly excited ; yet I 
 do not suffer that sympathy to delude my un- 
 derstanding. But, should these people write to 
 their friends across the Atlantic, and inform 
 them that they are here, enjoying the patronage 
 and fostering care of our Government, would 
 not those friends, although looking around 
 them, and seeing themselves surrounded by 
 ramparts of mountains, yet, perceiving the ava- 
 lanches of European power continually tum- 
 bling upon their heads, be disposed to abandon 
 a country where their liberties are so insecure, 
 and come to one where they should be assured 
 of an asylum ? On the other hand, should they 
 be informed that these persons came to their 
 hard-hearted creditor that creditor an opu- 
 lent, powerful nation, and told him that they 
 had been unfortunate, but not guilty; negli- 
 gent, but not delinquent; yet that he drove 
 them from his door with scorn and contempt, 
 bade them begone, and prepare to pay him the 
 last farthing of their bond at the moment when 
 it should become due, what, then, would be 
 their feelings ? They could not be other than 
 those of the deepest aversion and horror. "We 
 cannot do too much, sir, to encourage the emi- 
 gration of a class of population like that of the 
 Cantons of Switzerland, a population remark- 
 ably assimilated to that of our own country, 
 in manners, customs, feelings, and principles. 
 
 There is yet another argument more weighty 
 than that just urged I mean that resulting from 
 the policy of encouraging the cultivation of the 
 vine, encouraging it, paradoxical as it may seem, 
 for the purpose of preventing intemperance; 
 for, true it is, that there are no people more 
 temperate than those of France and Switzer- 
 land. The reason is, that they make use of the 
 products of their own vineyards, as the substi- 
 tute for those deleterious ardent spirits which 
 are here consumed to so lamentable an excess. 
 Give then to these people a little indulgence, 
 and you shall see not only the banks of the 
 Ohio festooned by the grape vine, but it shall 
 climb to our mountain tops, and its fruit bask 
 in the sunshine upon all our hills. 
 
 The question was then taken on reconsidering 
 the vote on the bill, and decided in the affirma- 
 tive ; when, on motion of Mr. FIND ALL, the bill 
 was referred to a select committee. 
 
 TUESDAY, December 29. 
 Mr. H. NELSON, from the Judiciary Commit- 
 tee, to whom had been referred the letter of 
 the Sergeant-at-Arms, respecting the suit com- 
 menced against him by John Anderson, report- 
 ed a resolution authorizing and requesting the 
 Speaker to employ such counsel as he may 
 think proper to defend the suit brought by John 
 Anderson against the said Thomas Dunn, and 
 that the expenses be defrayed out of the con- 
 
 tingent fund of the House ; which resolution 
 was concurred in. 
 
 THURSDAY, December 31. 
 Death of Mr. Mumford. 
 
 Mr. J3MITH, of North Carolina, announced the 
 death of GEORGE MUHFOED, a member of this 
 House, from the State of North Carolina; 
 whereupon, 
 
 Resolved unanimously, That a committee be 
 appointed to take order for superintending 
 the funeral of GEORGE MUMFOED, deceased, 
 late a Eepresentative from the State of North 
 Carolina. 
 
 Messrs. SMITH, of North Carolina, WILLIAMS, 
 of North Carolina, OWEN, STEWART, of North 
 Carolina, SETTLE, EDWABDS, and SLOCUMB, were 
 appointed the said committee. 
 
 Resolved unanimously, That the members of 
 this House will testify their respect to the mem- 
 ory of GEORGE MUMFOED, late one of their 
 body, by wearing crape on their left arm, for 
 one month. 
 
 Resolved unanimously, That the members of 
 this House will attend the funeral of the late 
 GEORGE MUMFORD, to-morrow morning at 10 
 o'clock. 
 
 Ordered, That a message be sent to the Sen- 
 ate, to notify them of the death of GEORGE 
 MUMFORD, late a member of this House, and 
 that his funeral will take place to-morrow, at 
 10 o'clock. 
 
 The House then adjourned to Monday. 
 
 MONDAY, January 4, 1819. 
 The following Message was received from the 
 PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES : 
 
 To the Home of Representatives of the United States: 
 
 In compliance with a resolution of the House of 
 Representatives of the 7th instant, requesting me to 
 lay before it the proceedings which have been had 
 under the act, entitled " An act for the gradual in- 
 crease of the Navy of the United jStates," specifying 
 the number of ships that have been put on the stocks, 
 and of what class, and the quantity and kind of ma- 
 terials which have been procured, in compliance 
 with the provisions of said act, and also the sums of 
 money which have been paid out of the funds created 
 by the said act, and for what objects ; and likewise 
 the contracts which have been entered into, in exe- 
 cution of the said act, on which moneys may not yet 
 have been advanced ; I transmit a report from the 
 acting Secretary of the Navy, together with a com- 
 munication from the Board of Navy Commissioners, 
 which, with the documents accompanying it, compre- 
 hends all the information required by the House of 
 Representatives. 
 
 JAMES MONROE. 
 DECEMBER 31, 1818. 
 
 The Message, with its enclosures, was ordered 
 to be printed. 
 
 Exports. 
 
 The SPEAKER laid before the House the follow- 
 ing letter from the Secretary of the Treasury :
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 225 
 
 JANUARY, 1819.] 
 
 TJie Seminole War and General Jackson. 
 
 [H. or R. 
 
 TKEASCKY DEPARTMENT, Jan. 1, 1819. 
 Sir : I have the honor to transmit a statement of 
 the exports of the United States, during the year 
 ending the 30th of September, 1818, amounting in 
 value, in articles of 
 
 Domestic produce and manufacture, to $73,854,437 
 Foreign do do do do 19,426,696 
 
 $93,281,133 
 
 Which articles appear to have heen exported to the 
 following countries, viz : 
 
 Domestic. Foreign. 
 To the northern countries of 
 
 Europe . . . 1,554,259 1,081,424 
 To the dominions of the 
 
 Netherlands . . 4,192,776 3,022,711 
 
 Of Great Britain 44,425,552 2,292,280 
 
 Of France . 10,666,798 3,283,791 
 
 Of Spain. . 4,589,661 2,967,252 
 
 Of Portugal . 2,650,019 248,158 
 The Hanse Towns and ports 
 
 of Germany . . . 2,260,002 1,073,491 
 
 All others . . . 3,515,355 4,915,589 
 
 $73,854,437 $19,426,696 
 
 I have the honor to be, &c. 
 
 WM. H. CRAWFORD. 
 
 The SPEAKER of the House of Reps. 
 
 The letter, with, its enclosures, was ordered 
 to be printed. 
 
 The Slate Trade. 
 
 Mr. MEBCEB introduced the resolution which 
 follows by a few remarks, importing that the 
 law of the United States prohibiting the citizens 
 of the United States from engaging in the slave 
 trade, was evaded in a manner which demanded 
 the interposition of Congress. He referred to 
 the law which authorizes the President of the 
 United States to employ our armed vessels in 
 executing its provisions, and also authorizes 
 those vessels to seize and bring into the ports of 
 the United States all ships and vessels engaged 
 in the violation of it. In a publication which 
 Mr. M. said he had seen, and to which he re- 
 ferred, the names were given of at least twenty 
 vessels fitted out in the ports of the United 
 States for the obvious purpose of carrying on 
 the slave trade. Appeals had been taken from 
 the decisions which had been made by the in- 
 ferior tribunals in some of these cases, and the 
 names of American houses and American citi- 
 zens engaged in this detestable traffic, were to 
 be found on the records of the British court. 
 To obtain information having a direct bear- 
 ing on this subject, Mr. M. submitted this reso- 
 lution : 
 
 Resolved, That the Secretary of the Navy be di- 
 rected to report to this House a copy of such instruc- 
 tions, if any, as may have been issued by this De- 
 partment, in pursuance of the act of Congress of 
 1817, prohibiting the importation of slaves, to the 
 commanders of the armed vessels of the United States, 
 for the purpose of intercepting, on the coast of Africa, 
 or elsewhere, such vessels as have been engaged in 
 the slave trade. 
 
 The motion was agreed to. 
 VOL. VL 15 
 
 I Mr. MEBCEK then said, he had another reso- 
 ' lution to offer, in relation to another branch of 
 { the same subject. We have all been informed, 
 he said, in the course of the last few months, 
 j that individuals brought into the United States, 
 in violation of the law before referred to, had, 
 1 in execution of the provisions of the law, been 
 condemned to hereditary slavery ; and, on ex- 
 amining the acts of Congress, he found that the 
 authority under which this iniquity (he would 
 so call it) had been practised, was derived from 
 one of those acts. To obtain such information 
 as might assist the House in arriving at a proper 
 remedy for this fault, he moved the following 
 resolution : 
 
 Resolved, That the Secretary of the Treasury be 
 directed to report to this House the number and 
 names of the slave ships, if any, which have been 
 seized and condemned within the United States for 
 violation of the laws thereof against the importation 
 of slaves, and if any negroes, mulattoes, or persons 
 of color, have been found on board such vessels, their 
 number, and the disposition which have been made 
 of them by the several State Governments under 
 whose jurisdiction they have fallen. 
 
 Mr. STKOTHEE moved to amend the resolu- 
 tion so as to direct a report to be made also of 
 the number and names of the slave ships, if any, 
 and of the ports from which, they had sailed, 
 if they could be ascertained. Mr. S. said he 
 wished that the ignominy of this trade, if any, 
 should attach where it belonged, and not be 
 imputed, on the authority of general rumor, to 
 the whole country. He wished at least that 
 the country of which he was a Representative 
 should be absolved from any charge of partici- 
 pation in it. 
 
 Mr. FLOYD wished also, that the names of 
 the places where the vessels are owned should 
 be added to that of the place whence they 
 sailed. 
 
 Mr. COBB desired to amend this resolve far- 
 ther, so as to require information by whom, as 
 well as where, the vessels were owned. 
 
 These amendments were not objected to by 
 Mr. MEBOEE, and were, as well as the original 
 motion, all agreed to. 
 
 TUESDAY, January 12. 
 A message from the Senate informed the 
 House that the Senate have passed a bill, enti- 
 tled " An act to enable the people of the Ala- 
 bama Territory to form a constitution and State 
 government, and for the admission of such State 
 into the Union, on an equal footing with the 
 original States ;" in which they ask the concur- 
 rence of this House. 
 
 The Seminole War and General Jacfaon. 
 
 Mr. T. M. NELSON, from the Committee on 
 Military Affairs, made a report concluding 
 with the following resolution : 
 
 Resolved, That the House of Representatives of tho 
 United States disapproves the proceedings in the trial
 
 226 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 The Seminole War and General Jackson. 
 
 [JANUARY, 1819. 
 
 and execution of Alexander Arbutbnot and Robert C. 
 Ambrister. 
 
 Mr. Jonxsox", of Kentucky, also of the Mili- 
 tary Committee, submitted a paper drawn up 
 in the shape of a report by that committee, 
 which, by a majority of one vote, that commit- 
 tee had refused to accept, and the said paper 
 was read, concluding with the expression of the 
 opinion that General Jackson, his officers and 
 men. are entitled to the thanks of the country 
 in terminating the Seminole war. 
 
 The report having been read 
 
 Mr. COBB, of Georgia, rose to make a motion, 
 the object of which was to give to the report of 
 the Military Committee, as well as to the sub- 
 stitute presented by a member of that commit- 
 tee, a direction which should insure to it a dis- 
 cussion, as full as was desired, at the present 
 session. For this purpose, he moved to refer 
 them to a Committee of the "Whole on the state 
 of the Union. These papers, he said, involved 
 principles of great consequence, on which in 
 some measure depended, as he believed, the 
 character of the nation ; they also necessarily 
 involved important questions as to the laws of 
 nations, and as to the constitution of our own 
 country, and ought to have a deliberate con- 
 sideration. 
 
 Mr. FLOYD, of Virginia, was as desirous as the 
 gentleman from Georgia of a deliberate discus- 
 sion of the subject of these reports ; but, if they 
 were referred to a Committee of the Whole on 
 the state of the Union, a motion to go into which 
 was always in order, the House might be taken 
 by surprise, or brought into the discussion en- 
 tirely without notice, at the motion of any gen- 
 tleman who wished it. He therefore wished 
 the papers should be referred, as in ordinary 
 cases, to a Committee of the Whole. 
 
 Mr. STROTHEE, of Virginia, agreed with the 
 gentlemen who had preceded him, that the re- 
 port should be so disposed of as to insure a full 
 examination of its merits. The subject, he said, 
 was one of considerable interest and excitement, 
 though he was not under the impression that it 
 was one of great magnitude, nor that it carried 
 in its bosom the fate of the nation, as the gen- 
 tleman from Georgia seemed to suppose, which 
 depended on far other considerations. The best 
 course to pursue in regard to these papers, Mr. 
 S. thought, would be to lay them on the table. 
 Though not of momentous consequence, he 
 said, yet the decision on them was calculated to 
 implicate the character, and perhaps the happi- 
 ness, of the illustrious individual whose proceed- 
 ings it was proposed to censure. He would, in 
 regard to any proposition involving the happi- 
 ness or reputation of any individual, conspicu- 
 ous or obscure, act with great deliberation. He 
 was therefore opposed to referring this matter 
 to a Committee of the Whole on the state of 
 the Union, thus putting it in the power of any 
 individual to call it up when he pleased, and to 
 precipitate the House into a discussion unad- 
 visedly and unprepared. He was for not hastily 
 acting on a proposition to censure a man who 
 
 had given celebrity to the arms of his country, 
 and thrown a brighter lustre on the national 
 character. 
 
 Mr. POINDEXTER, of Mississippi, said he hoped 
 that the House would never agree to a report, 
 in affirmin 
 
 to forget the wrongs inflicted on us by foreign 
 nations, to overlook the inhuman deeds com- 
 mitted on the frontier of Georgia, and to turn 
 its attention to the laudable object of destroy- 
 ing the reputation of one of its most distin- 
 guished citizens. It was not in the point of 
 view in which the gentleman from Georgia 
 had regarded the question ; it was not from any 
 regard to the savages of Florida, and their allies, 
 British refugees and Spanish agents, or from a 
 wish to crush that man by the strong arm of 
 power that man who had so much merited the 
 thanks of his country, that he wished a full and 
 early discussion of the subject. He did not 
 wish it, he said, to be referred to a Committee 
 of the Whole, or to lie on the table and be for- 
 gotten. He was not willing that any such re- 
 port as that from the Military Committee, cal- 
 culated to ruin the reputation of a man who 
 had rendered so signal services to his country, 
 should be considered as representing the opin- 
 ion of this House. He was not willing, there- 
 fore, that it should remain for a moment on the 
 table, but should undergo a full discussion as 
 early as practicable ; which would be insured 
 by referring it to a Committee of the Whole on 
 the state of the Union. 
 
 Mr. MERGER, of Virginia, while he congratu- 
 lated the House on the dignified report which 
 the Military Committee had presented to them, 
 was disposed, in the proceedings on this sub- 
 ject, to act with all necessary deliberation. The 
 only objection he had heard to the proposition to 
 refer the subject to a Committee of the Whole 
 on the state of the Union, was, that it might be 
 called up at any time ; this objection, he said, 
 might be entirely obviated by naming a day 
 when it should be called up ; and, if a day were 
 not named, the House would always have 
 it in its power, if it chose, to refuse to go into 
 committee, if moved for at too early a day. He 
 should deplore, Mr. M. said, perhaps more than 
 any member of the House, that this should be 
 referred to an ordinary Committee of the Whole, 
 and that the whole session should pass off with- 
 out an expression, on the part of the House, of 
 its opinion on this subject. With respect to the 
 character of General Jackson, though he would 
 not unnecessarily arraign it, Mr. M. said, he 
 looked, in the view which he took of the im- 
 portance of this question, to higher objects 
 to the character of this House and of this 
 nation. 
 
 Mr. SMYTH, of Virginia, hoped that the mo- 
 tion of the gentleman from Georgia would pre- 
 vail. He presumed that the gentlemen adverse 
 to General Jackson were none of them desirous 
 of precipitating the discussion, or taking any 
 advantage, by surprise, of those who approved 
 of his conduct. He supposed that by Monday
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 227 
 
 JANUARY, 1819.] 
 
 Government of Florida. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 next every gentleman who desired to take a 
 part in the discussion would be prepared, and 
 that that day would Be agreed on. He said 
 he should, when the discussion came on, at- 
 tempt to show that all the proceedings of Gen- 
 eral Jackson were justifiable by the law of na- 
 tions. 
 
 Mr. DESHA, of Kentucky, wished the papers 
 to lie on the table, that the members of the 
 House might have an opportunity of examining 
 them ; but, if referred to any committee of the 
 House, he wished the substitute as well as the 
 report to be referred and that, in their publi- 
 cation, they might go together, that the world 
 should see and understand the views of both 
 sides of the House. 
 
 Mr. JOHNSOK, of Kentucky, suggested the 
 propriety of a concurrence, on all sides of the 
 House, in the commitment of the report and the 
 amendment to a committee, as proposed. If 
 for no other reason than that the Speaker 
 might wish to participate in the debate, he 
 should approve of that course. The subject 
 hnd excited considerable sensation, and he 
 hoped every opportunity would be given to 
 members, on all sides of the House, to express 
 their opinions. To debate it now was to take 
 up the time of the House to no useful purpose 
 whatever. 
 
 After some further remarks from Messrs. 
 FLOYD, COBB, and STBOTHEB, in support of their 
 respective opinions, and some conversation on a 
 point of order, the question on referring the re- 
 port of the Military Committee to a Committee 
 of the "Whole on the state of the Union was car- 
 ried without a division. 
 
 On motion of Mr. DESHA, the paper offered 
 by Mr. JOHXSON, of Kentucky, as a substitute, 
 was then referred to the same committee ; and 
 
 Mr. TALLMADGE gave notice that, if no one 
 else did, he should, on Monday next, move to 
 go into a Committee of the Whole on this sub- 
 ject. 
 
 SATTBDAY, January 16. 
 Bank of the United States. 
 
 Mr. SPENCEB, from the committee appointed 
 on the 30th of November last, to inspect the 
 books and examine into the proceedings of the 
 Bank of the United States, to report thereon, 
 and to report whether the provisions of its 
 charter have been violated or not, made a de- 
 tailed report thereon; which was read and 
 committed to the Committee of the Whole on 
 the state of the Union. The report concludes 
 as follows : 
 
 The committee, then, are of the opinion that the 
 provisions of the charter of the Bank of the United 
 States have been violated in the following instances : 
 
 I. In purchasing two millions of public debt, in 
 order to substitute them for two other millions of 
 similar debt, which it had contracted to sell, or had 
 sold in Europe, and which the Secretary of the Treas- 
 ury claimed the right of redeeming. The facts on 
 
 this subject, and the views of the transaction enter- 
 tained by the committee, have been already given. 
 
 II. In not requiring the fulfilment of the engage- 
 ment made by the stockholders on subscribing, to pay 
 the second and third instalments on the stock, in 
 coin and funded debt The facts on this point are 
 fully before the House, and they establish, beyond 
 all doubt, 1st, that the directors of the bank agreed 
 to receive, and did receive, what they deemed an 
 equivalent for coin, in checks upon, and the notes of 
 the bank and other banks to pay specie. This sub- 
 stitution of any equivalent whatever, for the specific 
 things required by the charter, was in itself a depar- 
 ture from its provisions ; but, 2d, the notes and 
 checks thus received were not, in all cases, equiva- 
 lent to coin, because there was not specie to meet 
 them in the bank ; 3d, that notes of individuals were 
 discounted and taken in lieu of the coin part of the 
 second instalment, by virtue of a resolution for that 
 purpose, passed before that instalment became due ; 
 4th, that the notes of individuals were taken in many 
 instances, and to large amounts, in lien of the whole 
 of the second and third instalments, which notes are 
 yet unpaid. 
 
 HI. In paying dividends to stockholders who had 
 not completed their instalments, the provisions of the 
 charter in that respect were violated. 
 
 IV. By the judges of the first and second election 
 allowing many persons to give more than thirty votes 
 each, under pretence of their being attorneys for 
 persons in whose names shares then stood, when those 
 judges, the directors, and officers of the bank, perfect- 
 ly well knew that those shares really belonged to the 
 persons offering to vote upon them as attorneys. The 
 facts in relation to this violation are in possession of 
 the House, and establish it beyond the reach of doubt 
 
 The committee are of opinion that no other in- 
 stance of a violation of the charter has been estab- 
 lished. In closing this report of a most laborious in- 
 vestigation, the committee observe, that whatever 
 difference of opinion can exist among them as to the 
 results and inferences to be drawn from the facts 
 stated, they unanimously concur in giving, to the pre- 
 ceding statements of facts and abstracts of docu- 
 ments, their sanction. They have not recommended 
 the adoption of any measures to correct the many 
 evils and mischiefs they have depicted, excepting 
 that of the bill before mentioned, because, by the 
 provisions of the charter, the Secretary of the Treas- 
 ury has full power to apply a prompt and adequate 
 remedy, whenever the situation of the bank shall re- 
 quire it And if, after the stockholders have become 
 acquainted with the mismanagement of the institu- 
 tion, they shall adopt no means to prevent its con- 
 tinuance, or the directors themselves shall persist in 
 a course of conduct requiring correction, the commit- 
 tee cannot entertain a doubt that the salutary power 
 lodged in the Treasury Department will be exerted, 
 as occasion may require, and with reference to the 
 best interests of the United States. 
 
 Government of Florida. 
 Mr. EDWABDS rose to offer a resolution call- 
 ing for information in relation to the posts, 
 without the limits of the United States, now in 
 the possession of the United States. The ob- 
 ject of his motion was in itself so plain as to 
 need no elucidation. It would be recollected 
 that the law of 1811 authorized the taking pos- 
 session, on certain contingencies, of that part
 
 228 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 The Seminole War. 
 
 [JANUARY, 1819. 
 
 of Florida east of the Perdido, and to establish 
 a government therein. One object of the reso- 
 lution was to ascertain how far, if at all, that 
 law had been carried into effect, &c. The res- 
 olution was in the following words : 
 
 Resolved, That the President of the United States 
 be requested to cause any information, not al- 
 ready communicated, to be laid before this House, 
 whether Amelia Island, St. Marks, and Pensacola, 
 yet remain in the possession of the United States, 
 and, if so, by what laws the inhabitants thereof are 
 governed ; whether articles imported therein from 
 foreign countries are subject to any and what duties, 
 and by what laws ; and whether the said duties are 
 collected, and how ; whether vessels arriving in the 
 United States from Pensacola and Amelia Island, 
 and in Pensacola and Amelia Island from the United 
 States, respectively, are considered and treated as 
 vessels arriving from foreign countries. 
 
 Mr. HOLMES said that the resolution embraced 
 some objects which the Committee of Foreign 
 Relations had had under consideration, that 
 concerning Amelia Island, for example ; respect- 
 ing which they had directed him to make of 
 the Secretary of State all the inquiries embrac- 
 ed in the resolution, and more. That informa- 
 tion might be expected to be soon received, and 
 laid before the House. He therefore wished the 
 gentleman to waive his motion for the present. 
 
 Mr. EDWARDS said he had no objection, if the 
 committee had asked for the information, 
 (though he still thought it would have been 
 better had the information been specially called 
 for by the House,) to waive his motion for the 
 present, with the reservation of the right to 
 renew it, if the expected information was not 
 laid before the House. 
 
 Mr. HOPKINSOX suggested that the informa- 
 tion which had been required by the Committee 
 of Foreign Relations was limited to Amelia Isl- 
 and, and therefore did not embrace the princi- 
 pal part of the information required by the res- 
 olution. 
 
 Mr. EDWAEDS said, if that were the case, he 
 should certainly not waive his motion. If we 
 are correctly informed by the newspapers, there 
 had been something like a government estab- 
 lished at St. Marks and at Pensacola, by the 
 military authority, as well as at the Amelia 
 Island ; and he wished to ascertain how far the 
 arrangements of the military authority had 
 been sanctioned by the Executive. Vessels had 
 cleared out and entered at Pensacola ; he wish- 
 ed to know whether it had been regarded in 
 this respect as a foreign or domestic port. If 
 civil officers, collectors, &c., had been appointed, 
 he wished to obtain information by what tenure 
 they held their offices, and also the nature of 
 their accountability. If ultimate measures 
 should be found necessary, information would 
 be wanted, without which the House was grop- 
 ing in the dark. He had no other object than 
 to ascertain, officially, the facts on these sub- 
 jects. 
 
 Mr. STB OTHER said he never should oppose a 
 resolution calling for information to instruct this 
 
 House in the discharge of its duty, or that was 
 necessary to enable them to ascertain the man- 
 ner in which the Executive department had 
 discharged the duties assigned it by the consti- 
 tution and laws of the country. The stability 
 and integrity of the Government depended upon 
 the right to call for and obtain information ; 
 but he objected to this resolution, introduced 
 by his friend from North Carolina, because the 
 information called for had been furnished this 
 House, in that voluminous document laid upon 
 our table upon the subject of the Seminole war. 
 Mr. S. said, if his honorable friend would exam- 
 ine the correspondence between General Jack-, 
 son and the Secretary of War, he would ascer- 
 tain that a government has been established at 
 Pensacola, and functionaries appointed to ad- 
 minister the government ; a temporary govern- 
 ment, confined to the necessary and legitimate 
 purpose of protection to the persons and prop- 
 erty of the people inhabiting that region ; a 
 proceeding springing from necessity, and to ter- 
 minate with it. Upon this ground he was op- 
 posed to the resolution. 
 
 The Seminole War. 
 
 The order of the day, on the report of the 
 Committee on Military Affairs respecting the 
 Seminole war, being announced 
 
 The House then went into Committee of the 
 Whole on the state of the Union, to whom that 
 report was committed, Mr. PITKIN in the Chair. 
 
 There was some conversation previously 
 about postponing the subject for a day or two ; 
 but the House, by a majority of ten or fifteen 
 votes, resolved to take it up. 
 
 The report of the Military Committee was 
 read through, concluding with the following res- 
 olution : 
 
 " Resolved, That the House of Representatives of 
 the United States disapproves the proceedings in the 
 trial and execution of Alexander Arbuthnot and 
 Robert C. Ambrister." 
 
 Mr. COBB, of Georgia, commenced the debate, 
 by observing, that although he concurred in 
 opinion with the Military Committee, as ex- 
 pressed in their report under consideration, yet 
 he thought they had not gone far enough. 
 There were other matters, arising out of the 
 late Seminole war, which he thought of infi- 
 nitely greater importance, and, in comparison 
 with which, indeed the trials of Arbuthuot and 
 Ambrister were objects of but secondary con- 
 sideration. As highly, therefore, as he disap- 
 proved the proceedings in the trial of these 
 men, yet as, by the report, the matters to which 
 he had allusion were not presented for consider- 
 ation, he held in his hand certain resolutions 
 which it was his intention to propose, by way 
 of amendment to the report of the Military 
 Committee. [Mr. COBB here read the amend- 
 ment^ which he subsequently moved.] From 
 these resolutions, the Committee of the Whole 
 would observe that it was his intention to open 
 the whole field of debate, and to present for 
 discussion, not only the trials of these men, but
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 229 
 
 JAXUAKY, 1819.] 
 
 The Semtnole War. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 the capture of the Spanish posts of St. Marks, 
 Pensacola, and Barancas, in which, he believed, 
 there had been a most flagrant breach of the 
 Constitution of the United States. But as, not- 
 Avith-tantling the amendment he was about to 
 propose, the resolution of the Military Committee 
 would stand first in order, lie would proceed to 
 make a few remarks as to the subject-matter 
 of that resolution. He thought he could prom- 
 ise that the committee should not be long de- 
 tained by the observations which he might have 
 the honor to make either upon this resolution 
 or those which he would lay upon the table, 
 as, at that early period of the discussion, it was 
 not necessary to present to the committee any 
 thing more than what he considered the leading 
 points, reserving to himself the right of speak- 
 ing, as to particulars, at some future period, if 
 he should find it necessary. 
 
 In attending to the trials by court-martial of 
 those two Englishmen, the first objects for con- 
 sideration which presented themselves, were 
 the charges exhibited against them. Reasoning 
 upon the supposition that they were true, he 
 was perfectly at a loss to know what law, 
 martial, municipal, or national, was violated. 
 Against what law had they offended ? He was 
 not certain that he perfectly understood what 
 was martial law in this country. Were he to 
 view it in the light that it had been explained 
 and enforced by some, he must be compelled to 
 consider it as of paramount authority indeed ; 
 so high in its nature as that it could be made to 
 suspend the constitution itself. He had not yet 
 obtained his consent to give it this omnipotent 
 effect, and he hoped he never should. He had 
 thought, and yet believed, until he could have 
 some proofs to the contrary, that it was con- 
 tained in that body of laws established by the 
 Congress of the United States for the govern- 
 ment of the army, commonly called the " Rules 
 and Articles of War." If he was correct in 
 this opinion, (and he presumed no gentleman 
 would controvert it,) he had searched in vain 
 (and he had used no little industry to discover) 
 for that clause against which Arbuthnot and 
 Ambrister had offended, in the commission of 
 the acts charged against them, and for which 
 they were convicted. It was true, there was a 
 clause subjecting to death those who should be 
 convicted of being "spies." But, although 
 these men, or one of them,, was charged with 
 this, yet he was acquitted of that charge, and 
 for that reason it would be unnecessary to take 
 further notice of it. The offence for which 
 they were convicted and suffered death, was 
 that of " exciting and stirring up the Creek In- 
 dians to war against the United States and her 
 citizens, they being subjects of Great Britain, 
 with whom the United States are at peace ; " 
 " of aiding, abetting, and comforting the enemy, 
 and supplying them with the means of war f" 
 " and leading and commanding the Lower 
 Creeks in carrying on war against the United 
 States." Admit the truth of the facts contained 
 in these charges, are they declared penal in any 
 
 part of the rules and articles of war? Or are 
 they therein declared to be proper subject 
 matters for trial before a court-martial? If 
 they were not, it followed, as a consequence, 
 that the commanding General had transcended 
 his powers in ordering the court, and that the 
 court itself had stretched its powers to an un- 
 warrantable length, in acting upon matters not 
 cognizable before them. It would be arguing 
 to little purpose to prove, that the crimes con- 
 tained in these charges were not embraced in 
 the rules and articles of war. It would be suffi- 
 cient, at present, simply to deny that they were, 
 until those who differed from him in opinion at- 
 tempted to prove the affirmative of the question. 
 
 Mr. C. thought it would be an attempt equally 
 fruitless to prove that the matters charged 
 against these individuals constituted an offence 
 against national law, for which they were an- 
 swerable before a court-martial. He did not 
 profess to be deeply read in the law of nations. 
 He had, however, searched, in the hope that he 
 could find some justification for this most novel 
 proceeding, all the writers on that subject, upon 
 whose works he had been able to lay his hands. 
 He had commenced and prosecuted this search 
 under the most anxious wish for success. It 
 had been an object of great solicitude with him 
 to rescue both the court and the General who 
 ordered it, from the imputation of injustice. 
 He had been compelled to desist, chagrined and 
 disappointed. If any other gentleman had been 
 fortunate, he should rejoice to learn it. He cer- 
 tainly could have no wish to remain in error. 
 
 The next point occupied by Mr. COBB was as 
 to the evidence under which both, or one of 
 these men, were convicted. He should not say 
 much upon it, for he did not intend to analyze 
 it. He had understood, and no doubt correctly, 
 that the rules of evidence, in courts-martial, 
 differed very little, in principle, from those es- 
 tablished in the courts of common law. It was 
 so declared, he believed, by the only American 
 authority (Macomb on 'Martial Law) that he 
 knew any thing of, on that subject. He pre- 
 sumed it would not be denied. But, sir, said 
 he, if we test the evidence produced in those 
 trials by these rules, we shall blush at "the 
 shameful perversion of justice therein displayed. 
 The evidence of papers, not produced or ac- 
 counted for, the belief of persons whose testi- 
 mony of facts ought to have been doubted, 
 hearsay, and that of Indians, negroes or others, 
 who, had they been present, could not have 
 been sworn, were all indiscriminately admitted 
 and acted upon. Miserable, indeed, will be the 
 precedents established by this court-martial for 
 others which may hereafter be formed ! More 
 need not be said on this subject. 
 
 Mr. 0. next called the attention of the com- 
 mittee to the sentence under which Ambrister 
 was executed. He had strong doubts whether, 
 upon giving a fair construction to the Rules and 
 Articles of War, the proceedings of the court 
 martial ought not to have been laid before the 
 President of the United States before the sen-
 
 230 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 The Seminde War. 
 
 [JANUARY, 1819. 
 
 tence was carried into effect. But he waived 
 the examination of this question. It seems that 
 the court first sentenced Ambrister to be shot ; 
 but one of the members having asked a recon- 
 sideration of the sentence, before the proceed- 
 ings were submitted to the commanding General 
 it was allowed, and another punishment awarded 
 as ignominious in its nature as imagination 
 could well conceive, but which yet spared life. 
 Now, will it be contended that this reconsider- 
 ation and change of sentence did not, to all in- 
 tents and purposes, render null and void the 
 first sentence ? Can it be said, with any truth, 
 that there was any other sentence than the one 
 last passed in the case ? But, unfortunately, the 
 first sentence was not erased from the proceed- 
 ings of the court. It is there found by the 
 General, when they were submitted to him, 
 and, by a high stretch of power, he avails him- 
 self of it " approves the finding and first sen- 
 tence disapproves of the reconsideration and 
 last sentence," and directs the man to be exe- 
 cuted ! To me, sir, said Mr. C., this proceeding 
 has upon its face a cruelty that excites my 
 greatest disapprobation. The last thing to 
 which Mr. 0. would call the attention of the 
 committee was the principle by which the com- 
 manding General professes to have been gov- 
 erned in ordering the execution of Ambrister, 
 and which, in its extent, as contended by the 
 report of the committee under consideration, 
 applied with equal force to the case of Arbuth- 
 not. It is in these words : " It is an established 
 principle of the law of nations, that any indi- 
 vidual of a nation making war against the citi- 
 zens of another nation, they being at peace, for- 
 feits his allegiance, and becomes an outlaw and 
 a pirate." The Military Committee, in their 
 report, have very properly denied the establish- 
 ment of any such principle in the law of nations. 
 Sir, said Mr. 0., I boldly challenge any man of 
 common sense to prove the existence of such 
 a principle to the extent it is here laid down. 
 Keason, propriety, justice, and humanity, all cry 
 aloud against such a principle ! So far as my 
 researches have gone, it is absolutely denied by 
 the writers on national law ; and I sincerely 
 hope will be absolutely denied by every 
 member of this committee. If this princi 
 ciple was true, then La Fayette, De Kalb, Pu- 
 laski, and a large host of foreigners, who joined 
 the standard of our fathers in the Revolution, 
 and, by their blood, and at the expense of their 
 lives, aided in the establishment of the inde- 
 pendence of this nation, were " outlaws and 
 pirates ;" and, had they been captured, were 
 subject to have been tried and sentenced 
 to an ignominious death by a court-martial. 
 For, when they entered our service, they were 
 " individuals of a nation at peace" with Eng- 
 land, and they, after they joined our arms, 
 " made war upon England and her citizens, and 
 thereby forfeited their allegiance." Sir, is this 
 committee prepared to brand these men with the 
 titles of " outlaws and pirates," by their sanction 
 to this principle ? I will not yet believe it. 
 
 But, it may be said, that these Englishmen, 
 having "joined a savage nation, who observe no 
 rules, and give no quarter," we have a right to 
 treat them precisely as we might treat the sav- 
 ages whom they have joined, and that we would 
 have a right to put the savages to death, upon 
 a principle of retaliation. Let this position for 
 a moment be admitted, and yet it will be evi- 
 dent that the principle under which we should 
 proceed would be a very different one to wit, 
 that of retaliation. For even savages cannot 
 regularly be put to death, until they refuse ' to 
 observe rules or give quarter." In order that 
 the principle established by General Jackson 
 may be applied, it must undergo a material 
 amendment. Instead of the words in which it 
 is couched, it should read thus " It is an estab- 
 lished principle of the law of nations, that any 
 individual of a nation, joining savages and bar- 
 barians who observe no rules and give no quar- 
 ter, and making war against the citizens of 
 another nation, they being at peace, becomes 
 himself a savage and barbarian, and may be 
 treated as such." Under such a principle, there 
 would have been more justice (humanity being 
 out of the question) in putting Ambrister and 
 Arbuthnot to death. 
 
 Mr. C. then proceeded to inquire, whether tho 
 commanding General of the American army 
 possessed the power to exercise the right of re- 
 taliation ? If in its exercise there is any re- 
 sponsibility, he contended it was placed upon 
 the nation. They were accountable to all other 
 nations for the manner in which they conducted 
 their wars. To the nation, therefore, it belong- 
 ed, to establish the rules of war, by which it 
 would be governed ; and the authority by which 
 they were to be established, was that in whose 
 hands was vested the right of declaring war. 
 In their establishment, the character of the na- 
 tion for justice, for humanity, &c., was deeply 
 involved. Who, he asked, were the legitimate 
 guardians of the character of this nation, but 
 Congress the war-declaring power? Mr. C. 
 thought he was not singular in this opinion. 
 He believed that the late President of the Unit- 
 ed States, the virtuous James Madison, was of 
 the same opinion. For when, during the late 
 war, it was thought necessary to apply the re- 
 taliatory principle, did he believe himself clothed 
 with power to do it, although Commander-in- 
 chief? No he believed it was in Congress 
 alone. To Congress he applied for the power, 
 and, by a special act, they conferred it on him. 
 Mr. C. thought this case should be considered as 
 conclusive authority. 
 
 TUESDAY, January 19. 
 
 The Seminole War. 
 
 The House then again resolved itself into a 
 Committee of the Whole, Mr. PITKIX in the 
 Chair, on this subject. 
 
 Mr. HOLMES, of Massachusetts, said the gen- 
 tleman from Georgia (Mr. COBB) having ap- 
 pealed to the common sense of the committee,
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 231 
 
 JANUARY, 1819.] 
 
 The Seminde War. 
 
 [H. or R. 
 
 he felt himself obliged, having some claim to 
 that very common and vulgar commodity, to 
 attempt to answer the gentleman's call. 
 
 This is not, said Mr. H., the only inducement. 
 The very handsome, able, and gentlemanly 
 manner in "which that gentleman has supported 
 his resolutions, entitles him to the particular 
 consideration of every member who differs from 
 him, and demands our utmost efforts to combat 
 his arguments and resist the force of his elo- 
 quence. 
 
 It is not, sir, because General Jackson has 
 acquired so much glory in defence of his conn- 
 try's rights that I defend him it is not for the 
 splendor of his achievements or the brilliancy 
 of his character. I would not compromit the 
 rights and liberties of my country to screen any 
 man, however respectable. If General Jackson 
 has been ambitious, I would restrain him ; if 
 cruel, I would correct him ; if he is proud, I 
 would humble him ; if he is tyrannical, I would 
 disarm him. And yet, I confess, it would re- 
 quire pretty strong proof to produce conviction 
 that he has intentionally done wrong. At his 
 age of life, crowned with the honors and loaded 
 with the gratitude of his country, what ade- 
 quate motive could induce him to tarnish his 
 glory by acts of cruelty and revenge ? 
 
 Nor am I disposed to become the advocate of 
 Executive usurpation. If the President of the 
 United States has encroached upon the rights 
 of the people, or usurped a power not granted 
 by the constitution, it is our duty, as the guar- 
 dians of those rights, to correct the mischief 
 and preserve the Republic. And yet, it would 
 be difficult to imagine an adequate motive to 
 induce the President to trample upon the con- 
 stitutional liberties of the people. His life has 
 been constantly devoted to the liberties, pros- 
 perity, and honor of his country. He receives 
 his reward in the gratitude and confidence of 
 the people. The chief of the only free people 
 on earth, I could scarcely imagine that he has 
 an inducement to do wrong, much less to pros- 
 trate the fabric of freedom which his own hands 
 have contributed to erect. 
 
 I assure the gentleman from Georgia that, in 
 endeavoring to anticipate the arguments of the 
 friends of General Jackson and the President, 
 he has not anticipated me. I admit, in the 
 outset, that the President has no right to com- 
 mence a war, even against Indians. And I 
 further admit, that, if a treaty* between this and 
 another nation be violated by the other party, 
 and the violation is not itself an act of war, but 
 such as would justify hostilities on our part, the 
 President has no right to commence these hos- 
 tilities without the consent of Congress. If, 
 with these admissions, the President and Gen- 
 eral Jackson cannot bo defended, they cannot, 
 in my opinion, be defended at all. 
 
 It is, then, incumbent on me to show that the 
 Indians commenced the war. I shall not detain 
 the committee long on this point at present, as 
 I shall be obliged to examine it more particu- 
 larly in discussing another part of the subject. 
 
 It cannot, however, sir, have escaped the recol- 
 lection of the members of this House, that the 
 aggressions of those Seminoles were loudly com- 
 plained of by the people of Georgia. Scarcely 
 a newspaper from the South but was filled with 
 dismal accounts of Indian massacres ; scarcely 
 a breeze but wafted to our ears the dangers, 
 distresses, and murders of the people on the 
 frontiers of Georgia. Were these all groundless 
 rumors and false alarms? Were the Georgians, 
 in fact, the aggressors? The gentleman from 
 Georgia can answer the question. 
 
 On the 9th of August, 1814, a treaty was 
 signed at Fort Jackson between the United 
 States and most of the chiefs and warriors of 
 the Creek Nation. By this treaty certain lands 
 were ceded to the United States, and the inhab- 
 itants of the frontiers understood that the war 
 was ended. But it was soon found that several 
 of the hostile Creeks, and the Seminoles, had, 
 within the limits of Florida, associated for the 
 purpose of commencing hostilities against the 
 United States. By the instigation and aid of a 
 certain Colonel Nicholls, a fort was erected on 
 the Appalachicola, and within the province of 
 East Florida, to facilitate their hostile designs. 
 At this place were assembled a motley banditti 
 of negroes, Indians, and fugitives from all na- 
 tions, and trained and instructed in the arts of 
 robbery and murder. The people of the United 
 States soon felt the effects of their vengeance. 
 Several families, including women and children, 
 were barbarously murdered. In 1816 a boat's 
 crew were cruelly butchered, one of whom was 
 tarred, set on fire, and burnt to death. On the 
 30th of November last, Lieutenant Scott and 
 his party, consisting of about fifty men, women, 
 and children, were murdered in a manner too 
 shocking to describe. In this exigency, what 
 was to be done ? 
 
 The Constitution of the United States makes 
 the President the Commander-in-chief of the 
 army and of the militia, when called into the 
 service of the United States. It vests in Con- 
 gress the power to provide for calling out the 
 militia to suppress insurrections and repel inva- 
 sions. The act of Congress of the 28th of Feb- 
 ruary, 1795, provides that, whenever the United 
 States shall be invaded, or in imminent danger 
 of invasion, the President may call out any por- 
 tion of the militia to repel the meditated attack, 
 and, to this end, may direct his orders to any 
 officer of the militia, without a requisition upon 
 the Governors of the States. The framers of 
 the constitution, by authorizing the President 
 to repel invasion, did not intend that he should 
 wait until it should have taken place. Should 
 invasion impend, it was essential that the Pres- 
 ident should have the power to prevent it. The 
 preposterous doctrine that the invasion must 
 take place before the militia can be called for, 
 is, I trust, long since exploded. This act is an 
 exposition of this clause hi the constitution, ac- 
 quiesced in ever since the year 1795. The 
 President, then, may employ the militia with- 
 out a special authority from Congress, when
 
 232 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 The Seminole War. 
 
 [JANUARY, 1819. 
 
 tLere is invasion, or danger of it; and he can 
 use the army as well as the militia. He is their 
 Commander-in-chief, and though the act to 
 which I have just referred does not specially 
 authorize him to employ the standing army for 
 these purposes, yet it is manifest that our regu- 
 lar troops would never have beeen placed on 
 our frontiers in time of peace, if they could not 
 bo employed by the President, to repel invasion, 
 without an act of Congress. If the army of the 
 United States, during invasion, were to remain 
 inactive until Congress could be convened to 
 authorize them to act, they would be worse 
 than useless. Though I am not in the habit of 
 placing much reliance on the admissions of my 
 opponents, I trust it will not be insisted that 
 the President has not the power to employ the 
 army for the same purposes as the militia. 
 
 The war having been commenced by the 
 Seminoles and their associates, and the Presi- 
 dent of the United States having the power, by 
 the Constitution and laws of the United States, 
 to meet and repel the enemy, the inquiry is im- 
 portant, on what ground he may meet them. 
 I differ from many gentlemen in regard to the 
 political rights of the Indians. Whatsoever 
 may be their rights in peace, either by natural 
 or conventional law, in war I deem them as 
 sovereign. Their residence within the limits 
 of the United States, limits to which they have 
 never assented, neither brings them within our 
 protection nor entitles us to their allegiance. 
 The laws of the United States have no operation 
 upon them, and if they levy war they are not 
 punishable as traitors. A tribe of Indians, 
 whose territory is exclusively within our limits, 
 may wage war and make peace with us ; pur- 
 sue, capture, and destroy us ; send and receive 
 flags ; grant and receive capitulations, and are 
 entitled to a reciprocation of every act of civil- 
 ized warfare, and subject to the same rules of 
 severity and retaliation as other nations. To 
 invade their territory and cross their line is, as 
 to them, passing out of the limits of the United 
 States. And, if General Jackson ha.d no right, 
 in this war, to cross the Florida line, neither 
 had he a right to cross the Indian line within 
 our limits. If there is any force in the argu- 
 ment so often urged on other occasions, that 
 every war of invasion is an offensive war, and 
 one, consequently, which the President could 
 not wage without the authority of Congress ; 
 then, it follows, that Congress must declare war 
 before the President can march the militia 
 across the Indian line, even within the limits of 
 the United States. But such a construction of 
 the constitution is totally inadmissible. When 
 war is commenced by savages, it becomes the 
 duty of the President to repel and punish them. 
 To follow them to the line affords us no securi- 
 ty. The invasion cannot be effectually repelled 
 but by pursuing them into their own territory, 
 and retaliating on them there. Such has been 
 the uniform construction of the power of the 
 President, ever since the adoption of the con- 
 stitution. In no instance that I recollect has 
 
 Congress declared war against an Indian tribe. 
 The defeat of St. Clair, and subsequent victory 
 of Wayne, were on Indian territory. The bat- 
 tle at Tippecanoe (fought by my friend from 
 Ohio, with so much honor to himself and satis- 
 faction to his country) was within the limits of 
 the Indian nation. In neither of these instances 
 was a declaration of war deemed necessary by 
 Congress. 
 
 If, then, it be true that this war was com- 
 menced by these savages, we have brought 
 General Jackson and his army up to the Florida 
 line, and, I trust, without any material violation 
 of the Constitution or laws of the United States. 
 Let us now stop and examine the ground on the 
 other side before we attempt to pass it. 
 
 The territory of Florida, which the General 
 and his troops are about to enter, from St. 
 Marks to Pensacola in length, and from the 
 United States to the Gulf in breadth, compre- 
 hends, probably, not less than 10,000 square 
 miles. Spain claims a jurisdiction over this 
 tract, as comprehended within the two prov- 
 inces ; and it includes, I am told, about 3,000 
 Spaniards in all 2,500 of whom are in and 
 about Pensacola, and the residue scattered on 
 the Choctaw River, and a few trading families 
 on the Appalachicola. The number of Indians 
 there cannot be well ascertained, but far ex- 
 ceeds the white population. The possessions 
 of the Spaniards are exceedingly limited, and 
 their jurisdiction is merely nominal. The In- 
 dians have, in fact, the possession and the con- 
 trol. 
 
 But suppose we admit that the Spaniards and 
 Indians have a concurrent jurisdiction. This is 
 the most that can be pretended. And upon 
 this hypothesis, what are the rights of the 
 United States ? The territory of these Indians 
 is on both sides of the Florida line. Their 
 possessions and residence are transient and am- 
 bulatory, without regard to this line. The na- 
 tion, if such they may be called, is at war with 
 us, and in this war they can occupy their terri- 
 tory in Florida in spite of Spain. Singular, in- 
 deed, would it be, if we should be engaged in 
 war with an enemy who had a perfect right to 
 be where we had no right to meet him. Spain 
 claims a jurisdiction to a territory occupied by 
 our enemy ; she has no power nor inclination 
 to expel him, and yet it is gravely said this en- 
 emy cannot be pursued to this territory without 
 an act of hostility against Spain. Unfortunate, 
 indeed, would be the condition of the United 
 States, if a horde of unprincipled banditti, hold- 
 ing a residence on our borders, could prosecute 
 a cruel and exterminating war upon our citi- 
 zens, and then take refuge across an ideal line, 
 where the laws of nations forbid us to approach 
 them. Sir, let gentlemen tell me of another 
 instance where your enemy has a right to per- 
 fect security against your approach. It would 
 be a war of a peculiar character, where one side 
 only gives the blows. 
 
 Why, then, should not General Jackson and 
 his army cross ? Will any gentleman point to
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 233 
 
 JANUARY, 1819.] 
 
 The Seminole War. 
 
 [H. OK R. 
 
 me the clause in the Constitution or laws of the 
 United States that forbids him? Nay, more, 
 can any one offer a reason why he should not 
 pass into Florida, which would not equally for- 
 bid his crossing the Indian line within the lim- 
 its of the United States ? It would be prepos- 
 terous and absurd to contend that you could not 
 pursue your enemy to any refuge to which he 
 is entitled. The Seminoles, then, being ene- 
 mies, and having a right in Florida beyond the 
 control of Spain, the inference is irresistible that 
 you have a right to pursue and fight them there 
 in your own defence. 
 
 General Jackson having crossed into Florida, 
 for the purpose of meeting and fighting the Sem- 
 inoles, what are his duties towards those who 
 profess an allegiance to Spain ? The case is pe- 
 culiar, and, perhaps, stands on its own founda- 
 tion. It is difficult to illustrate it by analogy. 
 While we are on enemy's, we are, in some 
 sense, on neutral ground. The ocean being the 
 highway of nations, all having concurrent juris- 
 diction, it is possible a case may there be found 
 affording an illustration. You discover your 
 enemy 1 s fleet at a distance. On approaching it 
 you perceive neutrals intermixed. Some are 
 of a doubtful character, wearing the neutral 
 flag, but exhibiting other symptoms of a bel- 
 ligerent character. Some seem engaged in 
 affording facilities to the enemy to defend them- 
 selves or to escape. In such a case you are 
 bound to exercise your discretion, and to cap- 
 ture all those of a suspicious character. Should 
 you mistake, it is not your fault, but the misfor- 
 tune or folly of the neutral in being found in 
 company with your enemy, in a situation to ex- 
 cite suspicion. A discretion, therefore, must 
 rest with a commander to discriminate. In the 
 ordinary case of invading the country of a civil- 
 ized nation, the commanding general is obliged 
 to distinguish between the public and private 
 property, and between combatants and non- 
 combatants. There are situations in which it 
 is extremely difficult to determine, and it not 
 unusually happens that this power of discrim- 
 ination necessarily devolves on the subordinate 
 officer, and even soldiers, whereby many of the 
 innocent and unoffending are made to suffer. 
 
 When General Jackson marched his army 
 into a country where he must necessarily find 
 neutrals as well as enemies, the right of discrim- 
 ination devolved on him. If a Spaniard was 
 found in the ranks of the enemy, aiding and as- 
 sisting in hostilities, he was bound to consider 
 him as an enemy. If the guns of a fort were 
 turned against him, or the fort used by the In- 
 dians as a post of annoyance, he had a right to 
 consider the soldiers there as associated and 
 identified with the enemy, and to wrest from 
 their hands the means of hostility. Even 
 should he mistake, he is not subject to censure, 
 but it is the misfortune of the neutral in being 
 associated with our enemy, and placed in a situ- 
 ation where suspicion might attach. But, sir, I 
 by no means admit that General Jackson needs 
 such an apology in this case. I will prove that 
 
 the Spaniards in Florida were identified with 
 the Indians, and the posts taken by Jackson 
 were under Indian control. I will prove that 
 the Spanish officers and inhabitants in Florida 
 have conducted most treacherously, pretending 
 to a neutrality which they have constantly vio- 
 lated. I will show to the committee, by proofs 
 incontestable, that the local authorities were 
 the exciters, promoters, and prosecutors of the 
 war, and furnished the means of carrying it on. 
 
 I lay Spain out of the question. Poor, mis- 
 erable, degraded Spain, too weak and palsied to 
 act or think ! She has but the shadow of au- 
 thority there, and, so far from being able to 
 control the Indians, or even her own subjects, 
 the country, as to her, is a perfect derelict. I 
 will ask this committee to go back with me to 
 the year 1813, and from that period to the cap- 
 ture of Pensacola, to witness the Spanish officers 
 exciting the Indians to vengeance, furnishing 
 them with the arms and munitions of war, 
 tamely acquiescing in the most flagrant viola- 
 tions of their pretended neutrality, and suffering 
 the territory to be prostituted to every banditti 
 who might be disposed to annoy or distress the 
 people of the United States. 
 
 Sir, before I proceed to an account of these 
 transactions, allow me to subjoin a few remarks 
 in reply to what has been said relative to the 
 conduct of the Executive in engaging in this 
 war. The gentleman from Georgia apprehends 
 that the President has violated the constitution. 
 During the last session of Congress, it was 
 known that this war could not be terminated 
 without marching the troops into Florida. The 
 President of the United States, in his Message 
 of 25th March, and four weeks before the ses- 
 sion closed, informed this House that he had 
 issued orders to General Gaines to cross into 
 Florida, to pursue and chastise the enemy, but 
 to respect the Spanish authority where it was 
 maintained. We acquiesced ; we appropriated 
 the money to pay the militia, and without a 
 whisper of disapprobation. 
 
 Connected with this part of the subject, I re- 
 gret to be obliged to notice an intimation from 
 the gentleman from Georgia, that General Jack- 
 son might possibly have orders from the Presi- 
 dent different from those communicated to this 
 House. Sir, though the gentleman did not state 
 that he believed this, yet, when a member 'of 
 this House will intimate that it is even possible 
 that the President of the United States has 
 practised such duplicity, and will endeavor to 
 show evidence of the grounds of such intima- 
 tion, it becomes our imperious duty to inquire. 
 If the President has given to General Jackson 
 one set of orders, and imposed upon us a differ- 
 ent set, he has practised a hypocrisy utterly un- 
 pardonable, and he ought to be exposed to the 
 indignation of the American people. What, 
 then, I repeat, can be the ground of this' sug- 
 gestion? The gentleman quotes the letter of 
 the Secretary of War to Governor Bibb, of the 
 13th May, stating that General Jackson had full 
 powers to prosecute the war at his discretion,
 
 234 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 The Seminole War. 
 
 [JANUARY, 1819. 
 
 and, as we have seen no such full power to 
 General Jackson, he leaves us to infer that the 
 document is withheld. A brief statement of 
 the facts will, I trust, explain this mystery, even 
 to the satisfaction of the gentleman from Geor- 
 gia. The Secretary's letter of 16th December 
 last authorizes Gaines to cross into Florida, un- 
 der the restriction as to Spanish fortresses. His 
 letter to Jackson, of the 26th of the same 
 month, directs him, to whom the command was 
 now transferred, to concentrate his forces and 
 adopt the necessary measures to bring the war 
 to a speedy conclusion. Governor Bibb, not 
 knowing of the orders to Gaines, on the 15th 
 April, 1818, writes to the Secretary that he has 
 no authority to pass the Florida line, and wish- 
 ing for orders. The Secretary, on the 13th 
 May, replied, that the orders to Gaines to cross 
 were sufficient for him, and then adds, that 
 General Jackson had full powers to conduct 
 the war. Taking all these letters together, can 
 there be a doubt of their meaning^ The au- 
 thority to cross was that given to Gaines and 
 transferred to Jackson on his assuming the 
 command; and the full power, mentioned in 
 the letter to Bibb, was that vested in Jackson 
 by the letter of the 26th December, and meant 
 and intended nothing more than that Jackson 
 was Commander-in-chief in that quarter, and 
 that his powers were sufficiently extensive to 
 accomplish the object of his appointment. Can 
 gentlemen find in all this sufficient ground to 
 suspect the President of fraudulently suppress- 
 ing a document? Were the gentleman a judge 
 or juror, could he find in this sufficient to con- 
 vict, or even to cast a well-grounded suspicion 
 upon the meanest wretch who crawls in the 
 filth of society? And yet this is offered as 
 ground of inquiry against your President! Sir, 
 is it liberal, is it candid, is it charitable, is it 
 magnanimous ? 
 
 Sir, who are we? Are we the people, or, 
 like the President, the servants of the people ? 
 And, should we suggest such suspicions on such 
 evidence, may not these same people call us to 
 an account for a malicious prosecution without 
 probable cause against their President and 
 friend ? I do not profess to predict what would 
 be their decision, but I confess I should be un- 
 willing to submit to them such a question on 
 such evidence. 
 
 Mr. T. M. NELSON, of Virginia, said it had 
 been his intention, when the Committee of the 
 "Whole on the state of the Union first took np 
 the report which was now the subject of -delib- 
 eration, to have stated briefly the view taken 
 by the majority of the Military Committee who 
 concurred in the report ; but, not having been 
 so fortunate as to get the floor, he had been 
 obliged to delay doing so until now. I should 
 not, said he, have obtruded any remarks upon 
 you -now, sir, had the report the aid of the 
 chairman, who has so faithfully presided over 
 the Military Committee ever since he has oc- 
 cupied that station ; but, I regret to say, we 
 differed in opinion on this occasion. 
 
 I believe I am correct in stating that that 
 part of the subject to which the report is con- 
 fined, is the only one on which a majority of 
 the committee could be united; and, as the 
 other branch of it might fairly be considered to 
 be in the hands of another committee of this 
 House, a reason was found for passing it over 
 in silence. I moreover acknowledge that, al- 
 though I did, previous to the decision of the 
 committee, disapprove the proceedings against 
 Pensacola and Barancas, as unauthorized and 
 unnecessary, I felt a doubt whether the capture 
 of St. Marks might not be justified, upon tho 
 plea of necessity ; but that is dispelled by a 
 more minute examination of the documents. A 
 reference to the letter from the commanding 
 officer at St. Marks, to General Jackson, bear- 
 ing date April 7, 1818, to be found page 67 of 
 the documents on the Seminole war, and which 
 had escaped my recollection, shows that there 
 was no necessity for the capture of that post, to 
 preserve it from falling into the hands of the 
 Indians; the apprehension of which seems to 
 be the original cause of General Jackson's de- 
 sign to take it. And, sir, if for the peace of the 
 United States, it was important that St. Marks 
 should not fall into the hands of the enemy, the 
 proposition made to General Jackson, in the 
 letter I have alluded to, to leave a force in its 
 vicinity, with which the Spanish troops would 
 co-operate, to effect that object, appears to me 
 amply sufficient for every purpose of security 
 and defence. General Jackson thought differ- 
 ently; he thought "St. Marks was necessary, 
 as a depot, to insure success, and he occupied 'it 
 with an American force." 
 
 The gentleman (Mr. HOLMES) who preceded 
 me in this debate, has gone into a long train of 
 reasoning to show that Spain has given us just 
 cause of war, and thence infers that General 
 Jackson had a right to take possession of the 
 Spanish garrisons in West Florida. Sir, I am 
 not the apologist of Spain ; I wish to be dis- 
 tinctly understood to say, that to Spain we are 
 under no obligations for General Jackson's con- 
 duct while in her territory. When the gentle- 
 man, who is chairman of the Committee on 
 Foreign Kelations, shall offer a proposition to 
 go to war with Spain, it will be time enough 
 to inquire whether we have just cause of war 
 against her; but there would be many other 
 points of discussion, besides the mere justifica- 
 tion or cause of war. Would it be politic, would 
 it be magnanimous, to make war upon a de- 
 graded, enfeebled enemy ? These are questions 
 which I am not called upon at this time to de- 
 cide. Sir, the question now before us is, whe- 
 ther a war has existed between the United 
 States and Spain, and by whose authority. 
 That a war has been prosecuted by General 
 Jackson, against the Spanish authority in West 
 Florida, can be established by his own repre- 
 sentation. I refer you to the capitulation en- 
 tered into by General Jackson and the Govern or 
 of Pensacola, " which, with the exception of one 
 article, amounts to a complete cession of the
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 235 
 
 JANUARY, 1819.] 
 
 The Seminole War. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 country to the United States," to use the Gen- 
 eral's own language. How, sir, was this effect- 
 ed ? By the American Army, commanded by 
 General Jackson. Was it in compliance with 
 the wish and desire of the Spanish commander ? 
 No, sir ; it was in direct opposition to his warn- 
 ing, that he would repel force by force ; which 
 General Jackson says " was so open an indica- 
 tion of hostile feeling " on the part of the Gov- 
 ernor, that he no longer hesitated on the means 
 to be adopted. " I marched for and entered 
 Pensacola, with only the show of resistance." 
 In his letter of the 2d of June, to the Secretary 
 of War, he details all the minutia of investing 
 the fortress of Barancas; of making a lodg- 
 ment under the fire of the garrison ; of mount- 
 ing nine-pounder and hoAvitzer batteries ; and 
 such other incidents as are attendant on most 
 battles between civilized nations. Mr. Chair- 
 man, if this be not war, I have always misun- 
 derstood the term, although three years a soldier 
 during what was then called war. 
 
 General Jackson, speaking of the captured 
 garrison, says, " the terms were more favorable 
 than a conquered enemy would have merited." 
 He goes on, in the same letter, to state the kind 
 of government ho had established, appointing 
 revenue and other officers, putting the revenue 
 laws of the United States in force ! By what 
 authority has all this been done, Mr. Chairman ? 
 Has it been the effect of any act of Congress, 
 where the power alone is vested by the consti- 
 tution ? It is not necessary to refer to that in- 
 strument to show, that to Congress alone belongs 
 the war-making power ; every gentleman who 
 hears me knows it to be so ; nor will I consent 
 to partition it. The inevitable result of every 
 gentleman's unbiassed inquiry will be, that a 
 war has been waged against a foreign power by 
 the United States without the sanction of Con- 
 gress, where alone the right and the power con- 
 stitutionally exists. And, in this act of war, I 
 witness, to regret and deplore, the most un- 
 qualified infraction of the constitution that has 
 ever occurred since its adoption. Shall we, sir, 
 who represent the sovereignty of the nation, 
 tamely fold our arms and acquiesce in the vio- 
 lation of that sacred instrument, which by our 
 oaths and our interests we are bound to sup- 
 port and maintain ? I trust not. Let us apply 
 the only remedy in our power, censure the pro- 
 ceedings, and enact other laws which cannot be 
 misconstrued. I fear even this remedy will 
 prove inefficient ; the constitution, to my mind, 
 is so plain and explicit on this point, that he 
 who runs may read. 
 
 Mr. JOHXSOX, of Virginia, said it was with 
 sensations very different from those which are 
 pleasurable, that he entered on the invt-tiiru- 
 tion of the subject which claimed the attention 
 and deliberation of the committee. To be com- 
 pelled, said lie, to investigate the conduct of the 
 high and distinguished officers of the Govern- 
 ment, when warned and admonished by every 
 fact which meets my eye, that 1 shall be com- 
 pelled to disapprove that conduct, can never be 
 
 to me a pleasurable duty. As an American cit- 
 izen, as the Representative of a portion of the 
 people of the United States, it would be the 
 pride and pleasure of my heart to be enabled 
 always to prove the officers of my Government 
 right, and to prove the enemies of my country 
 and the enemies of liberty wrong. Before I 
 proceed, sir, I must notice a remark made by 
 the honorable gentleman from Massachusetts, 
 (Mr. HOLMES.) I am sorry that I do not see 
 the honorable gentleman in his seat. [Mr. 
 HOLMES rose.] He remarked that a malicious 
 prosecution had been commenced against the 
 President of the United States. I do not pre- 
 cisely understand the gentleman. By whom 
 has this malicious prosecution been commenced ? 
 [Here Mr. HOLMES rose and explained. He said 
 the remark was intended as a reply to an ob- 
 servation made on yesterday by an honorable 
 gentleman from Georgia, (Mr. COBB,) who 
 seemed to insinuate that some instruction given 
 to General Jackson had been suppressed.] Mr. 
 Chairman, I hold it to be a fundamental prin- 
 ciple, that every officer of this Government, 
 from the highest to the lowest, is responsible to 
 the people for the manner in which he has dis- 
 charged the duties of his office. It is on this 
 principle that the Government depends for its 
 perpetuity for its capacity to secure to the 
 people of the United States peace, prosperity, 
 liberty, and happiness. Is there any gentleman 
 who hears me that will question the truth of 
 this political maxim ? Is there any officer, how- 
 ever distinguished by station, or the splendor of 
 his public services, who is unwilling to submit 
 the investigation of his public acts to a candid, 
 deliberate, and decorous investigation by the 
 Representatives of the people? If there be 
 any such officer, I pronounce him a stranger, an 
 alien to the affections of the people, and that it 
 is time to get rid of him. The moment that 
 any officer of this Government denies that he is 
 responsible for the faithful and correct discharge 
 of his public duties, from that moment he be- 
 comes dangerous. Sir, I am arguing this ques- 
 tion on abstract principles. I have no reference 
 to individuals ; I have no feelings to gratify. I 
 presume that a high-minded honorable man, so 
 far from evading an investigation of his public 
 conduct, the moment he discovered the slightest 
 shade of suspicion hovering over the pure, faith- 
 ful, and legal discharge of his public duties, 
 would court investigation ; that he would pre- 
 sent himself at the bar of the public, and de- 
 mand an investigation of his conduct. 
 
 Had General Jackson the right to capture 
 Pensacola and the Barancas? Sir, I wish to 
 treat this question with the most perfect candor 
 and fairness. To save the trouble of frequent 
 references to books, I have transcribed from 
 Vattel's Law of Nations the strongest principles 
 in favor of the course pursued by the Com- 
 mander-in-chief. I have no question that there 
 are copies of Vattel's Law of Nations in the 
 House. If any gentleman doubts the correct- 
 ness of the quotations, I hope he will compare
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R,] 
 
 the text with the original. It is laid down by 
 Vattel, page 410, that " extreme necessity may 
 oven authorize the temporary seizure of a place 
 (in a neutral country) and the putting a garri- 
 Bon therein for defending itself against an enemy, 
 or preventing him in his designs of seizing this 
 place when the sovereign is not able to defend 
 it. But when the danger is over, it must be 
 immediately surrendered." Did this necessity 
 exist ? Was the existing state of affairs such as 
 would have authorized a commander, possessed 
 of plenary power, to have captured Pensacola 
 and the Barancas ? In order to ascertain the 
 facts necessary to a correct decision of this im- 
 portant question, I beg permission to refer the 
 honorable committee to the correspondence of 
 General Jackson with the Governor of Pensa- 
 cola and the Secretary of War. In the letter of 
 General Jackson, of the 2d June, 1818, to the 
 Secretary of War, will be found the following 
 statement : " The terms are more than a con- 
 quered enemy would have merited, but, under 
 the peculiar circumstances of the case, my ob- 
 ject obtained, there was no motive for wound- 
 ing^ihe feelings of those whose military pride or 
 honor had prompted to the resistance made. 
 The ' articles, with but one condition, amount 
 to a complete cession to the United States of 
 that portion of the Floridas hitherto under the 
 Government of Don Jose Massot.' Though the 
 Seminole Indians have been scattered, and, lit- 
 erally so, driven and reduced, and no longer to 
 be viewed as a formidable enemy, yet, as there 
 are many small marauding parties, supposed to 
 be concealed in the swamps of Perdido, Chocta- 
 \vhatchy, and Chapouly, who might make oc- 
 casional and sudden inroads on our frontier set- 
 tlers, massacreing women and children, I have 
 deemed it advisable to call into service for six 
 months, if not sooner discharged, two companies 
 of volunteer rangers, under Captains McGirt 
 and Boyles, with instructions to scour the conn- 
 try between the Mobile and Appalachicola Eiv- 
 ers, exterminating every hostile party who 
 dare resist, and will not surrender, and remove 
 with their families, above the 31st degree of 
 latitude." In this letter of the 25th of May, 
 1818, from General Jackson to Don Jose Mas- 
 sot, commanding the Barancas, will be found 
 the following important statement of facts : " I 
 have only to repeat that the Barancas must be 
 occupied by an American garrison ; and, again, 
 to tender you the terms offered, if amicably sur- 
 rendered. Resistance would be a wanton sac- 
 rifice of blood, for which you and your garrison 
 will have to atone. You cannot expect to de- 
 fend yourself successfully, and the first shot 
 from your fort must draw down upon you the 
 vengeance of an irritated soldiery. I am well 
 advised of your strength, and cannot but remark 
 on the inconsistency of presuming yourself ca- 
 pable of resisting an army which has conquered 
 the Indian tribes, too strong, agreeably to- your 
 own acknowledgment, to be controlled by you." 
 Mr. Chairman, after this statement of facts by 
 the commanding General, permit me to inquire 
 
 The Seminole War. 
 
 [JANUARY, 1819. 
 
 whether any member of this committee can be- 
 lieve that this extreme necessity existed, which 
 would authorize a General, in a neutral country, 
 temporarily to seize a place and put a garrison 
 therein, for defending himself against the enemy, 
 or preventing him in his designs of seizing this 
 place. What, sir ! after the Indian tribes had 
 been conquered, with whom was the General 
 waging war ? Not with Spain. Not with the 
 Indian tribes, because these tribes he had sub- 
 dued and conquered. Where, then, was the ne- 
 cessity, the urgent and extreme necessity, which 
 would have justified an absolute sovereign, on 
 whose fiat depended war and peace, in thus 
 forcibly possessing himself of these places and 
 posts in a neutral country ? 
 
 I proceed to examine into the propriety of 
 the course pursued on the trial and execution 
 of Arbuthnot and Ambrister. It is laid down 
 by Vattel, p. 416 : " An enemy not to be killed 
 after ceasing to resist." In the same page : "A 
 particular case excepted. Yet, as a prince or 
 his general has a right of sacrificing the life of 
 his enemies to his safety, and that of his men, 
 if he ia engaged with an inhuman enemy, who 
 frequently commits enormities, he appears to 
 have a right of refusing life to some of the pris- 
 oners he may take, and of treating them as his 
 were treated ; but Scipio's generosity is rather 
 to be imitated." Did Arbuthnot and Ambrister 
 come within the particular exception? I beg 
 attention to the careful and particular manner 
 in which this distinguished writer lays down 
 this important principle. The prince, for his 
 own safety, appears to have the right to take 
 the life of his prisoner. The general, for his 
 own safety, and that of his men, appears to 
 have the right to take the life of his prisoner. 
 This humane author seems disposed to guard 
 this dangerous principle as effectually as possi- 
 ble. It presents two distinct propositions. The 
 general, when in the field, at a distance from 
 his government, when his safety and that of 
 his men require it, appears (in the words of the 
 author) to have the right to take the life of his 
 prisoner. To justify the general in exercising 
 this high and important power of denying to an 
 unfortunate captive life, the safety of the gen- 
 eral and his men must really require the sacri- 
 fice. I can scarcely believe that it will be pre- 
 tended that the safety of the general or his 
 men required the execution of these prisoners. 
 Did, then, the safety of the prince (that is, in 
 this country, the people) require the execution 
 of these men ? Was it necessary to offer them 
 up on the altar of public safety to hold them 
 up as a terrible example to future instigators 
 and abettors of Indian wars ? If so, their fate 
 should have been referred to the people ; that 
 is, to their representatives to the Congress of 
 the United States. The commanding general 
 had no right, no authority, to decide the ques- 
 tion whether the safety of the people required 
 the sacrifice of these captives. We are told 
 and very seriously told that this execution of 
 prisoners may be justified on the principles of
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 237 
 
 JANUARY, 1819.] 
 
 The Seminok War. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 retaliation. What, retaliate the cruelties and 
 shocking barbarities of savages ! Not precisely 
 that sort of retaliation. You execute individ- 
 uals, not under the authority of the law of na- 
 tions, during the continuance of war, having 
 given notice to the enemy of the particular acts 
 of inhumanity which you mean to retaliate; 
 not for the purpose of punishing, through these 
 individuals, the nation with which they are 
 identified and fighting, but to punish them, as 
 individuals, for their crimes the crimes of aid- 
 ing and abetting and instigating Indian tribes 
 to war upon us ; not as an example to operate 
 on nations, but on individuals. And we are 
 seriously and gravely informed, by honorable 
 gentlemen, that an American general has au- 
 thority to execute individuals for individual 
 offences, as a warning to other individuals, 
 without the form of trial, and even contrary to 
 the sentence of the court., detailed by the gen- 
 eral himself, for the purpose of trying the of- 
 fenders. It is a doctrine unsupported by pre- 
 cedent and law, and is shocking to the princi- 
 ples of humanity. It may be said, as it was 
 remarked the other day by a gentleman from 
 Virginia, (Mr. NELSON,) that this is a sympathy 
 for miscreants a sympathy resulting from mor- 
 bid sensibility a sympathy for British subjects. 
 It is not so, Mr. Chairman. I have no sympa- 
 thy for British subjects. When I look at yon 
 ruin, (pointing to the Capitol ;) when I recollect 
 the massacre at the Kiver Raisin, Frenchtown, 
 and many other places in the United States, 
 during the late war, I recognize in the late 
 British forces, an enemy not less cruel and 
 savage than the Seminole Indians the out- 
 lawed Red Sticks. Acts of wanton and shock- 
 ing cruelty occur to me, at which my soul 
 sickens, and which I should have rejoiced to 
 see retaliated on the most distinguished officer 
 in the British army. What has been the opin- 
 ion v as deliberately expressed by this Govern- 
 ment, on the subject of retaliation? Did the 
 highest officer in this Government, during the 
 late war the Commander-in-chief of your 
 Army the President of the United States 
 consider himself vested with authority to re- 
 taliate the acts of cruelty perpetrated by the 
 enemy, or those threatened? The answer will 
 be furnished by referring to the act of Con- 
 gress, passed during that war, for the express 
 purpose of authorizing the President to retal- 
 iate. What has been, since the period of our 
 independence, the uniform and unvarying policy 
 pursued by this Government towards the Indian 
 tribes ? Has it been a policy tempered by mer- 
 cy, brightened by generosity, and ameliorated 
 by Christianity ? Have we been constantly en- 
 gaged in the humane work of civilizing them 
 of sending emissaries among them to preach 
 the Gospel to distribute the copies of the 
 Bible collected by different societies? Is this 
 policy to be suddenly changed, under the aus- 
 pices of General Jackson? Shall we, at the 
 close of a war of extermination, go through the 
 ceremony of appointing committees to meet 
 
 members from the Society cf Friends, to de- 
 vise the means of civilizing this unfortunate, 
 misguided, and deluded race of beings ? Such 
 committees have been appointed during the 
 present session. I have seen members of the 
 Society of Friends giving their willing attend- 
 ance. But Arbuthnot and Ambrister were 
 j Christian savages ; they were worse than the 
 Indians ; they were the exciters and instigators 
 of the war ; they deserved death. In a moral 
 point of view, I admit that the instigator to 
 acts of wickedness, and of dark, malignant, and 
 criminal character, is worse than the actor. 
 The question recurs, Had the General, on his 
 own authority, without trial, and against the 
 sentence of the court, the right to take the life 
 of his prisoner a prisoner completely in his 
 power from whose hands the weapons of 
 death the tomahawk and the scalping knife 
 had been stricken ? Were these men, accord- 
 ing to any known principle of the law of na- 
 tions, subject to any other or different treat- 
 ment, than the subjects or citizens of the na- 
 tion with which they had identified themselves, 
 and by whose sides they were fighting? Most 
 certainly not. . 
 
 WEDNESDAY, January 20. 
 The Seminole War. 
 
 The House again resolved itself into a Com- 
 mittee of the Whole on the state of the Union, 
 (Mr. PITKIN in the Chair,) on the report of the 
 Military Committee, disapproving the trial and 
 execution of Arbuthnot and Ambrister, with 
 the amendments proposed thereto. 
 
 Mr. CLAY (Speaker) rose. In rising to ad- 
 dress you, sir, said he, on the very interesting 
 subject which now engages the attention of 
 Congress, I must be allowed to say, that all in- 
 ferences, drawn from the course which it will 
 be my painful duty to take in this discussion, 
 of unfriendliness to either the Chief Magistrate 
 of the country, or to the illustrious military 
 chieftain, whose operations are under investi- 
 gation, will be wholly unfounded. Towards 
 that distinguished captain, who has shed so 
 much glory on our country, whose renown con- 
 stitutes so great a portion of its moral prop- 
 erty, I never had, I never can have, any other 
 feelings than those of the most profound re- 
 spect, and of the utmost kindness. With him 
 my acquaintance is very limited, but, so far as 
 it has extended, it has been of the most amica- 
 ble kind. I know, said Mr. C., the motives 
 which have been, and which will again be, at- 
 tributed to me, in regard to the other exalted 
 personage alluded to. They have been, and 
 will be, unfounded. I have no interest, other 
 than that of seeing the concerns of my country 
 well and happily administered. It is infinitely 
 more gratifying to behold the prosperity of my 
 country advancing, by the wisdom of the meas- 
 ures adopted to promote it, than it would be to 
 expose the errors which may be committed, if 
 there be any, in the conduct of its ali'uirs. Mr.
 
 238 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 The Seminole War. 
 
 [JANUARY, 1819. 
 
 0. said, little as had been his experience in pub- 
 lic life, it had been sufficient to teach him, that 
 the most humble station is surrounded by diffi- 
 culties and embarrassments. Rather than throw 
 obstructions in the way of the President, he 
 would precede him, and pick out those, if he 
 could, which might jostle him in his progress 
 he would sympathize-with him in his embar- 
 rassments, and commiserate with him in his 
 misfortunes. It was true, that it had been his 
 mortification to differ with that gentleman on 
 several occasions. He might be again reluct- 
 antly compelled to differ with him ; but he 
 would, with the utmost sincerity, assure the 
 committee, that he had formed no resolution, 
 come under no engagements, and that he never 
 would form any resolution, or contract any 
 engagement, for systematic opposition to his 
 Administration, or to that of any other Chief 
 Magistrate. 
 
 Mr. 0. begged leave further to premise, that 
 the subject under consideration presented two 
 distinct aspects, susceptible, in his judgment, of 
 the mcst clear and precise discrimination. The 
 one he would call its foreign, the other its do- 
 mestic, aspect. In regard to the first, he would 
 say, that he approved entirely of the conduct 
 of his Government, and that Spain had no cause 
 of complaint. Having violated an important 
 stipulation of the Treaty of 1795, that power 
 had justly subjected herself to all the conse- 
 quences which ensued upon the entry into her 
 dominions, and it belonged not to her to com- 
 
 Elain of those measures which resulted from her 
 reach of contract ; still less had she a right to 
 examine into the considerations connected with 
 the domestic aspect of the subject. 
 
 "What were the propositions before the com- 
 mittee? The first in order was that reported 
 by the Military Committee, which asserts the 
 disapprobation of this House of the proceedings 
 in the trial and execution of Arbuthnot and 
 Ambrister. The second, being the first con- 
 tained in the proposed amendment, was the 
 consequence of that disapprobation, and con- 
 templates the passage of a law to prohibit the 
 execution hereafter of any captive, taken by the 
 army, without the approbation of the President. 
 The third proposition was, that the House dis- 
 approves of the forcible seizure of the Spanish 
 posts, as contrary to orders, and in violation of 
 the constitution. The fourth proposition, as 
 the result of the last, is, that a law should pass 
 to prohibit the march of the army of the United 
 States, or any corps of it, into any foreign ter- 
 ritory, without the previous authorization of 
 Congress, except it be in fresh pursuit of a de- 
 feated enemy. The first and third were gen- 
 eral propositions, declaring the sense of the 
 House in regard to the evils pointed out; and 
 the second and fourth proposed the legisla- 
 tive remedies against the recurrence of those 
 evils. 
 
 It would be at once perceived, Mr. 0. said, 
 by this simple statement of the propositions, 
 that no other censure was proposed against 
 
 General Jackson himself, than what was merely 
 consequential. His name even did not appear 
 in any one of the resolutions. The Legislature 
 of the country, in reviewing the state of the 
 Union, and considering the events which have 
 transpired since its last meeting, finds that par- 
 ticular occurrences, of the greatest moment, in 
 many respects, had taken place near our south- 
 ern border. He would add, that the House 
 had not sought, by any officious interference 
 with the duties of the Executive, to gain juris- 
 diction over this matter. The President, in his 
 message at the opening of the session, com- 
 municated the very information on which it is 
 proposed to act. He would ask, for what pur- 
 pose ? That we should fold our arms, and yield 
 a tacit acquiescence, even if we supposed that in- 
 formation disclosed alarming events, not merely 
 as it regards the peace of the country, but in. 
 respect to its constitution and character? Im- 
 possible. In communicating these papers, and 
 voluntarily calling the attention of Congress to 
 the subject, the President must himself have 
 intended that we should apply any remedy that 
 we might be able to devise. Having the sub- 
 ject thus regularly and fairly before us, and 
 proposing merely to collect the sense of the 
 House upon certain important transactions 
 which it discloses, with the view to the passage 
 of such laws as may be demanded by the public 
 interest, he repeated, that there was no censure 
 anywhere, except such as was strictly conse- 
 quential upon our legislative action. The sup- 
 position of every new law, having for its object 
 to prevent the recurrence of evil, is, that some- 
 thing has happened which ought not to have 
 taken place, and no other than this indirect sort 
 of censure would flow from the resolutions 
 before the committee. 
 
 Having thus given his view of the nature and 
 character of the propositions under considera- 
 tion, Mr. 0. said he was far from intimating, 
 that it was not his purpose to go into a full, a 
 free, and a thorough investigation of the facts 
 and of the principles of law, public, municipal, 
 and constitutional, involved in them. And, 
 whilst he trusted he should speak with the de- 
 corum due to the distinguished officers of the 
 Government whose proceedings were to be ex- 
 amined, he should exercise the independence 
 which belonged to him as a representative of 
 the people, in freely and fully submitting his 
 sentiments. 
 
 In noticing the painful incidents of this war, 
 it was impossible not to inquire into its origin.- 
 He feared that would be found to be the famous 
 treaty of Fort Jackson, concluded in August, 
 1814 ; and he asked the indulgence of the Chair- 
 man that the Clerk might read certain parts of 
 that treaty. [The Clerk of the House having 
 accordingly read as requested, Mr. C. proceed- 
 ed.] He had never perused this instrument 
 until within a few days past, and he had read 
 it with the deepest mortification and regret. A 
 more dictatorial spirit he had never seen dis- 
 played in any instrument. He would challenge
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 239 
 
 JANUARY, 1819.] 
 
 The Seminole War. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 an examination of all the records of diplomacy, 
 not excepting even those in the most haughty 
 period of imperious Kome, when she was carry- 
 ing her arms into the barbarian nations that 
 surrounded her ; and he did not believe a soli- 
 tary instance could be found of such an inexo- 
 rable spirit of domination pervading a compact 
 purporting to be a treaty of peace. It consisted 
 of the most severe and humiliating demands 
 of the surrender of large territory of the privi- 
 lege of making roads through even what was 
 retained of the right of establishing trading- 
 houses of the obligation of delivering into our 
 hands their prophets. And all this, of a wretch- 
 ed people, reduced to the last extremity of dis- 
 tress, whose miserable existence we had to pre- 
 serve by a voluntary stipulation to furnish them 
 with bread! "When even did conquering and 
 desolating Rome fail to respect the altars and 
 the gods of those whom she subjugated! Let 
 me not be told that these prophets were im- 
 postors, who deceived the Indians. They were 
 their prophets the Indians believed and vene- 
 rated them, and it is not for us to dictate a re- 
 ligious belief to them. It does not belong to 
 the holy character of the religion which we 
 profess, to carry its precepts, by force of the 
 bayonet, into the bosoms of other people. Mild 
 and gentle persuasion was the great instrument 
 employed by the meek founder of our religion. 
 "We leave to the humane and benevolent efforts 
 of the reverend professors of Christianity to 
 convert from barbarism those unhappy nations 
 yet immersed in its gloom. But, sir, spare 
 them their prophets ! Spare their delusions ! 
 Spare their prejudices and superstitions ! Spare 
 them even their religion, such as it is, from 
 open and cruel violence. When, sir, was that 
 treaty concluded? On the very day, after the 
 protocol was signed, of the first conference be- 
 tween the American and British Commissioners, 
 treating of peace, at Ghent. In the course of 
 that negotiation, pretensions so enormous were 
 set up, by the other party, that, when they 
 were promulgated in this country, there was 
 one general burst of indignation throughout the 
 continent. Faction itself was silenced, and the 
 firm and unanimous determination of all parties 
 was, to fight until the last man fell in the 
 ditch, rather than submit to such ignominious 
 terms. 
 
 "What a contrast is exhibited between the 
 contemporaneous scenes of Ghent, and Fort 
 Jackson! What a powerful argument would 
 the British Commissioners have been furnished 
 with, if they could have got hold of that treaty! 
 The United States demand! the United States 
 demand ! is repeated five or six times. And 
 what did the preamble itself disclose? That 
 two-thirds of the Creek nation had been hostile, 
 and one-third only friendly to us. Now, he had 
 hoard (he could not vouch for the truth of the 
 statement) that not one hostile chief signed the 
 treaty. He had also heard that prrluips one or 
 two of them had. If the treaty really were 
 made by a minority of the nation, it was not 
 
 obligatory upon the whole nation. It was void, 
 considered in the light of a national compact. 
 And, if void, the Indians were entitled to the 
 benefit of the provision of the ninth article of the 
 Treaty of Ghent, by which we bound ourselves 
 to make peace with any tribes with whom we 
 might be at war on the ratification of the treaty, 
 and restore to them their lands as they held them 
 in 1811. Mr. C. said he did not know how the 
 honorable Senate, that body for which he had 
 so high a respect, could have given their sanc- 
 tion to the Treaty of Fort Jackson, so utterly 
 irreconcilable as it is with those noble principles 
 of generosity and magnanimity which he hoped 
 to see this country always exhibit, and particu- 
 larly towards the miserable remnant of the abo- 
 rigines. It would have comported better with 
 those principles to have imitated the benevolent 
 policy of the founder of Pennsylvania, to have 
 given to the Creeks, conquered as they were, 
 even if they had made an unjust war upon us, 
 the trifling consideration, to them an adequate 
 compensation, which he paid for their lands. 
 That treaty, Mr. C. said, he feared, had been 
 the main cause of the recent war. And if it 
 had been, it only added another melancholy proof 
 to those with which history already abounds, 
 that hard and unconscionable terms, extorted 
 by the power of the sword and the right of 
 conquest, served but to whet and stimulate re- 
 venge, and to give to old hostilities, smother- 
 ed, not extinguished, by the pretended peace, 
 greater expansion and more forocity. A truce 
 thus patched up with an unfortunate people, 
 without the means of existence without bread 
 is no real peace. The instant there is the 
 slightest prospect of relief from such harsh and 
 severe conditions, the conquered party will fly 
 to arms, and spend the last drop of blood rather 
 than live in such degraded bondage. Even if 
 you again reduce him to submission, the ex- 
 penses incurred by this second war, to say noth- 
 ing of the human lives that are sacrificed, will 
 be greater than what it would have cost you 
 to have granted him liberal conditions in the 
 first instance. This treaty, he repeated it, was, 
 he apprehended, the cause of the war. It led 
 to those excesses on our southern borders 
 which began it. Who first commenced them 
 it was, perhaps, difficult to ascertain. There 
 was, however, a paper on this subject, commu- 
 nicated at the last session by the President, 
 that told, in language so pathetic and feeling, 
 an artless tale a paper that carried such in- 
 ternal evidence, at least, of the belief of the au- 
 thors of it, that they were writing the truth, 
 that he would ask the favor of the committee 
 to allow him to read it. I should be very un- 
 willing, Mr. C. said, to assert, in regard to this 
 war, that the fault was on our side but he 
 feared it was. He had heard that that very re- 
 spectable man, now no more, who once filled 
 the executive chair of Georgia, and who, hav- 
 ing been agent of Indian affairs in that quarter, 
 had the best opportunity of judging of the ori- 
 gin of this war, deliberately pronounced it as his
 
 240 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 The Stminole War. 
 
 [JANUARY, 1819. 
 
 opinion that the Indians were not in fault. Mr. 
 0. said that he was far from attributing to Gene- 
 ral Jackson any other than the very slight de- 
 gree of blame which attached to him as the ne- 
 gotiator of the Treaty of Fort Jackson, and 
 which would be shared by those who subse- 
 quently ratified and sanctioned that treaty. But 
 if there were even a doubt as to the origin of 
 the war, whether we were censurable or the 
 Indians, that doubt would serve to increase our 
 regret at any distressing incidents which may 
 have occurred, and to mitigate, in some degree, 
 the crimes which we impute to the other side. 
 He knew, he said, that, when General Jackson 
 was summoned to the field, it was too late to 
 hesitate the fatal blow had been struck in the 
 destruction of Fowl Town, and the dreadful 
 massacre of Lieutenant Scott and his detach- 
 ment ; and the only duty which remained to 
 him was to terminate this unhappy contest. 
 
 The first circumstance which, in the course 
 of his performing that duty, fixed our attention, 
 had, Mr. 0. said, filled him with regret. It was 
 the execution of the Indian chiefs. How, he 
 asked, did they come into our possession ? Was 
 it in the course of fair and open and honorable 
 war ? No ; but by means of deception by hoist- 
 ing foreign colors on the staff from which the stars 
 and stripes should alone have floated. Thus en- 
 snared, the Indians were taken on shore, and 
 without ceremony, and without delay, were hung. 
 Hang an Indian ! We, sir, who are civilized, 
 and can comprehend and feel the effect of moral 
 causes and considerations, attach ignominy to 
 that mode of death. And the gallant, and re- 
 fined, and high-minded man, seeks by all possi- 
 ble means to avoid it. But what cares an In- 
 dian whether you hang or shoot him? The 
 moment he is captured he is considered by his 
 tribe as disgraced, if not lost. They, too, are 
 indifferent about the nanner in which he is 
 despatched. But, Mr. 0. said, he regarded the 
 occurrence with grief, for other and higher con- 
 siderations. It was the first instance that he 
 knew of, in the annals of our country, in which 
 retaliation, by executing Indian captives, had 
 ever been deliberately practised. There may 
 have been exceptions, but, if there were, they 
 met with contemporaneous condemnation, and 
 have been reprehended by the just pen of im- 
 partial history. The gentleman from Massachu- 
 setts may tell me, if he pleases, what he pleases 
 about the tomahawk and scalping-knife ; about 
 Indian enormities, and foreign miscreants and 
 incendiaries. I, too, hate them ; from my very 
 soul I abominate them. But I love my coun- 
 try and its constitution; I love liberty and 
 safety, and fear military despotism more even 
 than I hate these monsters. The gentleman, 
 in the course of his remarks, alluded to the 
 State from which I have the honor to come. 
 Little, sir, does he know of the high and mag- 
 nanimous sentiments of the people of that State 
 if he supposes they will approve of the transac- 
 tion to which he referred. Brave and generous, 
 humanity and clemency towards a fallen foe 
 
 constitute one of their noblest characteristics. 
 Amidst all the struggles for that fair land be- 
 tween the natives and the present inhabitants, 
 Mr. O. said he defied the gentleman to point 
 out one instance in which a Kentuckian had 
 stained his hand by- nothing but his high 
 sense of the distinguished services and exalted 
 merits of General Jackson prevented him from 
 using a different term the execution of an un- 
 armed and prostrate captive. Yes, said Mr. 0., 
 there was one solitary' exception, in which a 
 man, enraged at beholding an Indian prisoner, 
 who had been celebrated for his enormities, and 
 who had destroyed some of his kindred, plung- 
 ed his sword into his bosom. The wicked deed 
 was considered as an abominable outrage when 
 it occurred, and the name of the man had been 
 handed down to the execration of posterity. I 
 deny your right thus to retaliate on the aboriginal 
 proprietors of the country ; and unless I am utter- 
 ly deceived, it may be shown that it does not 
 exist. But, before I attempt this, said Mr. 0., 
 allow me to make the gentleman from Massa- 
 chusetts a little better acquainted with those 
 people, to whose feelings and sympathies he 
 had appealed through their representative. 
 During the late war with Great Britain, Colo- 
 nel Campbell, under the command of my hon- 
 orable friend from Ohio, (GEN. HAKRISON.) 
 was placed at the head of a detachment consist- 
 ing chiefly, he believed, of Kentucky volun- 
 teers, in order to destroy the Mississinaway 
 towns. They proceeded and performed the 
 duty, and took some prisoners. And here is 
 evidence of the manner in which they treated 
 them. [Here Mr. C. read the general orders 
 issued on the return of the detachment.*] I 
 hope, sir, the honorable gentleman will be now 
 able better to appreciate the character and con- 
 duct of my gallant countrymen than he appears 
 hitherto to have done. 
 
 But, sir, I have said that you have no right 
 to practise, under color of retaliation, enormi- 
 ties on the Indians. I will advance, in support 
 of this position, as applicable to the origin of 
 all law, the principle, that, whatever has been 
 the custom, from the commencement of a sub- 
 ject, whatever has been the uniform usage, 
 coeval and coexistent with the subject to which 
 it relates, becomes its fixed law. Such was the 
 foundation of all common law ; and such, he 
 believed, was the principal foundation of all 
 public or international law. If, then, it could 
 
 *The following is the extract which Mr. C. read. 
 
 "But the character of this gallant detachment, exhibiting, 
 as it did, perseverance, fortitude, and bravery, would, how- 
 ever, be incomplete, if, in the midst of victory, they had for- 
 gotten the feelings of humanity. It is with the sincerest 
 pleasure that the General has hoard that the most punctual 
 obedience was paid to his orders, in not only saving all tho 
 women and children, but in sparing all the warriors who 
 ceased to resist ; and that, even when vigorously attacked 
 by the enemy, the claims of mercy prevailed over every 
 sense of their danger, and this heroic band respected the 
 lives of their prisoners. Let an account of murdered inno- 
 cence be opened in the records of Heaven air:iinst our ene- 
 mies alone. The American soldier will follow the example 
 of his Government, and the sword of the one will not be 
 raised against the fallen and the helpless, nor the gold of tho 
 other be paid for scalps of a massacred enemy."
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 241 
 
 JANUARY, 1819.] 
 
 The Seminole War. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 be shown that from the first settlement of the 
 colonies, on this part of the American conti- 
 nent, to the present time, we have constantly 
 abstained from retaliating upon the Indians the 
 excesses practised by them towards us, we were 
 morally bound by this invariable usage, and 
 could not lawfully change it without the most 
 cogent reasons. So far as his knowledge ex- 
 tended, he said that, from the first settlement at 
 Plymouth or at Jamestown, it had not been our 
 practice to destroy Indian captives, combatants 
 or noncombatants. He knew of but one devia- 
 tion from the code which regulated the warfare 
 between civilized communities, and that "was 
 the destruction of Indian towns, which was 
 supposed to be authorized upon the ground 
 that we could not bring the war to a termina- 
 tion but by destroying the means which nour- 
 ished it. With this single exception, the other 
 principles of the laws of civilized nations are 
 extended to them, and are thus made law in re- 
 gard to them. When did this humane custom, 
 by which, in consideration of their ignorance 
 and our enlightened condition the rigors of 
 war were mitigated, begin ? At a time when 
 we were weak, and they were comparatively 
 strong; when they were the lords of the soil, 
 and we were seeking, from the, vices, from the 
 corruptions, from the religious intolerance, and 
 from the oppressions of Europe, to gain an 
 asylum among them. And when is it proposed 
 to change this custom, to substitute for it the 
 bloody matxims of barbarous ages, and to inter- 
 polate the Indian public law with revolting 
 cruelties? At a time when the situation of the 
 two parties is totally changed when we are 
 powerful and they are weak : at a time when 
 to use a figure drawn from their own sublime 
 eloquence, the poor children of the forest have 
 been driven by the great wave which has flow- 
 ed in from the Atlantic Ocean to almost the base 
 of the Rocky Mountains, and overwhelming 
 them in its terrible progress, has left no other 
 remains of hundreds of tribes, now extinct, than 
 those which indicate the remote existence of 
 their farmer companion, the Mammoth of the 
 New World! Yes, sir, it is at this auspicious 
 period of our country, when we hold a proud 
 and lofty station, among the first nations of the 
 world, that we are called upon to sanction a de- 
 parture from the established laws and usages 
 which have regulated our Indian hostilities. 
 And does the honorable gentleman from Massa- 
 chusetts expect, in this august body, this en- 
 lightened assembly of Christians and Ameri- 
 cans, by glowing appeals to our passions, to 
 make us forget our principles, our religion, our 
 clemency, and our humanity ? 
 
 Why was it, Mr. C. asked, that we had not 
 practised towards the Indian tribes the right of 
 retaliation, now for the first time asserted in 
 regard to them ? It was because it is a princi- 
 ple, proclaimed by reason and enforced by 
 every respectable writer on the law of nations, 
 that retaliation is only justifiable as calculated 
 to produce effect in the war. Vengeance was a 
 VOL. VI. 16 
 
 new motive for resorting to it. If retaliation 
 will produce no effect on the enemy, we are 
 bound to abstain from it by every consideration 
 of humanity and of justice. Will it, then, pro- 
 duce effect on the Indian tribes? No; they 
 care not about the execution of those of their 
 warriors who are taken captive. They are con- 
 sidered as disgraced by the very circumstance 
 of their captivity, and it is often mercy to the 
 unhappy captive to deprive him of his existence. 
 The poet evinced a profound knowledge of the 
 Indian character, when he put into the mouth 
 of the son of a distinguished chief, about to be 
 led to the stake and tortured by his victorious 
 enemy, the words 
 
 " Begin, ye tormentors ! your threats are in vain : 
 The son of Alknomok will never complain." 
 
 Retaliation of Indian excesses, not producing 
 then any effect in preventing then* repetition, 
 was condemned by both reason and the prin- 
 ciples upon which alone, hi any case, it can be 
 justified. On this branch of the subject much 
 more might be said ; but, as he should possibly 
 again allude to it, he would pass from it, for the 
 present, to another topic. 
 
 It was not necessary, Mr. 0. said, for the 
 purpose of his argument in regard to the trial 
 and execution of Arbuthnot and Ambrister, to 
 insist on the innocence of either of them. He 
 would yield, for the sake of that argument, 
 without inquiry, that both of them were guilty ; 
 that both had instigated the war ; and that one 
 of them had led the enemy to battle. It was 
 possible indeed, that a critical examination of 
 the evidence would show, particularly in the 
 case of Arbuthnot, that the whole amount of his 
 crime consisted in his trading, without the limits 
 of the United States, with the Seminole Indians, 
 in the accustomed commodities which form 
 the subject of Indian trade ; and that he sought 
 to ingratiate himself with his customers by es- 
 pousing their interests, in regard to the provision 
 of the Treaty of Ghent, which he may have hon- 
 estly believed entitled them to the restoration of 
 their lands. And if, indeed, the Treaty of Fort 
 Jackson, for the reasons already assigned, was 
 not binding upon the Creeks, there would be but 
 too much cause to lament his unhappy if not un- 
 just fate. The first impression made, on the ex- 
 amination of the proceedings in the trial and exe- 
 cution of those two men, is, that on the part of 
 Ambrister there was the most guilt, but at the 
 same time the most irregularity. Conceding the 
 point of the guilt of both, with the qualification 
 which he had stated, he would proceed to in- 
 quire, first, if their execution could be justified 
 upon the principles assumed by General Jack- 
 son himself. If they did not afford a justifica- 
 tion, he would next inquire if there were any 
 other principles authorizing their execution; 
 and he would, in the third place, make some 
 observations upon the mode of proceeding. 
 
 The principle assumed by General Jackson, 
 which may be found in his general orders com- 
 manding the execution of these men, is, " that 
 it is an established principle of the law of na-
 
 242 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 The Seminole War. 
 
 [JANUAKY, 1819. 
 
 tions, that any individual of a nation, making 
 war against the citizens of any other nation, 
 they being at peace, forfeits his allegiance, and 
 becomes an outlaw and a pirate." Whatever 
 niay be the character of individuals waging 
 private war, the principle assumed is totally er- 
 roneous when applied to such individuals asso- 
 ciated with a power, whether Indian or civilized, 
 capable of maintaining the relations of peace 
 and war. Suppose, however, the principle were 
 true, as asserted, what disposition should he 
 have made of these men ? What jurisdiction, 
 and how acquired, has the military over pirates, 
 robbers, and outlaws? If they were in the 
 character imputed, they were alone amenable, 
 and should have been turned over to the civil 
 authority. But the principle, he repeated, was 
 totally incorrect, when applied to men in their 
 situation. A foreigner, connecting himself with 
 a belligerent, becomes an enemy of the party to 
 whom that belligerent is opposed, subject to 
 whatever he may be subject, entitled to what- 
 ever he is entitled. Arbuthnot and Ambrister, 
 by associating themselves, became identified 
 with the Indians; they became our enemies, 
 and we had a right to treat them as we could 
 lawfully treat the Indians. These positions 
 were so obviously correct, that he should con- 
 sider it an abuse of the patience of the commit- 
 tee to consume time in their proof. They were 
 supported by the practice of all nations, and of 
 our own. Every page of history, in all times, 
 and the recollection of every member, furnish 
 evidence of their truth. Let us look for a mo- 
 ment into some *of the consequences of this 
 principle, if it were to go to Europe, sanctioned 
 by the approbation, express or implied, of this 
 House. We have now in our armies probably 
 the subjects of almost every European power. 
 Some of the nations of Europe maintain the 
 doctrine of perpetual allegiance. Suppose Brit- 
 ain aud America in peace, and America and 
 France at war. The former subjects of Eng- 
 land, naturalized or unnaturalized, are captured 
 by the navy or the army of France- What is 
 their condition ? According to the principle of 
 General Jackson, they would be outlaws and 
 pirates, and liable to immediate execution. 
 Were gentlemen prepared to return to their re- 
 spective districts with this doctrine in their 
 mouths, and to say to their Irish, English, 
 Scotch, and other foreign constituents, that you 
 are liable, on the contingency supposed, to be 
 treated as outlaws and pirates ? 
 
 Was there any other principle which justified 
 the proceeding? On this subject, he said, if he 
 admired the wonderful ingenuity with which 
 gentlemen' sought a colorable pretext for those 
 executions, he was at the same time shocked at 
 some of the principles advanced. What said 
 the honorable gentleman from Massachusetts, 
 (Mr. HOLMES,) in a cold address to the commit- 
 tee? Why, that these executions were only a 
 wrong mode of doing a right thing. A wrong 
 mode of doing a right thing ! In what code of 
 public law; in what system of ethics; nay, in 
 
 what respectable novel ; where, if the gentle- 
 man were to take the range of the whole litera- 
 ture of the world, will he find any sanction for 
 a principle so monstrous ? He would illustrate 
 its enormity by a single case. Suppose a man, 
 being guilty of robbery, is tried, condemned, 
 and executed for murder, upon an indictment 
 for that robbery merely. The judge is arraign- 
 ed for having executed, contrary to law, a hu- 
 man being, innocent at heart of the crime for 
 which he was sentenced. The judge has noth- 
 ing to do, to insure his own acquittal, but to 
 urge the gentleman's plea, that he had done a 
 right thing in a wrong way I 
 
 The principles which attached to the cases 
 of Arbuthnot and Ambrister, constituting them 
 merely parlicipes in the war, supposing them to 
 have been combatants, which the former was 
 not, he having been taken in a Spanish fortress, 
 without arms in his hands, all that we could 
 possibly have a right to do was to apply to 
 them the rules which we had a right to enforce 
 against the Indians. Their English character 
 was only merged in their Indian character. 
 Now, if the law regulating Indian hostilities be 
 established by long and immemorial usage, that 
 we have no moral right to retaliate upon them, 
 we consequently .had no right to retaliate upon 
 Arbuthnot and Ambrister. Even if it were ad- 
 mitted that, in regard to future wars, and to 
 other foreigners, their execution may have a 
 ^ood effect, it would not thence follow that you 
 bad a right to execute them. It is not always 
 just to do what may be advantageous. And 
 retaliation, during a war, must have relation to 
 the events of that war, and must, to be just, 
 have an operation upon that war, and upon the 
 individuals only who compose the belligerent 
 party. It became gentlemen, then, on the 
 other side, to show, by some known, certain, 
 and recognized rule of public or municipal law, 
 that the execution of these men was justified. 
 Where is it? He should be glad to see it. We 
 are told in a paper, emanating from the Depart- 
 ment of^State, recently laid before this House, 
 distinguished for the fervor of its eloquence, and 
 of which the honorable gentleman from Massa- . 
 chusetts has supplied us in part with a second 
 edition, in one respect agreeing with the proto- 
 type, that they both ought to be inscribed to the 
 American public we are justly told in that pa- 
 per, that this is the first instance of the execu- 
 ;ion of persons for the crime of instigating In- 
 dians to war. Sir, there are two topics which, 
 n Europe, are constantly employed by the 
 Wends and minions of legitimacy against our 
 country. The one is an inordinate spirit of ag- 
 grandizement of coveting other people's goods. 
 The other is the treatment which we extend to 
 ;he Indians. Against both these charges, the 
 public servants, who conducted at Ghent the 
 legotiations with the British Commissioners, 
 endeavored to vindicate our country, and he 
 loped with some degree of success. What will 
 je the condition of future American negotia- 
 ;ors, when pressed upon this head, he knew
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 243 
 
 JANUARY, 1819.] 
 
 The, Seminole War. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 not, after the unhappy executions on our I asserted that he was guilty of a mistake in call- 
 
 southern border. The gentleman from Massa 
 chusetts seemed on yesterday to read, with i 
 sort of triumph, the names of the Commission- 
 ers employed in the negotiations at Ghent, 
 Will he excuse me for saying, that I thought 
 he pronounced, even with more complacency 
 and with 'a more gracious smile, the first name 
 in the commission, that he emphasized that of 
 the humble individual who addresses you. [Mr, 
 HOLMES desired to explain.] Mr. C. said there 
 was no occasion for explanation ; he was per- 
 fectly satisfied. [Mr. H. however proceeded to 
 say that his intention was, in pronouncing the 
 gentleman's name, to add to the respect due to 
 the ne 
 
 er of this House.] Will the principle of these 
 men, having been instigators of the war, justify 
 their execution? It was a new one; there 
 were no landmarks to guide us in its adoption, 
 or to prescribe limits in its application. If 
 "William Pitt had been taken by the French 
 army, during the late European war, could 
 France have justifiably executed him, on the 
 ground of his having notoriously instigated the 
 continental powers to war against France? 
 Would France, if she had stained her character 
 by executing him, have obtained the sanction 
 of the world to the act, by appeals to the pas- 
 sions and prejudices, by pointing to the cities 
 sacked, the countries laid waste, the human 
 lives sacrificed in the wars which he had 
 kindled, and by exclaiming to the unfortunate 
 captive, you miscreant, you monster, have oc- 
 casioned all these scenes of devastation and 
 blood ? What had been the conduct even of 
 England towards the greatest instigator of all 
 the wars of the present age ? The condemna- 
 tion of that illustrious man to the rock of St. 
 Helena, was a great blot on the English name. 
 And Mr. C. repeated, what he had once before 
 said, that if Chatham or Fox, or even William 
 Pitt himself, had been Prime Minister, in Eng- 
 land, Bonaparte never had been so condemned. 
 On that transaction history will one day pass 
 its severe but just censure. Yes, although Na- 
 poleon had desolated half Europe ; although 
 there was scarcely a power, however humble, 
 that escaped the mighty grasp of his ambition ; 
 although in the course of his spfendid career he 
 is charged with having committed the greatest 
 atrocities, disgraceful to himself and to human 
 nature, yet even his life has been spared. The 
 allies would not, England would not, execute him, 
 upon the ground of his being an instigator of wars. 
 The mode of the trial and sentencing these 
 men, Mr. C. said, was equally objectionable 
 with the principles on which it had been at- 
 tempted to show a forfeiture of their lives. He 
 knew, he said, the laudable spirit which prompt- 
 ed the ingenuity displayed in finding out a justi- 
 fication for these proceedings. He wished most 
 sincerely that he could reconcile them to his 
 conscience. It had been attempted to vindicate 
 the General upon grounds which he was per- 
 suaded he would himself disown. It had been 
 
 ing upon the court to try them, and that he might 
 have at once ordered their execution without 
 that formality. He denied that there was any 
 such absolute right in the commander of any 
 portion of our Army. The rightof retaliation is 
 an attribute of sovereignty. It is comprehend- 
 ed in the war-making power that Congress 
 possesses. It belongs to this body not only to 
 declare war, but to raise armies, and to make 
 rules and regulations for their Government. It 
 was in vain for gentlemen to look to the law of 
 nations for instances in which retaliation is 
 lawful. The laws of nations merely laid down 
 the principle or rule, and it belongs to the Gov- 
 ernment to constitute the tribunal for applying 
 that principle or rule. There was, for example, 
 no instance in which the death of a captive 
 was more certainly declared by the law of 
 nations to be justifiable than in the case of spies. 
 Congress has accordingly provided, in the rules 
 and articles of war, a tribunal for the trial of 
 spies, and consequently for the application of 
 the principle of the national law. The Legis- 
 lature had not left the power over spies unde- 
 fined, to the mere discretion of the commander- 
 in-chief, or of any subaltern officer in the Army. 
 For, if the doctrines now contended for were 
 true, they would apply to the commander of 
 any corps, however small, acting as a detach- 
 ment. Suppose Congress had not legislated in 
 the case of spies, what would have been their 
 condition ? It would have been aeasus omissus^ 
 and although the public law pronounced their 
 doom, it could not be executed because Con- 
 gress had assigned no tribunal for enforcing that 
 public law. No man could be executed in this 
 tree country without two things being shown : 
 1st. That the law condemns him to death ; and, 
 2dly. That his death is pronounced by that 
 tribunal which is authorized by the law to try 
 him. These principles would reach every 
 man's case, native or foreigner, citizen or 
 alien. The instant quarters are granted to a 
 -, the majesty of the law surrounds 
 and sustains him, and he cannot lawfully be pun- 
 shed with death, without the concurrence of 
 ;he two circumstances just insisted upon. He 
 denied that any commander-in-chief, in this 
 country, had this absolute power of life and 
 death, at his sole discretion. It was contrary to 
 the genius of all our laws and institutions. To 
 concentrate in the person of one individual the 
 powers to make the rule, to judge, and to ex- 
 jcute the rule, or to judge and execute the rule 
 only, was utterly irreconcilable with every prin- 
 ple of free Government, and was the very 
 definition of tyranny itself ; and he trusted that 
 ;his House would never give even a tacit assent 
 jo such a principle. Suppose the commander had 
 made reprisals on property, would that property 
 have belonged to the nation, or could he have 
 disposed of it as he pleased ? Had he more 
 >ower, would gentlemen tell him, over the 
 ives of human beings than over property ? 
 The assertion of such a power to the com-
 
 244 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 The Seminole War. 
 
 [JANUARY, 1819. 
 
 mander-iu-cliief was contrary to the practice 
 of the Government. By an act of Congress 
 which passed in 1799, "vesting the power of 
 retaliation, in certain cases, in the President of 
 the United States" an act which passed during 
 the quasi war with France, the President is 
 authorized to retaliate upon any citizens of the 
 F/ench Republic, the enormities which may be 
 practised, in certain cases, upon our citizens. 
 Tinder what Administration was this act passed ? 
 It was under that which has been justly charged 
 with stretching the constitution to enlarge the 
 Executive powers. Even during the mad career 
 of Mr. Adams, when every means was resorted 
 to for the purpose of infusing vigor into the 
 Executive arm, no one thought of claiming for 
 him the inherent right of retaliation. He 
 would not trouble the House with reading 
 another law, which passed thirteen or fourteen 
 years after, during the late war with Great 
 Britain, under the Administration of that great 
 constitutional President, the father of the instru- 
 ment itself, by which Mr. Madison was empow- 
 ered to retaliate on the British, in certain in- 
 stances. It was not only contrary to the genius 
 of our institutions and to the uniform practice 
 of the Government, but it was contrary to the 
 obvious principles on which the General him- 
 self had proceeded ; for, in forming the court, 
 he had evidently intended to proceed under the 
 rules and articles of war. The extreme num- 
 ber which they provide for is thirteen, precisely 
 that which is detailed in the present instance. 
 The court proceeded, not by a bare plurality, 
 but by a majority of two-thirds. In the general 
 orders issued from the Adjutant General's office, 
 at headquarters, it is described as a court-mar- 
 tial. The prisoners are said in those orders to 
 have been tried, "on the following charges and 
 specifications." The court understood itself to 
 be acting as a court-martial. It was so organ- 
 ized ; it so proceeded, having a judge advocate, 
 hearing witnesses, the written defence of the 
 miserable trembling prisoners, who seemed to 
 have a presentiment of their doom. And the 
 court was finally dissolved. The whole pro- 
 ceeding manifestly shows that all parties con- 
 sidered it as a court-martial, convened and 
 acting under the rules and articles of war. In 
 his letter to the Secretary of War, noticing the 
 transaction, the General says: "These indi- 
 viduals were tried under my orders, legally con- 
 victed as exciters of this savage and negro war, 
 legally condemned, and most justly punished 
 for their iniquities." The Lord deliver us 
 from such legal convictions and such legal 
 condemnations! The General himself con- 
 sidered the laws of his. country to have jus- 
 tified his proceedings. It was in vain, then, to 
 talk of a power in him beyond the law, and 
 above the law, when he himself does not assert 
 it. Let it be conceded that he was clothed 
 with absolute authority over the lives of these 
 individuals, and that, upon his own fiat, with- 
 out trial, without defence, he might have com- 
 manded their execution. Now, if an absolute 
 
 sovereign, in any particular respect, promul- 
 gates a rule which he pledges himself to observe, 
 if he subsequently deviates from that rule, he 
 subjects himself to the imputation of odious 
 tyranny. If General Jackson had the power, 
 without a court, to condemn these men, he had 
 also the power to appoint a tribunal. He did 
 appoint a tribunal, and he became, therefore, 
 morally bound to observe and execute the 
 sentence of that tribunal. In regard to Am- 
 brister, it was with grief and pain he was com- 
 pelled to say, that he was executed in defiance 
 of all law ; in defiance of the law to which 
 General Jackson had voluntarily, if you please, 
 submitted himself, and given, by his appeal to 
 the court, his implied pledge to observe. He 
 knew but little of military law, and he had not 
 a taste, by what had happened, created in him 
 for acquiring a knowledge of more; but he 
 believed there was no example on record where 
 the sentence of the court has been erased, and 
 a sentence not pronounced by it carried into 
 execution. It had been suggested that the 
 court had pronounced two sentences, and that 
 the General had a right to select either. Two 
 sentences! Two verdicts! It was not so. 
 The first, by being revoked, was as though it 
 had never been pronounced. And there re- 
 mained only one sentence, which was put aside 
 upon the sole authority of the commander, and 
 the execution of the prisoner ordered. He 
 either had or had not a right to decide upon 
 the fate of that man without the intervention of 
 a court. If he had the right, he waived it, and 
 having violated the sentence of the court, there 
 was brought upon the judicial administration 
 of the Army a reproach, which must occasion 
 the most lasting regret. 
 
 Of all the powers conferred by the Constitu- 
 tion of the United States, not one is more ex- 
 pressly and exclusively granted than that is to 
 Congress of declaring war. The immortal con- 
 vention who framed that instrument had abun- 
 dant reasons for confiding this tremendous power 
 to the deliberate judgment of the Representatives 
 of the people, drawn from every page of his- 
 tory. It was there seen that nations are often 
 precipitated into ruinous war from folly, from 
 pride, from ambition, and from the desire of 
 military fame. It was believed, no doubt, in 
 committing this great subject to the Legislature 
 of the Union, we should be safe from the mad 
 wars that have afflicted and desolated and ruined 
 other countries. It was supposed that before 
 any war was declared the nature of the injury 
 complained of would be carefully examined, 
 the power and resources of the enemy estimated, 
 and the power and resources of our own coun- 
 try, as well as the probable issue and conse- 
 quences of the war. It was to guard our coun- 
 try against precisely that species of rashness, 
 which has been manifested in Florida, that the 
 constitution was so framed. If then this power, 
 thus cautiously and clearly bestowed upon Con- 
 gress, has been assumed and exercised by any- 
 other functionary of the Government, it is
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 245 
 
 JANUARY, 1819.] 
 
 The Seminolc War. 
 
 [H. OP R. 
 
 cause of serious 
 
 to vindicate and maintain its authority by 
 the means in its power, and yet there are some 
 gentlemen who would have us not merely to 
 yield a tame and silent acquiescence in the en- 
 croachment, but to pass even a vote of thanks 
 to the author. 
 
 On the 25th of March, 1818, Mr. C. continued, 
 the President of the United States communi- 
 cated a Message to Congress in relation to the 
 Seminole war, in which he declared that, 
 although in the prosecution of it, orders had 
 been given to pass into the Spanish territory, 
 they were so guarded as that the local authori- 
 ties of Spain should be respected. How re- 
 spected? The President, by the documents 
 accompanying the Message, the orders them- 
 selves which issued from the Department of 
 War to the commanding General, had assured 
 the Legislature that, even if the enemy should 
 take shelter under a Spanish fortress, the fortress 
 was not to be attacked, but the fact to be report- 
 ed to that department for further orders. Con- 
 gress saw, therefore, that there was no danger 
 of violating the existing peace. And yet, on 
 the same 25th day of March, (a most singular 
 concurrence of dates,) when the Kepresentatives 
 of the people receive this solemn Message, an- 
 nounced in the presence of the nation and in the 
 face of the world, and in the midst of a friend- 
 ly negotiation with Spain, does General Jackson 
 write from his headquarters that he shall take 
 St. Marks as a necessary depot for his military 
 operations ! The General states, in his letter, 
 what he had heard about the threat on the 
 part of the Indians and negroes, to occupy the 
 fort, and declares his purpose to possess him- 
 self of it in either of the two contingencies of 
 its being hi their hands or in the hands of the 
 Spaniards. He assumed a right to judge what 
 Spain was bound to do by her treaty, and judged 
 very correctly ; but then he also assumed the 
 power, belonging to Congress alone, of deter- 
 mining what should be the effect and conse- 
 quence of her breach of engagement. General 
 Jackson generally performs what he intimates 
 his intention to do. Accordingly, finding St. 
 Marks yet in the hands of the Spaniards, he 
 seized and occupied it. Was ever, he asked, the 
 just confidence of the legislative body, in the 
 assurances of the Chief Magistrate, more abused ? 
 The Spanish commander intimated his willing- 
 ness that the American army should take post 
 near him, until he could have instructions from 
 his superior officer, and promised to maintain, 
 in the mean time, the most friendly relations. 
 No ! St. Marks was a convenient post for the 
 American army, and delay was inadmissible. 
 He had always understood that the Indians but 
 rarely take or defend fortresses, because they 
 are unskilled in the modes of attack and de"- 
 fence. The threat, therefore, on tla-ir part, to 
 seize on St Marks', must have been empty, and 
 would probably have been impracticable. At 
 all events, when General Jackson arrived there, 
 no danger any longer threatened the Spaniards 
 
 from the miserable fugitive Indians, who fled 
 on all sides upon his approach. 
 
 On the 8th of April the General writes from 
 St. Marks that he shall march for the Suwaney 
 River ; the destroying of the establishments on 
 which will, in his opinion, bring the war to a 
 close. Accordingly having effected that object, 
 he writes on the 20th of April that he believes 
 he may say the war is at an end for the present. 
 He repeats the same opinion in his letter to the 
 Secretary of War, written six days after. The 
 war being thus ended, it might have been hoped 
 that no further hostilities would have been com- 
 mitted. But, on the 23d of May, on his way 
 home, he receives a letter from the commandant 
 of Pensacola, intimating his surprise at the in- 
 vasion of the Spanish territory, and the acts of 
 hostility performed by the American army, and 
 his determination, if persisted in, to employ 
 force to repel them. Let us pause and examine 
 this proceeding of the Governor, so very hostile 
 and affrontive in the view of General Jackson. 
 Recollect that he was Governor of Florida; 
 that he had received no orders from his superi- 
 ors to allow a passage to the American army; 
 that he had heard of the reduction of St. Marks ; 
 and that General Jackson, at the head of his 
 army, was approaching in the direction of Pen- 
 sacola. He had seen the President's Message 
 of the 25th of March, and reminded General 
 Jackson of it, to satisfy him that the American 
 Government could not have authorized all those 
 measures. Mr. C. said he could not read the 
 allusion made by the Governor to that Message, 
 without feeling that the charge of insincerity 
 which it implied had at least but too much the 
 appearance of truth in it. Could the Governor 
 have done less than write some such letter? 
 We have only to reverse situations, and to sup- 
 pose him to have been an American Governor. 
 General Jackson says, that when he received 
 that letter, he no longer hesitated. No, sir, he 
 did no longer hesitate. He received it on the 
 23d ; he was in Pensacola on the 24th, and im- 
 mediately after set himself before the fortress 
 San Carlos de Barancas, which he shortly re- 
 duced. Veni, tidi, vici. Wonderful energy! 
 Admirable promptitute I Alas ! that it had not 
 been an energy and a promptitude within the 
 pale of the constitution, and according to the 
 orders of the Chief Magistrate ! It was impos- 
 sible to give any definition of war that would 
 not comprehend these acts. It was open, un- 
 disguised, and unauthorized hostility. 
 
 He would not trespass much longer upon the 
 time of the committee ; but he trusted he should 
 be indulged with some few reflections upon 
 the danger of permitting the conduct, on which 
 it had been his painful duty to animadvert, to 
 pass, without a solemn expression of this House. 
 Recall to your recollection, said he, the free na- 
 tions which have gone before us. Where are 
 they now, and how have they lost their liber- 
 ties? If wts could transport ourselves back to 
 the ages when Greece and Rome flourished in 
 their greatest prosperity, and, mingling in the
 
 246 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 TheSeminole War. 
 
 [JANUARY, 1819. 
 
 throng, ask a Grecian if he did not fear some 
 daring military chieftain, covered with glory 
 some Philip or Alexander, would one day over- 
 throw his liberties? No! no! the confident 
 and indignant Grecian would exclaim, we have 
 nothing to fear from our heroes ; our liberties 
 will be eternal. If a Roman citizen had been 
 asked, if he did not fear the conqueror of G 
 might establish a throne upon the ruins of the 
 public liberty, he would have instantly repelled 
 the unjust insinuation. Yet Greece had fallen, 
 Caesar had passed the Kubicon, and the patri- 
 otic arm even of Brutus, could not preserve the 
 liberties of his country ! The celebrated Mad- 
 ame de Stael, in her last and perhaps best work, 
 has said, that in the very year, almost the very 
 month, when the President of the Directory 
 declared that monarchy would never more show 
 its frightful head in France, Bonaparte, with 
 his grenadiers, entered the palace of St. Cloud, 
 and, dispersing with the bayonet the deputies of 
 the people, deliberating on the affairs of the 
 State, laid the foundations of that vast fabric of 
 despotism which overshadowed all Europe. He 
 hoped not to be misunderstood ; he was far from 
 intimating that General Jackson cherished any 
 designs inimical to the liberties of the country. 
 He believed his intentions pure and patriotic. 
 He thanked God that he would not, but he 
 thanked him still more that he could not, if 
 he would, overturn the liberties of the Re- 
 public. But precedents, if bad, were fraught 
 with the most dangerous consequences. Man 
 has been described, by some of those who have 
 treated of his nature, as a bundle of habits. 
 The definition was much truer when applied to 
 Governments. Precedents were their habits. 
 There was one important difference between 
 the formation of habits by an individual and 
 by Governments. He contracts it only after 
 frequent repetition. A single instance fixes the 
 habit and determines the direction of Govern- 
 ments. Against the alarming doctrine of un- 
 limited discretion in our military commanders, 
 when applied even to prisoners of war, he must 
 enter his protest ; it began upon them, it would 
 end on us. He hoped that our happy form of 
 Government was destined to be perpetual. But 
 if it were to be preserved, it must be by the 
 practice of virtue, by justice, by moderation, by 
 magnanimity, by greatness of soul, by keeping 
 a watchful and steady eye on the Executive ; 
 and, above all, by holding to a strict accounta- 
 bility the military branch of the public force. 
 
 We are fighting, said Mr. 0., a great moral 
 battle for the benefit, not only of our country, 
 but of all mankind. The eyes of the whole 
 world are in fixed attention upon us. One, and 
 the largest portion of it, is gazing with con- 
 tempt, with jealousy, and with envy ; the other 
 portion, with hope, with confidence, and with 
 affection. Everywhere the black cloud of le- 
 gitimacy is suspended over the world, save only 
 one bright spot, which breaks out from the 
 political hemisphere of the West, to brighten, 
 and animate, and gladden the human heart. Ob- 
 
 scure that by the downfall of liberty here, and 
 all mankind are enshrouded in one universal 
 darkness. To you, Mr. Chairman, belongs the 
 high privilege of transmitting unimpaired, to 
 posterity, the fair character and the liberty of 
 our country. Do you expect to execute this 
 high trust by trampling, or suffering to be 
 trampled down, law, justice, the constitution, 
 and the rights of other people? By exhibiting 
 examples of inhumanity, and cruelty, and am- 
 bition ? When the minions of despotism heard 
 in Europe of the seizure of Pensacola, how did 
 they chuckle, and chide the admirers of our in- 
 stitutions, tauntingly pointing to the demon- 
 stration of a spirit of injustice and aggrandize- 
 ment made by our country, in the midst of ami- 
 cable negotiation. Behold, said they, the con- 
 duct of those who are constantly reproaching 
 Kings. You saw how those admirers were as- 
 tounded and hung their heads. You saw, too, 
 when that illustrious man, who presides over 
 us, adopted his pacific, moderate, and just 
 course, how they once more lifted up their 
 heads, with exultation and delight beaming in 
 their countenances. And you saw how those 
 minions themselves were finally compelled to 
 unite in the general praises bestowed upon our 
 Government. Beware how you forfeit this ex- 
 alted character. Beware how you give a fatal 
 sanction, in this infant period of our Republic, 
 scarcely yet two score years old, to military 
 insubordination. Remember that Greece had 
 her Alexander, Rome had her Caesar, England 
 her Cromwell, France her Bonaparte, and that, 
 "f we would escape the rock on which they split, 
 we must avoid their errors. 
 
 How different has been the treatment of 
 General Jackson, and that modest, but heroic 
 oung man, a native of one of the smallest 
 States in the Union, who achieved for his 
 country, on Lake Erie, one of the most glorious 
 victories of the late war. In a moment of pas- 
 sion he forgot himself, and offered an act of 
 violence, which was repented as soon as perpe- 
 ;rated. He was tried, and suffered the judg- 
 ment pronounced by his peers. Public justice 
 was thought not even then to be satisfied. The 
 >ress and Congress took up the subject. My 
 lonorable friend from Virginia, (Mr. JOHNSON,) 
 he faithful and consistent sentinel of the law 
 ind of the constitution, disapproved, in that in- 
 stance, as he does in this, and moved an inquiry. 
 The public mind remained agitated and unap- 
 >eased until the recent atonement, so honorably 
 nade by the gallant Commodore. And was 
 here to be a distinction between the officers of 
 he two branches of the public service ? Are 
 briner services, however eminent, to' protect 
 rom even inquiring into recent misconduct? 
 's there to be no limit, no prudential bounds to 
 he national gratitude ? H was not disposed 
 o censure the President for not ordering a 
 ;ourt of inquiry or a general court-martial. 
 ~'erhaps impelled by a sense of that gratitude, 
 le determined by anticipation, to extend to the 
 jeueral that pardon which he had the undoubt-
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 247 
 
 JANUARY, 1819.] 
 
 The Seminole War. 
 
 [II. OF R. 
 
 ed right to grant after sentence. Let us, said 
 Mr. (X, not shrink from our duty. Let us as- 
 sert our constitutional powers, and vindicate 
 the instrument from military violation. 
 
 He hoped gentlemen would deliberately sur- 
 vey the awful position on which we stand. 
 They may bear down all opposition ; they may 
 even vote the General the public thanks ; they 
 may carry him triumphantly through this House. 
 But, if they do, in my humble judgment, it will 
 be a triumph of the principle of insubordina- 
 tion a triumph of the military over the civil 
 authority a triumph over the powers of this 
 House a triumph over the constitution of the 
 land. And he prayed most devoutly to Heaven, 
 that it might not prove, in its ultimate effects 
 and consequences, a triumph over the liberties 
 of the people. 
 
 Mr. JOHNSON, of Kentucky, rose immediately 
 after Mr. CLAY. He felt himself called on, hav- 
 ing been a member of the committee which had 
 had this subject under consideration, and as one 
 of the minority on the report made by it, to ex- 
 pre.-s his views of the questions involved in the 
 report, and in the propositions moved by way 
 of amendment to it. Without further preface, 
 he proceeded to state that the conduct of General 
 Jackson, in regard to the trial and execution of 
 Arbuthnot and Ambrister, had been the subject 
 of censure, from a misconception of the law and 
 of the facts connected with it ; and, particularly, 
 by confounding two principles of the laws of 
 nations, which were in themselves separate and 
 distinct. The general order directing the exe- 
 cution of these men asserted, that the subject of 
 any nation, making war upon a nation at peace 
 with that to which he belongs, is an outlaw and 
 a pirate ; and Mr. J. said it was correctly as- 
 serted. And the very same page of Vattel, on 
 which gentlemen relied for the support of their 
 doctrine, would bear him out in that for which 
 he contended, and with which gentlemen had 
 confounded one entirely different That, where 
 persons have joined the standard of a belliger- 
 ent, they may claim the character and privi- 
 leges of the belligerent party, was a principle of 
 public law, was not to be denied ; but if an in- 
 dividual takes upon himself to create and carry 
 on a war, without authority from any Govern- 
 ment, it was a principle equally undeniable that 
 he is an outlaw and a pirate not that he is 
 either technically, but that, in fact and by analo- 
 gy, he is so to be regarded. It is an established 
 principle of public law, that the crew of any ves- 
 sel, engaging in war without the authority of any 
 commission, may be treated as pirates, and put 
 to the sword. Tf, on the land, the like course 
 be pursued, he who is guilty of it is an outlaw 
 and a bandit, and may be put to the sword. 
 This was one principle of public law, and that 
 which gentlemen had triumphantly asserted 
 (and which nobody denied) was a wholly dif- 
 ferent one ; both not only clearly supported by 
 the authority of Vattel, but in the same page 
 of that respected and excellent writer. 
 
 Mr. J. said he would venture to say that every 
 
 ground taken by that man whose valor and con- 
 duct on the memorable eighth day of January, 
 in the darkest period of the late war, had caused 
 joy to beam from every face, would be found 
 tenable on principles which have prevailed from 
 the commencement of civilization to the present 
 day. He pledged himself to produce chapter 
 and verse to support his conduct in every inci- 
 dent of that war. He considered the essential 
 interests of justice and of mercy to have been 
 served in the execution of the foreign incendi- 
 aries who stimulated the Indians to barbarities 
 on our frontier settlers ; and that the military 
 occupation of Florida by General Jackson was 
 justifiable on the broad basis of national law, 
 and of sacred duty to his country. When gen- 
 tlemen undertook to say, that General Jackson 
 had not the right of retaliation, let them re- 
 collect the case of proposed retaliation, during 
 the Revolutionary war, for the barbarous mur- 
 der of Captain Huddie. And on whom of the 
 prisoners in our power did the lot fall ? Not 
 on a miserable interloper, but on Captain Asgill, 
 an amiable and accomplished officer. What 
 then said the Congress of the United States 
 that venerable and enlightened body which 
 carried us through the Revolutionary conflict? 
 What did they say? Why, sir, not only that 
 the Commander -in-chief, but that every officer 
 on separate command, possessed the right of re- 
 taliation, and that they would support him in 
 the exercise of it. It was true that Asgill was 
 released, for reasons of policy ; but the right of 
 retaliation was fully sustained. Four months, 
 Mr. J. said, after the first blood was spilt in the 
 Revolution, at the battle of Lexington, and two 
 months after the memorable battle of Bunker 
 Hill, which shed such a lustre upon our arms, 
 and nearly a year before the Declaration of In- 
 dependence, this question of the right of retali- 
 ation was solemnly discussed and settled in the 
 correspondence between General Washington 
 and General Gage ; in which the former broad- 
 ly asserted the right of retaliation, and declared 
 that he should be governed by it. In order to 
 take from our cominacding General this right 
 at the present day, Mr. J. said, gentlemen had 
 again blended and confounded principles of the 
 laws of nations, which in themselves were en- 
 tirely distinct. In case of individuals in an 
 army violating the laws of nations, and the 
 known rules of war, it is a clear principle that 
 they may be punished with death ; and it was 
 a principle equally clear, that in contending 
 with a savage foe, you are at liberty to retaliate 
 on them their own usages. But gentlemen had 
 blended these powers and rights with the right 
 of reprisal ; and had confounded the power of 
 putting to instant death a captive -a right in- 
 herent in the military power with which we 
 have clothed the commander, and the exercise 
 of which is a question between himself and his 
 God. 
 
 I rejoice, said Mr. J., that the honorable gen- 
 tleman who last addressed you, has expressed 
 his opinion, that the intentions of General Jack
 
 248 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF 
 
 The Seminole War. 
 
 [JANUARY, 1819. 
 
 son, in what he has done, were good. I rejoice 
 in it, sir, from my respect for that gentleman, 
 whoso opinion has with me more weight than 
 that of any other individual ; but this is a case 
 in which the obstinacy of nature will not per- 
 mit me to surrender my opinion to any indi- 
 vidual whatever. 
 
 It had been denied that any example could be 
 produced of military execution, at the fiat of the 
 commanding General, in our country. Mr. J. 
 said he would give an instance, in which two in- 
 dividuals were put to death by General Washing- 
 ton. Being given up by the revolted State line 
 of Pennsylvania, as emissaries, sent by General 
 Carlton, these men were instantly executed. 
 For this fact, Mr. J. referred gentlemen to the 
 Annual Register, which now lay open before 
 him. 
 
 It had been stated, that the crimes for which 
 these men were executed, were offences not re- 
 cognized by the laws of the United States. Mr. 
 J. denied the fact, and in doing so meant offence 
 to no one. These miscreants, who had im- 
 brued their hands in the blood of our country- 
 men the instigators of the murders, the fruits 
 of which were three hundred scalps in one 
 place, and in another, although, according to 
 the documents read by the Speaker, it would 
 appear that the Indians were three murders in 
 arrear of us these individuals had been con- 
 demned and executed in conformity to the let- 
 ter, if not to the spirit, of the laws of the United 
 States. According to our rules and articles of 
 war, whoever should relieve the enemy with 
 money, victuals, or ammunition, or should 
 knowingly harbor or protect them, or hold 
 correspondence with the enemy, were sub- 
 jected to death. So far the rule as to our army, 
 which, by subsequent articles, was made so 
 broad as to apply to the whole human family. 
 But, if there was, on this point, any defect of 
 power, here came in the law of nations to sup- 
 ply the deficiency; for that which subjects to 
 death one of our own citizens, shall much more 
 subject to death the foreign incendiary. Ex- 
 amples, in illustration of this doctrine, were 
 plentifully scattered on the page of history. 
 Wliat was the fact, said he, as to the trial of the 
 distinguished officer who was Adjutant-General 
 of the British forces, during the Revolution? 
 He was convicted on his own confession and by 
 a court composed of six major-generals and 
 eight brigadier-generals. General Jackson, Mr. 
 J. said, was only following in the steps of those 
 who had gone before. He was not here, he 
 said, about to maintain that General Jackson 
 was faultless ; if he had no faults, he would not 
 be human but he stood here to maintain his 
 devotion to his country ; and that, in the course 
 he had pursued in the trial and execution of 
 Arbuthnot and Ambrister, he had only trodden 
 in the footsteps of the immortal Washington. 
 
 As to the execution of the two Indian war- 
 riors, by the exercise of a summary jurisdiction 
 over them, and the distinction made between 
 their case and that of the white men, the reason 
 
 was obvious to every man who had ears and 
 would hear, or who had eyes and would see. 
 In relation to the Indian chiefs, their color was 
 sufficient evidence of their subjection to his 
 right of disposing of them as justice required. 
 The law of nations clothed him with the power 
 to put an end to their existence. As to the 
 stratagem of which gentlemen had complained, 
 no one was less disposed than himself to look 
 with a favorable eye on such stratagems as were 
 contrary to morality. But there was no im- 
 morality in hoisting the flag of a foreign power, 
 nor in capturing the person of your enemy when 
 he unwarily puts himself in your power. Nor, 
 in what had been done in relation to these In- 
 dians, was there any Violation of humanity or of 
 public law. Do they meet us in honorable com- 
 bat ? said Mr. J. In the case of the unfortunate 
 Mrs. Garret, did they meet us in honorable con- 
 flict there ? When they burnt the seaman alive, 
 whom they had previously tarred and feathered, 
 did they meet us in open combat ? Was the 
 war one in which Greek met Greek, or an 
 American met the citizen or subject of any 
 civilized nation ? If it were, the course of Gen. 
 Jackson, so far from receiving approbation, 
 would deserve execration. But, considering 
 the treacherous enemy he had to cope with, and 
 the object of his measures, which was to give 
 security to the frontier, and to save the waste- 
 ful expenditure of the blood, and even of the 
 treasure of the nation ; when I think on this, 
 said Mr. J., I do not censure General Jackson, 
 but, as before my God, I give him my thanks. 
 But for his energy what would have been the 
 consequence? The frontier of Georgia would 
 have been deluged with blood, as it has been 
 once before, and the gentleman from Georgia 
 (Mr. COBB) would again have called upon us, 
 with a voice of patriotism, and a voice of 
 thunder, too, to pay the gallant Georgians for 
 going against the Seminoles. 
 
 With regard to the treaty of Fort Jackson, 
 Mr. J. said, he should enter into no long argu- 
 ment, but he differed exceedingly from his hon- 
 orable colleague. Have we not a right, said he, 
 to dictate terms to a conquered enemy ? Was not 
 the war which was terminated by that treaty an 
 unprovoked war ? Was it not instigated against 
 us, and without cause, on the part of the Indians? 
 On whose head should the blood fall, if you can- 
 not control the Indians with the Bible ? I wish 
 to God you could, said Mr. J., and towards that 
 object I will do, and have done, as much in my 
 sphere as any one. There is at this moment, in 
 the heart of my country, a school for the educa- 
 tion of the Indians in the arts of civil life. But 
 when you come into contact with them when 
 they flourish their tomahawk over your head 
 are you to meet them with the Bible in your 
 hands, and invoke their obedience of that holy 
 religion of which the Speaker tells us ? I should 
 be the last to raise the sword against them, if the 
 employment of such means would appease their 
 fury. Experience had shown it would not ; and 
 it became necessary to meet and chastise them.
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 249 
 
 JANUARY, 1819.] 
 
 The Seminole War. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 And would any man say that, having put down 
 their hostility "hy forc, we had not a right to 
 dictate to them the terms of peace ? We had 
 the right, and we made the treaty. That treaty 
 received the sanction of every part of the Gov- 
 ernment this House among them (by the ap- 
 propriation to carry it into effect) and it was 
 too late now to disturb it. 
 
 As to the war, the constitutionality of which 
 had been doubted, Mr. J. said, the President of 
 the United States was not only authorized, but it 
 was his bounden duty to make war on the Sem- 
 inole Indians. Admit, for the sake of argument, 
 that, beyond our boundary, they were to be 
 considered as exercising a sovereign and inde- 
 pendent authority, what would gentlemen gain 
 by that admission ? If it were true, had we not 
 a right to trace them to their strongholds, even 
 in a neutral country ? On that point the ex- 
 positors of the laws of nations were not silent. 
 It was there laid down, that you may pursue a 
 retreating enemy into a neutral country, if the 
 Government of that country, either from par- 
 tiality to him, or from inability to prevent it, 
 shall not stop the progress of the retreating army. 
 
 Now, as to another point which, perhaps, con- 
 sidering it as too delicate, the Military Commit- 
 tee had not thought proper to approach. Mr. J. 
 said he should be deterred by no such motive 
 from examining the question of the power of the 
 President to prosecute this Indian war, and 
 from censuring him, if, in doing so, he usurped 
 power or exceeded his duty. As early as the year 
 1787. the Congress had authorized the station- 
 ing of troops on the frontier, to protect it from 
 the Indians, and the calling out of the militia 
 for the same purpose. And this power had 
 been acted on, from year to year, until the law of 
 1795 settled the point conclusively that, with- 
 out a declaration of war by Congress, the Pres- 
 ident had the right to make war upon the 
 savages : or, in the words of the law, on the In- 
 dian tribes. Let us, said Mr. J., look at our own 
 powers and how we have discharged them 
 instead of attempting to divest other branches 
 of the government of their powers. "What was 
 our duty ? To provide for calling out the mil- 
 itia fur what? To execute the laws, to sup- 
 press insurrection, and to repel invasion. It 
 was on that principle that the power was 
 granted to the Executive of this country to 
 chastise the ruthless savages for individual mur- 
 ders, or for murders committed with their com- 
 bined force. Has thj President, then, said Mr. 
 J., violated his authority ? Certainly not. And 
 if you take from him this authority, which he 
 has so rightfully exercised, what is to become 
 of our citizens on the frontiers ? The heart of 
 our country might be penetrated, and the sav- 
 ages besiege our very doors, while we are mak- 
 ing long speeches about the policy and humanity 
 of repressing their hostilities. Had such been 
 the case in the recent instance, either from a 
 defect in the law or in the execution of the law, 
 the people would have said, our Government is 
 a rope of sand, and the blood and treasure spent 
 
 in its establishment have been lavished in vain. 
 According to the first word of military com- 
 mand, a little varied, it is made the duty of the 
 Executive to take care that the laws of the 
 Union are executed, and that invasion is repelled ; 
 and for this purpose he may use the regular or 
 militia force of the couittry. Would it not be 
 an invasion to have our helpless women, and the 
 infant descendants of those who have fought 
 our battles, butchered by the indiscriminate 
 tomahawk and scalping-knife ? And would it 
 not be a violation of the laws of the country to 
 permit the hands of the Indian to be imbrued in 
 the blood of our citizens ? 
 
 Mr. J. then proceeded to touch upon the 
 opinion of his honorable friend and colleague 
 for whom he felt not only friendship, but affec- 
 tion that these incendiaries were put to death 
 without necessity. He argued that, though after 
 destroy ing Mickasuky and burning the Suwaney 
 towns, General Jackson thought the war was at 
 an end, he was afterwards convinced he had 
 been mistaken ; so ranch so, that he had found 
 it necessary afterwards to go to Pensacola, and 
 to leave two companies to scour the country 
 around it, who were now fighting gallantly against 
 the savages, who would have deluged the country 
 in blood but for these measures. It was kind, if 
 not just, to General Jackson, to take the reasons 
 which he himself assigned as the ground of his 
 measures. He stood before this House not only 
 as a great captain, but as a man of sound sense 
 and discretion. Gentlemen had said the war 
 was at an end, But how many of the enemy 
 had been killed ? Look to the fact, in relation 
 to the power of the enemy. They yet existed, 
 when the sentence of death was carried into 
 effect against Arbuthnot and Ambrister, in a 
 force of greater amount than that which General 
 Jackson had with him. Look at the communica 
 tion of Arbuthnot, stating their force to be three ' 
 thousand five hundred men ; suppose these insti- 
 gators of the war had been suffered to remain 
 and go at large ; suppose the benign influence of 
 mercy, in the breast of this honorable and re- 
 spectable court-martial, had weighed down the 
 scale of justice, and these men had been discharg- 
 ed, what would have been the situation of the 
 frontier of Georgia ? Would it not have been the 
 same as during the British war ? These igno- 
 rant savages were deluded by their abettors into 
 a belief that they were competent to cope with 
 the forces of the United States. Of the twelve 
 chiefs who signed the power of attorney to Ar- 
 buthnot, though two had been hung, there yet 
 remained ten, and three thousand men who 
 formed their command, to make battle against 
 our forces nnder the instigation of the miscreants 
 who had before stimulated them to war against 
 us, and to their own ultimate ruin. 
 
 THURSDAY, January 21. 
 
 Seminole War. 
 
 Mr. Jonxsox resumed the speech which was 
 interrupted by yesterday's adjournment.
 
 250 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 The Seminole War. 
 
 [JANUARY, 1819. 
 
 He had already stated, he said, that General 
 Jackson displayed more knowledge in the wilds 
 of Florida, on this subject, than any member who 
 had taken part in this discussion ; and that gen- 
 tlemen had blended two principles in the laws 
 of nations together, the distinction between 
 which General Jackson had seen and observed. 
 The one was the case of volunteers entering a 
 foreign service, for the purpose of improving 
 themselves in the use of arms and the knowl- 
 edge of the art of war which case is thus 
 stated in Vattel, p. 401, sec. 230 : " The noble 
 view of gaining instruction in the art of war, 
 and thus acquiring a greater degree of ability to 
 render useful services to their country, has in- 
 troduced the custom of serving as volunteers 
 even in foreign armies ; and the practice is un- 
 doubtedly justified by the sublimity of the mo- 
 tive. At present, volunteers, when taken by 
 the enemy, are treated as if they belonged to 
 the army in which they fight. Nothing can be 
 more reasonable ; they, in fact, join that army, 
 and unite with it in supporting the same cause ; 
 and it makes little difference in the case whether 
 they do this in compliance with any obligation, 
 or at the spontaneous impulse of their own free 
 choice." Such was the case of Kosciusko, of 
 Lafayette, and the other illustrious foreigners 
 who entered our armies during the Revolution, 
 who were volunteers in the best of causes, but 
 whose rights would not have been lessened had 
 the cause been that of despotism and tyranny, 
 instead of that of freedom and independence. 
 But this case was widely different from that of 
 interlopers, exciters of wars, and enemies of the 
 human race, who might be hung up, and ought 
 to be, by military law, as so many robbers and 
 pirates. In the course pursued by General 
 Jackson, then, and in his doctrine to which ex- 
 ception has been taken, he is even more than 
 borne out by writers on the laws of nations, as 
 Mr. J. showed by the following references : 
 Vattel, p. 400, sec. 226." Even after a decla- 
 ration of war between two nations, if the pea- 
 sants of themselves commit any hostilities, the 
 enemy shows them no mercy, but hangs them 
 up as he would so many robbers or banditti. 
 The crews of private ships of war stand in the 
 same predicament : a commission from the 
 sovereign or admiral can alone, in case they are 
 captured, insure them such treatment as is given 
 to prisoners taken in regular warfare." Mar- 
 tens, p. 272, b. 8. " The violences committed 
 by the subjects of one nation against those of 
 another, without authority from their sovereign, 
 are now looked upon as robberies, and the per- 
 petrators are excluded from the rights of lawful 
 enemies." Page 280. " Those not authorized 
 from their sovereign, who take upon themselves 
 to attack the enemy, are treated by him as ban- 
 ditti." Page 284. " Those who, unauthorized 
 by the order of their sovereign, exercise vio- 
 lences against our enemy, and fall into that 
 enemy's hands, have no right to expect the 
 treatment due to prisoners of war : the enemy- 
 is justifiable in putting them to death as ban- 
 
 ditti." The evidence before the court suffi- 
 ciently established the facts on which, under 
 the above passages of the law of nations, Gene- 
 ral Jackson was authorized, if not bound to 
 proceed. 
 
 "Was it supposed by gentlemen, Mr. J. 
 asked, that General Jackson was so ignorant of 
 the language of his country that he did not 
 understand the meaning of the words "pirate 
 and outlaw ?" An outlaw the convict certainly 
 was, as out of the protection of the sovereignty 
 of Great Britain or of any other nation. In re- 
 lation to the term " pirate," it had no other 
 meaning than its technical one : there were 
 pirates on land as well as on the ocean. We 
 are not here, said Mr. J., to inquire whether 
 General Jackson used technical terms, but 
 whether he did substantially or legally right. 
 While we are searching our law books and 
 libraries for our definitions, I hope we shall not 
 lose sight of the difference between our situa- 
 tion and that of the General while in the field ; 
 while our heads repose on downy pillows, and 
 we can rise up and lie down when we please, 
 he had an object to accomplish, at every hazard, 
 and at every cost, which he could not have at- 
 tained if he had not acted as he did. Would 
 you rather, said Mr. J., that these men were 
 living and the country deluged in blood, or 
 that those men should have suffered according 
 to their deserts ? These men had been guilty 
 of that for which one of our own citizens would 
 have been put to death ; and they were prop- 
 erly as well as legally put to death, in pursu- 
 ance of General Jackson's object, which was, 
 according to his instructions, to put a speedy 
 and effectual end to hostilities so unprovoked. 
 These men, living, said Mr. J., the tomahawk 
 and scalping-knife would have been sharpened 
 anew, and other emissaries would have derived 
 encouragement from their impunity. Answer 
 me this, Mr. Chairman had you rather that the 
 Mississippi and its various waters, the country to 
 the Lakes, and beyond them to the North Pole, 
 should have been jeopardized, that New Orleans 
 should have passed from your power into the 
 hands of the British during the late war, or that 
 martial law should have been there established 
 for a short time ? For even that is now brought 
 into view, which contributed so much to the 
 glory as well as safety and honor of the country. 
 If a man did not present himself in the attitude 
 of suspicion, martial law did not affect him. I 
 presume, sir, at least I ho^, had I been there, 
 I should have had no reason to dislike it. I 
 have no particular respect for that desire of 
 locomotion which could not bear to be restrained 
 within certain bounds when the veterans of 
 Wellington were to be met by the raw men of 
 Kentucky and of Tennessee : I do not like that 
 delicate fastidiousness of martial law, when the 
 enemy is knocking at the gate. All men worthy 
 of their country would make the sacrifice re- 
 quired of them on such occasions. If, for want 
 of proper energy on the part of the commanding 
 general, New Orleans had fallen into the posses- 

 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 251 
 
 JiStJAKY, 1819.] 
 
 The Seminole War, 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 sion of our enemy, what would have befallen 
 the inhabitants, independently of the sacrifice 
 of property and life ? Beauty and booty was 
 the watchword of the enemy. Had you rather, 
 sir, that the enemy had succeeded in his object, 
 or that this patriot should have put military law 
 in force? As to the General, whose conduct I 
 am proud to vindicate, said Mr. J., I consider 
 him in the grave as to ambition if he ever had 
 any which I never saw in him, except the 
 ambition to serve his country. I do not speak 
 of him because he is living, and that I ever ex- 
 pect to see again those eyes that never winked 
 at danger when he was called upon to meet it. 
 He has added to the military glory of his country 
 more, perhaps, than any other living citizen ; 
 and, in the view of all statesmen and all writers 
 on national law, the glory of a nation constitutes 
 one of its greatest bulwarks of strength. 
 
 I now coine, said he, to the consideration of 
 the right of the President to make war on the 
 savages ; and on that point I contend that we 
 have on the statute-book a perpetual declara- 
 tion of war against them. I hope gentlemen 
 will take down the expression, and attend to 
 my explanation I say we have a permanent 
 and everlasting declaration of war and why ? 
 The reason is very obvious. I shall not differ 
 from gentlemen as to the policy and justice of 
 observing the duties of humanity towards that 
 unfortunate people. God forbid that a drop of 
 Indian blood should be spilt except on the prin- 
 ciples of civilized man. But the President 
 would be wanting in his duty to his country, 
 and to his God, if he did not use the strong 
 arm of power in putting down the savages by 
 the force he is authorized to employ, if they 
 cannot be put down by the precepts of our holy 
 religion ; and Congress, had they not passed 
 such a statute, would be wanting in duty to their 
 country. Do the Indians ever declare war against 
 their enemy ? Do they embody themselves and 
 engage in open conflict with their adversary, or 
 do they come, like a thief in the night, and carry 
 death to the unfortunate women, to the aged 
 and infirm men, and the children whom they 
 meet in their incursions ? Is or is not that the 
 universal practice? Let history answer the 
 question. Should we, under these circumstan- 
 ces, have acted rightly, to take no precaution, 
 but fold our arms in listless apathy, until roused 
 by the Indian yell ? Our predecessors too well 
 knew their duty to dp that. As early as 1787, 
 and farther back if it were necessary to trace, 
 provisions of the same nature as those now ex- 
 isting, were enacted by the venerable Congress 
 of the Confederation. By various statutes the 
 same provisions had been continued to the 
 present day. The statute gave to the President 
 a discretionary power to employ the forces of 
 the United States, and to call forth the militia 
 to repress Indian hostility ; and gave it to him 
 properly, on the principles of the constitution. 
 By the constitution, the President is made 
 Commander-in-chief of the Army; and it is 
 made his duty to take care that the laws are 
 
 executed, to suppress insurrections and repel 
 invasions ; and, by the same instrument, it is 
 made our duty to provide for calling forth the 
 militia to be employed in these objects. That 
 power has been exercised in the manner which 
 will be shown by the law of the United States. 
 [Mr. J. here requested the clerk to read the 
 statute to which he alluded ;* and it was read 
 accordingly.] Now, Mr. J. said, he thought 
 this was a declaration of war of at least equal 
 dignity *to the manner in which the savages 
 make war against us, and to the light in which 
 we view them. We treat them, it is true, and 
 we ought to treat them, with humanity ; we 
 have given them privileges beyond all other 
 nations ; but we reserve the right to repel their 
 invasions, and to put to death murderers and 
 violators of our peace, whether Indians or white 
 men. 
 
 Mr. SMYTH, of Virginia, addressed the Chair. 
 I promised, said he, when the House received 
 the report of the Military Committee, that I 
 would, when the time for discussing it arrived, 
 attempt to show, that all the proceedings of 
 General Jackson, in prosecuting the Seminole^ 
 war, were justified by the law of nations. I 
 will proceed to fulfil that promise. 
 
 In examining the proceedings of the armed 
 force of the United States in Florida, I propose 
 to make these inquiries : 1. Have the rights of 
 the United States been transcended ? 2. Have- 
 the constitutional powers of the President 
 been exceeded ? 3. Has General Jackson trans- 
 cended his powers, or violated the laws of na- 
 tions? 
 
 I proceed with the first inquiry : Have the 
 rights of the United States been transcended? 
 
 The law of nations, like the common law of 
 the land, is founded on reason and usage. To 
 prove that it is reasonable that a nation should 
 possess a certain right, is to prove that it does 
 possess that right ; unless it is shown that the 
 custom and usage of nations is otherwise. "We 
 find those customs and usages in treatises com- 
 piled by writers on the law of nations.. 
 
 The right of security, or of self-preservation, 
 is one of the most important, and most unques- 
 tionable rights of nations. A nation has a right 
 not to suffer any other to obstruct its preserva- 
 tion. This is one of those rights called perfect 
 rights. The definition of a perfect right is, that 
 it may be asserted by force. It is, therefore, 
 the duty of the Government to preserve the 
 people. " The safety of the people is the first 
 law." And we have a right to do whatever is 
 necessary to the discharge of our duties. 
 
 "We have a right, by the law of nations, to 
 destroy hostile savages residing within the ter- 
 
 The following was the part of the act passed February 
 28, 1795. which was read : 
 
 SEC. I. That, whenever the United States shall be In- 
 vaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion, from anj for- 
 eign nation or Indian tribe, it shall be lawful for the Presi- 
 dent of the United States to call forth such number of tho 
 militia of the State or States, most convenient to the place 
 of danger or scene of action, as he may judge necessary to 
 repel such invasion, &c.
 
 252 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 The Seminole War. 
 
 [JANUARY, 1819. 
 
 ritorial limits of a neighboring power, but not 
 amenable to the civil laws. A neighboring 
 territory is not to become a safe asylum for 
 banditti, who carry on against us predatory 
 and murderous hostilities. You may not pur- 
 sue a fugitive from justice on the territory of a 
 neighboring nation: there is no necessity to 
 authorize you to do so. But, if you cannot 
 otherwise deliver yourself from an imminent 
 danger, you may enter the territory of a neigh- 
 boring power. -( Vattel, page 167.) In short, 
 the Government, being bound to preserve the 
 people, has a right to all the means necessary 
 to preserve the people, whatever they may be. 
 Nothing can dispense with the obligation, and 
 nothing can destroy the right to the means. 
 
 The right of necessity, and the right of self- 
 defence, are paramount to all other rights 
 claimed under the law of nations. The invio- 
 lability of Ambassadors, and even the inviola- 
 bility of crowned heads, must yield to the 
 security of nations. 
 
 Thus, a conspiracy having been formed in 
 1717, in England, contrived by the Swedish 
 Ambassador, to invade the country and de- 
 throne the King, the Ambassador was arrested 
 and his papers seized, ( Ward, vol. 2, p. 330 ;) 
 the other foreign Ministers expressed their sat- 
 isfaction, except the Ambassador from Spain, 
 who observed that he was sorry no other way 
 could be fallen on for preserving the peace of 
 the kingdom. He then assigned a satisfactory 
 reason for adopting the measure ; there was no 
 other way of preserving the peace of the king- 
 dom ; therefore, the measure was necessary for 
 self-preservation, and consequently lawful. 
 
 The Speaker (Mr. CLAY) has questioned the 
 right of the United States to enter the country 
 of the Seminoles in Florida, to suppress them, 
 and put an end to their hostile incursions. It 
 is a strange doctrine that there is no way to 
 pat an end to the hostilities of a subject savage 
 community, whose country lies within the ter- 
 ritorial limits of a power with which we are at 
 peace, but by declaring war against that power. 
 The law of nations allows you to enter the ter- 
 ritory of a neutral power in quest of an enemy, 
 (Vattel, p. 313.) It is even still more reasona- 
 ble that you should possess the right, when the 
 territory claimed by the neutral power is, in 
 fact, the country, the residence, of your savage 
 enemy, where alone effectual hostilities can be 
 carried on against him. 
 
 The right of a sovereign power to exclusive 
 jurisdiction within a territory, is founded on 
 the engagement to govern the inhabitants, and 
 restrain them from injuring other nations. 
 When the Government is no longer able to re- 
 strain the inhabitants from injuring other na- 
 tions, they have an undoubted right to attack 
 such inhabitants, and suppress them, without 
 going to Avar with that power which has be- 
 come too feeble to restrain them. Should 
 Buenos Ayres, or the Banda Oriental, having 
 shaken off the authority of Spain, make war on 
 the Brazilians, the latter would seem to have 
 
 an undoubted right to invade them without 
 going to war with Spain. Should Mexico set 
 at naught the Spanish Government, and make 
 war against the United States, the latter would 
 have a right to invade Mexico without declar- 
 ing war against Spain. So, in the case under 
 consideration, Spain being unable to restrain 
 the savages of Florida, has no right to complain 
 that the United States have entered that coun- 
 try to restrain them. 
 
 The law of nations may be illustrated by 
 cases in municipal law. I may pursue and de- 
 stroy on your land a noxious animal which I 
 have started on my own. If your house adja- 
 cent to mine is on fire, I may enter on your 
 premises, and pull it down, for the preservation 
 of mine. Where the reason is the same, the 
 law is the same. 
 
 Such being the right of the United States, 
 by the law of nations, it is proper to inquire, 
 what effect on those rights has been produced 
 by the treaty between the United States and 
 Spain. By that treaty both parties bind them- 
 selves " expressly to restrain by force all hostil- 
 ities on the part of the Indian nations within 
 their boundary ; so that Spain will not suffer 
 her Indians to attack the United States." (Laics, 
 v. 2, p. 266.) Spain, then, is bound to restrain 
 her savage subjects, and is liable to pay all 
 damages that may be sustained by her failure ; 
 and should she fail, from inability to suppress 
 them, she is still bound to use all the means in 
 her power, and to furnish all the aid in her 
 power for that purpose. The engagements of a 
 treaty impose a perfect obligation, and give a 
 perfect right ; a right which may, if necessary, 
 be asserted by force. (Vattel, p. 182.) Spain 
 then agrees, and is bound, that the Indians 
 shall be suppressed, and the United States have 
 a right that the Indians shall be suppressed. 
 It is preposterous to contend, that, because 
 Spain is unable to restrain the hostilities of her 
 Indians, that, therefore, they are to remain un- 
 restrained, when Spain has agreed that they 
 shall be restrained, and the United States have 
 a right that they shall be restrained. The 
 consequence of the inability of Spain is, that 
 the United States may use force in restraining 
 the Indians of Spain ; and have a right to all 
 the means of effecting that object that Spain 
 can furnish. When the performance of the 
 duties of Spain devolves on the United States, 
 they have a right to the means of performing 
 those duties. Therefore, if the possession of 
 the forts in Florida, is necessary to the sup- 
 pression and restraint of those savages, the 
 United States have a right to the possession of 
 them. 
 
 The law of nations also recognizes the right, 
 arising from necessity, of seizing a place of 
 strength belonging to a neutral power, and 
 putting a garrison into it, either for defending 
 itself against an enemy, or for the purpose of 
 preventing him in his designs of seizing this 
 place, when the neutral government is not able 
 to defend it. (Vattel, p. 315.) The treaty
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 253 
 
 JANCAUY, 1819.] 
 
 The Seminole War. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 with Spain certainly neither diminishes nor 
 weakens the rights of the United States. It 
 increases and strengthens them. The object 
 of the article under consideration, is the sup- 
 pression of the hostile savages. This object is 
 to be, and must be, effected. The two nations 
 have agreed and bound themselves that it shall 
 be effected ; and that agreement is as to them 
 a written law of nations. 
 
 Our right being established, and the incapa- 
 city of Spain to fulfil her obligation notorious, 
 the law of nations allowed the United States, 
 when they could not obtain due satisfaction by 
 amicable means, or foresaw that it would be 
 useless to try such means, to have recourse to 
 forcible means in pursuit of their rights (Mar- 
 tens, pp. 265, 268.) Indeed, the right claimed by 
 the United States was of such a nature that a 
 specific performance of the agreement to suppress 
 the hostilities of the savages was indispensable. 
 If that could not be performed by Spain, it must 
 be performed by the United States, who would 
 then be entitled to demand of Spain satisfaction 
 for her failure to perform her engagements. 
 
 It therefore seems to me that there can be no 
 doubt that the United States had a right to en- 
 ter Florida in pursuit of the Seminole savages ; 
 to possess the means necessary to restrain them 
 and to restrain them. 
 
 The next inquiry that I propose to make is, 
 Have the constitutional powers of the President 
 been exceeded ? 
 
 An honorable gentleman from Georgia was 
 of opinion that there should have been a decla- 
 ration of war against the Seminoles. He says, 
 " the war-declaring power has been snatched 
 from Congress." Let me here remark, that I 
 think this objection would have .come better 
 from any other quarter than from the State of 
 Georgia, for the safety of whose people this war 
 has been commenced and prosecuted. I would 
 also remark, that this objection would have 
 come better from any other gentleman than him 
 who made it ; yet no doubt he made it in obe- 
 dience to what he now deems his duty. 
 
 On examining the journals of the last session, 
 I find, on the third of April, this entry : " On 
 motion of Mr. COBB, resolved that the Com- 
 mittee on Military Affairs be instructed to in- 
 quire into the expediency of increasing the pay 
 of the militia now in service, or which may 
 hereafter be called into the service of the United 
 States, in the war now prosecuting against the 
 Seininole tribe of Indians." This was ten days 
 after the President had informed the House 
 that the army was authorized to enter Florida. 
 An acknowledgment that war exists, is a decla- 
 ration of war.* It then appears, that at least 
 the gentleman and this House have declared the 
 war. Another proof that the war was author- 
 ized by Congress, is found in the appropriation 
 for the pay of militia employed therein. A 
 third piece of evidence, which will prove satis- 
 factory to the gentleman, is an act passed in 
 
 * 4th voL Laws, S35. 
 
 pursuance of his resolution, which recognizes 
 " the war against the Seminole tribe of Indians," 
 and is a complete declaration of war by Con- 
 gress.* 
 
 But all this was unnecessary to enable the 
 President to make war against the Seminoles ; 
 for a defensive war need not be declared ; the 
 state of war being sufficiently determined by 
 the open hostilities of the enemy. t Our war 
 against the Indians is decisive, although carried 
 on in their country, because we suffered the 
 first act of violence.J Should Spain commence 
 war against us after the rising of Congress, no 
 doubt the President, with his fleets and armies, 
 would be authorized to fight before the meeting 
 of Congress, and to continue fighting, whether 
 the war was ever declared or not. And we 
 have given to the President a continuing au- 
 thority to repel invasions by the Indian tribes. 
 The act of Congress under which President 
 Washington ordered the Generals St. Clair and 
 Wayne to invade the Indian country, merely 
 authorized him to call out the militia to aid in 
 protecting the frontiers from the hostile inva- 
 sions of the Indians.] The attack by the In- 
 dians of Florida being an invasion, tho Presi- 
 dent was authorized to repel it, and in repelling 
 to pursue and effectually to suppress the in- 
 vaders. 
 
 It by no means follows, as some seem to sup- 
 pose, that because the President cannot declare 
 war, that he can do nothing for the protection 
 of the nation, and the assertion of its rights. 
 The power to declare war, is a power to an- 
 nounce regular war, or war in form, against an- 
 other power. But it never was intended, by 
 reserving this power to Congress, to take from 
 the President the power to do any act necessary 
 to preserve the nation's rights, and which does 
 not put the nation into a state of war with an- 
 other power. If Congress, in addition to the 
 power of declaring war, assume to themselves 
 the power of directing every movement of the 
 public force that may touch a neutral ; or that 
 may be made for preserving the national rights ; 
 or executing the laws and treaties ; they will 
 assume powers given to the President by the 
 constitution. A declaration of war against 
 savages is not only unnecessary, but would be 
 highly impolitic. It would be an acknowledg- 
 ment of their independence; an acknowledg- 
 ment that they may engage in Avar in form ; 
 that the usages of such a war apply to hostilities 
 with them ; and that they are entitled to the 
 treatment of lawful enemies. I contend that 
 there can be no such thing as a war in form be- 
 tween this nation and a tribe of American gav- 
 jes. A war, waged by Indians against the 
 nited States, can have no lawful object. The 
 only object of such a war must bo plunder, mas- 
 sacre, destruction, and revenge and incursions 
 committed without lawful authority, or appa- 
 rent cause, and only for havoc and pillage, can 
 
 * Acts first session, Fifteenth Conpress, pacre 94. 
 t Vattel, 293. $ Martens. _'-*. 
 
 2d vol. laws, 479. 1 Same, 74, lu'.'.
 
 254 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R] 
 
 The Seminole War. 
 
 [JANUARY, 1819. 
 
 be productive of no lawful effect. A nation at- 
 tacked by such enemies is under no obligation 
 to treat them as lawful enemies. They may be 
 hanged as robbers,* or banditti. 
 
 It' the President has a right to repel an Indian 
 invasion without a declaration of war, as I have 
 contended, then he may lawfully enter even a 
 neutral territory in pursuit of the enemy with- 
 out making war against that neutral power; 
 and consequently without war having been de- 
 clared against such power. If the United States 
 have a right to enter the territory of Spain, 
 there to suppress the Seminoles as I have con- 
 tended, then the President may assert that 
 right ; for the act being no act of war against 
 Spain, a declaration of war is not necessary to 
 precede or authorize its performance. The ex- 
 ercise of a right is neither war nor cause of war ; 
 nor does the violence which opposition may 
 render necessary, make it war. We may en- 
 ter a neutral territory to attack an enemy ; we 
 may seize a neutral place to anticipate an 
 enemy ; we may pass by force, when necessary, 
 through neutral territory ; yet the place or ter- 
 ritory is still considered neutral, and therefore 
 the act is not war. 
 
 This right of the nation is to be exercised by 
 those intrusted with its protection. The Presi- 
 dent is charged with the duty of asserting the 
 rights of the nation, and he is furnished with 
 the means. He is Commander-in-chief of the 
 Army and Fleet ; and it is his duty to see that 
 the laws (which include treaties) be faithfully 
 executed. He may therefore possess, on be- 
 half of the United States, whatever another 
 power by treaty authorizes the United States to 
 possess. He may do beyond the jurisdiction of 
 the United States whatever the law of nations 
 or treaties authorize the United States there to 
 do. He cannot seek satisfaction by war. He 
 cannot make reprisals. But he may assert a 
 specific right ; or take possession of a specific 
 thing, claimed by the United States. Thus, 
 President Madison took possession of West 
 Florida, claimed by the United States, and also 
 by Spain. By his order, Wilkinson took the 
 fort of Mobile from a Spanish officer. Force 
 was to have been used, but the place was ob- 
 tained by capitulation. I doubt not those pro- 
 ceedings had the entire approbation of the 
 Speaker, (Mr. CLAY,) who very ably advocated 
 the claim of the United States to that province. 
 I therefore conclude, that all the right which 
 the United States had to do the acts which 
 have been done in Florida, is vested in the Presi- 
 dent, the Executive branch of the Government. 
 The next inquiry which I propose to make is, 
 Has General Jaclcson transcended his orders, or 
 violated the law of nations f 
 
 In examining this question, it is necessary to 
 
 see, in the first place, what were his orders. 
 
 On examining the orders under which General 
 
 Jackson acted, I find them to be as follows : 
 
 "26th Dec. 1817. To adopt the necessary 
 
 measures to terminate a conflict which it has 
 ever been the desire of the President, from con- 
 siderations of humanity, to avoid ; but which is 
 now made necessary by their settled hostilities." 
 
 " 16th Jan. 1818. To terminate speedily the 
 war with the Seminoles ; and with EXEMPLAEY 
 PUNISHMENT for hostilities so unprovoked ; the 
 honor of the United States requires it." 
 
 "29th Jan. 1818. To put a speedy and success- 
 ful termination to the Indian Avar." 
 
 _"6th Feb. 1818. To terminate the rupture 
 with the Indians as speedily as practicable; 
 to restore peace on such conditions as will 
 make it honorable and, permanent. The HONOR 
 our army, and the interest of our country re- 
 quires it." 
 
 In an order issued previous to all those which 
 I have quoted, to wit, on the 16th of December, 
 1817, and addressed to General Gaines, he is 
 allowed to march across the Florida line, and 
 attack the Indians within its limits, should it be 
 found necessary, "unless they should shelter 
 themselves under a Spanish fort. In the last 
 event, you will immediately notify this Depart- 
 ment." This event never did happen ; the In- 
 dians did not shelter themselves under a Span- 
 ish fort. And the event never having happened, 
 the orders are to be understood as if no such 
 clause was contained therein. This clause can- 
 not be construed into a prohibition to possess 
 himself of the forts of Florida, if necessity, or 
 hostilities, justified the commanding officer in 
 doing so, according to the law of nations or 
 from treaties. 
 
 I will consider the objections that have been 
 made to the proceedings of General Jackson : 1. 
 In occupying St. Marks. 2. In occupying Pen- 
 sacola. 3. In executing Arbuthnot and Am- 
 brister. But here let me remark, that the 
 President has refused to censure or punish Gen- 
 eral Jackson for his proceedings in Florida, and 
 thus takes upon himself the responsibility for 
 them. It is the President that is responsible to 
 Congress, and we shall not turn aside from him 
 io censure a subordinate officer. It is against 
 the President that we should direct our meas- 
 ures, if we take any. He has applauded Gen- 
 eral Jackson's motives, and excused his actions, 
 and it is not for us to condemn them. This 
 Eouse may impeach, and the Senate may try 
 the President ; but General Jackson is not re- 
 sponsible to either. 
 
 Let us see if General Jackson was not justi- 
 iable in occupying St. Marks. I have attempted 
 to show that, as the United States had been 
 compelled, by the delinquency of Spain, to do 
 the duties of Spain, they were entitled to the 
 possession of the means, and so entitled to the 
 jossession of the fort of St. Marks, as a means 
 of restraining the Indians. I have also shown 
 ;hat, by the law of nations, necessity authorizes 
 ;he temporary seizure of a place, for preventing 
 ;he enemy from seizing this place, when the 
 neutral sovereign is unable to defend it.* To 
 
 Vattel, 296, 397. 
 
 * Vattel, 815.
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 255 
 
 JANUARY, 1819.] 
 
 The Seminole War. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 require that the exercise of this right should be 
 preceded by a declaration of war, is to deny the 
 right altogether, which is to take possession of 
 the fortress of a neutral power. The Indians 
 and negroes had threatened to occupy St. Marks,* 
 and premeditated seizing that post.t Five hun- 
 dred of them had approached it, to the alarm of 
 the commander.}: The case in which it is jus- 
 tifiable to seize a neutral post, existed. The 
 General therefore stands fully justified in the 
 seizure of St. Marks. Thus the Great Freder- 
 ick, having ascertained the intended invasion 
 and partition 1 of his dominions, by Russia and 
 Austria, took Dresden in depot, that he might 
 be beforehand with his enemies. 
 
 I will pass from St. Marks to the occupation 
 of Pensacola. The orders of General Jackson 
 were to "adopt the necessary measures" to 
 procure a speedy and effectual termination of 
 the war, and a peace on such terms as would 
 be permanent, and honorable to the army and 
 the United States. But the war could not be 
 speedily terminated, if the Spanish Governor 
 of Pensacola abetted, encouraged, and supplied 
 the savages, and obstructed the arrival of sup- 
 plies for the American army. The possession 
 of Pensacola was necessary to the execution of 
 his orders. 
 
 Provisions may be seized by force when ne- 
 cessary. Then a post may be occupied which 
 obstructs their arrival. The Spanish command- 
 ant of Pensacola having endangered the exist- 
 ence of the American army, by detaining their 
 supplies of provisions, it was necessary that he 
 should be deprived of the power of doing the 
 same again, during the continuance of the war. 
 
 General Jackson was reminded, in his orders, 
 of the honor of the United States, and the honor 
 of the army. His duty to preserve both invio- 
 late was* thus particularly impressed upon him. 
 While engaged in suppressing the Seminoles, 
 and thus performing what it was the duty of 
 Spain to have done, he was ordered by the Gov- 
 ernor of Pensacola to retire with his forces from 
 "West Florida, with a threat to use force to com- 
 pel him, if he did not comply.! "Will any mem- 
 ber say, that, on receiving this order, Jackson 
 should have fled ? Ought he to have forgotten 
 the HONOR of the United States, the HONOR of 
 the American army, so lately and particularly 
 recommended to his safe-keeping, and fled from 
 West Florida, before the Spanish Cross, to avoid 
 the arms of Don Jose Mazot? I presume no 
 one would say he should have fled. Whatever 
 doubt there might be as to the necessity or le- 
 gality of taking possession of Pensacola before 
 the Governor issued this menace, there was none 
 afterwards. General Jackson at once saw that 
 if he retired, he retired in disgrace, the honor 
 of the United States and of the army tarnished, 
 and his orders shamefully violated. It became 
 necessary that he should deprive Mazot of the 
 
 * Documents, 91. 
 
 t Documents, 56, 63, 81, Lnengo's letter. 
 Vattel, 166. 
 
 1 Documents, 60. 
 I Documents, p. 116. 
 
 means of carrying his threat into execution. A 
 threat which, if he should not attempt to exe- 
 cute against General Jackson himself, while his 
 army remained in full force, it now became ex- 
 tremely probable that he would carry it into 
 execution, with the aid of the savage and negro 
 enemy, against the diminished force which Gen- 
 eral Jackson might leave in Florida. The im- 
 mediate occupation by General Jackson of the 
 fort of Barancas, was the necessary and proper 
 result of the hostile declaration of Governor 
 Mazot. 
 
 I will next consider the objections made to 
 the conduct of General Jackson, in the execu- 
 tion of Arbnthnot and Ambrister. 
 
 Some of my arguments on this branch of the 
 subject, have been anticipated by the honorable 
 member who has preceded me, the chairman of 
 the Military Committee, (Mr. JOHNSON, of Ken- 
 tucky,) and it gives me satisfaction to find that 
 my opinion agrees with that of a gentleman who 
 is as much distinguished by his humanity as by 
 his valor. 
 
 My observations will chiefly relate to the case 
 of Ambrister, as the proceedings against him 
 have been the most censured ; and what is said 
 of his case, will in the general apply to that of 
 Arbuthnot. 
 
 I will attempt to maintain that Ambrister was 
 an outlaw, making war without authority, in- 
 stigating savages to an unlawful war, a leader 
 of banditti, and liable, by the law of nations and 
 the usages of war, to suffer death. 
 
 It was found by the special court-martial, that 
 Ambrister had led and commanded Indians in 
 carrying on war against the United States, being 
 a British subject. Peace exists between all the 
 citizens of the United States and all the subjects 
 of Great Britain ; and the Englishman who 
 counsels, aids, or abets savages to massacre the 
 people of the United States, is a murderer. 
 
 It is the laws of war, a branch of the law of 
 nations, that gives to the commanding General 
 a right to put prisoners to death, either for a 
 violation of the usages of war, or by way of re- 
 taliation. In the one case, they die for their 
 own crime, and their punishment is just ; in 
 the other, they are put to death for the crimes 
 of their party, and their punishment is justified 
 by policy. 
 
 Among the crimes against the laws of war, 
 for which a prisoner may justly die, are 1. 
 Making war without authority, the war being 
 lawful ; 2. Making war, if the war is unlawful ; 
 3. Using means contrary to the laws of war. 
 
 That article of the laws of war that provides 
 that he who fights without authority is liable to 
 suffer death, seems not to have been rightly un- 
 derstood by either branch of the Military Com- 
 mittee: but it is a rule well established, and 
 very beneficial to humanity. General Jackson 
 seems to me to have entertained a correct idea 
 of the rule, but not to have taken time, when 
 giving his order for the execution of Ambrister, 
 to express himself with sufficient clearness. I 
 should interpolate the rule as laid down by him,
 
 256 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF K.] 
 
 The Semiiwle War. 
 
 [JANUARY, 1819. 
 
 and make it read thus : " It is an established 
 principle of the law of nations, that any indi- 
 vidual of a nation making war against the citi- 
 zens (or soldiers) of another nation, the nations 
 being at peace, (and having no authority by 
 being in the service of a power making a lawful 
 war,) forfeits the protection of his government ; 
 and becomes an outlaw (or robber, if be makes 
 war by land) or a pirate, (if he makes war by 
 sea.") The rule thus amended is equally ap- 
 plicable to the case of Ambrister, as in the form 
 expressed by General Jackson. And it is fully 
 established by the writers on the law of nations. 
 
 Ambrister did not, by coming to Florida, owe 
 allegiance to Bowlegs or to Hillishajo. He con- 
 tinued tbe subject of Great Britain; and he 
 owed temporary allegiance to the King of Spain. 
 By aiding savages to carry on war against the 
 United States, he violated the British treaty, the 
 Spanish treaty, the law of nature, the law of na- 
 tions, and the laws of war, and justly suffered 
 death. 
 
 It is only in lawful wars that those who are 
 taken are entitled to the treatment of prisoners 
 of war. A war, to be lawful, must be under- 
 taken by the sovereign power.* There must be 
 lawful authority for making it, and apparent 
 just cause. It must not be merely an incursion 
 for havoc and pillage. An individual cannot 
 wage lawful war against a nation ; he is a rob- 
 ber. A family cannot ; they will be robbers. 
 A tribe of savages cannot ; they may be treated 
 as enemies of the human race. " Nations which 
 are always ready to take arms on any prospect 
 of advantage, are lawless robbers; but they 
 who seem to delight in the ravages of war, who 
 spread it on all sides, without any other motive 
 than their ferocity, are monsters unworthy the 
 name of men. All nations have a right to join 
 in punishing, suppressing, and even extermina- 
 ting such savages."t This is the language of 
 the law of nations. Then, as the Seminole sav- 
 ages could not themselves make a lawful war 
 against the United States, their chiefs, Bowlegs 
 and Hillishajo, could not communicate such a 
 right to Ambrister. 
 
 Having considered the liability of Ambrister 
 to suffer death, for a violation of the laws of 
 war, in exercising unlawful hostilities, I will 
 next consider his liability to be put to death by 
 way of retaliation, as a person incorporated with 
 the enemy. 
 
 I lay down, with regard to the savages, this 
 rule of warfare. Whatever degree of force, 
 whatever destruction, whatever punishment for 
 violating the usages of war or by way of re- 
 taliation, is found necessary to deter them from 
 robbing our citizens, and massacring our women 
 and children ; that force, destruction, and pun- 
 ishment, they should be made to feel, and no 
 more. So much we have an undoubted right 
 to inflict on the principle of self-preservation. 
 And if we do not inflict so much, we fail in our 
 sacred duty to preserve the people. 
 
 Yattel, 296 ; Martens, 2T2. t Vattel, 232, 151, 152. 
 
 I find this opinion fully supported by the au- 
 thority and example of the greatest man that 
 this or any other country has produced. Gen- 
 eral Washington, who knew when to silence 
 pity, if its exercise was injurious to his country, 
 did not consider the usages of war, or the prin- 
 ciples of humanity, as applicable to a war car- 
 ried on for the punishment of the unprovoked 
 and atrocious hostilities of savages.* In his 
 order to General Sullivan, directing his opera- 
 tions in the Indian country, I find the following 
 clauses : 
 
 " The expedition you are appointed to command is 
 to be directed against the hostile tribes of the Six 
 Nations of Indians, with their associates and ad- 
 herents. The immediate objects are the total destruc- 
 tion and devastation of their settlements, and the 
 capture of as many prisoners of every age and sex as 
 possible. 1 * 
 
 " I would recommend that some post in the centre 
 of the Indian country be occupied with all expedi- 
 tion, with a sufficient quantity of provision, whence 
 parties should be detached to lay waste all the set- 
 tlements around, with injunctions to do it in the most 
 effectual manner, that the country may not merely 
 be overrun, but destroyed." 
 
 " After you have very thoroughly completed the 
 destruction of their settle'ments, if the Indians should 
 show a disposition for peace, I would have you to en- 
 courage it, on condition that they will give some de- 
 cisive evidence of their sincerity, by delivering up 
 some of the principal instigators of their past hostili- 
 ties, into our hands Butler, Brandt, the most mis- 
 chievous of the Tories that have joined them, or any 
 other they may have in their power, that we are in- 
 terested to get into ours." 
 
 " But you will not, by any means, listen to over- 
 tures of peace, before the total ruin of their settle- 
 ments is effected." 
 
 " Our future security will be in their inability to 
 injure us the distance to which they are driven, and 
 the terror with which the severity of the chastise- 
 ment they receive, will inspire them peace without 
 this would be fallacious and temporary." 
 
 " When we have effectually chastised them, we 
 may then listen to peace ; and endeavor to draw fur- 
 ther advantage from their fears." 
 
 Such were the orders given by General Wash- 
 ington for inflicting exemplary punishment on 
 the savages. Let us see how they were execut- 
 ed. " Every lake, river, and creek, in the coun- 
 try of the Six Nations, was traced for villages, 
 and no vestige of human industry was permit- 
 ted to remain. Houses, corn-fields, gardens, and 
 fruit-trees, shared one common fate. Eighteen 
 villages, a number of detached buildings, one 
 hundred and sixty thousand bushels of corn, 
 and all those fruits and vegetables which con- 
 duce to the comfort and subsistence of men, 
 were utterly destroyed.! On receiving the 
 communication of General Sullivan, Congress 
 passed a vote of approbation of his conduct, 
 and of that of the army." 
 
 Had Brandt and Butler fallen into the hands 
 of General Washington, they would, no doubt, 
 have met the fate of Arbuthnot and Ambrister. 
 
 * Vattel, 840. 
 
 t Marshall's History, 100.
 
 DEBATES OF CONGKESS. 
 
 257 
 
 JANUARY, 1819.] 
 
 The Seminole War. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 So resolved was General Washington that a 
 severe example should be made, that he would 
 not even listen to proposals of peace until it had 
 been done. In the present case, also, the pun- 
 ishment was inflicted for example ; to preserve 
 the peace of the frontier ; to preserve from the 
 hatchet and scalping- knife women and children. 
 Many will be saved by the example ; but, should 
 only* one be saved, Arbuthnot and Ambrister 
 have not died in vain. 
 
 The committee come to the conclusion that 
 General Jackson acted unlawfully by supposing 
 that the special court or board of officers ap- 
 pointed to investigate the fact in the cases of 
 Arbuthnot and Ambrister were a general court 
 martial, appointed to try and determine offences 
 under the articles of war. If that were so, the 
 second sentence of the court in Ambrister's case, 
 that he should receive fifty stripes, and be con- 
 fined with a ball and chain to hard labor for 
 twelve calendar months, is contrary to law, and, 
 therefore, void; for, an act of Congress has re- 
 pealed so much of the articles of war as author- 
 izes the infliction of corporeal punishment by 
 stripes.* But the court was not appointed 
 under the articles of war. It was neither a 
 general nor a regimental court-martial. Its au- 
 thority was derived from the order of the com- 
 manding General, and was to investigate 
 charges, and record their opinion as to the guilt 
 or innocence of the prisoners, and what punish- 
 ment, if any, should be inflicted. The law 
 under which Ambrister was punished was the 
 laws of war. Those laws do not authorize in- 
 fliction of torture. Therefore, the second sen- 
 tence, to inflict stripes and labor at a ball and 
 chain, is illegal and void. Whatever law the 
 court was appointed and acted under, the 
 second sentence is unlawful and void; conse- 
 quently, the first sentence, that Ambrister 
 should suffer death by being shot, was the only 
 legal sentence, and properly carried into execu- 
 tion. 
 
 Ambrister died by the sole authority of Gen- 
 eral Jackson. No court-martial had power to 
 try him by any law of the United States. But 
 the committee say, that, " wherever severity is 
 not absolutely necessary, mercy becomes a duty." 
 A similar expression has been used by the 
 writers on the laws of nations in regard to re- 
 taliating on the innocent for the guilt of others ; 
 !but that is not this case. What mean the com- 
 mittee by "absolute necessity?" The nation 
 indeed was not in danger : nor was it in danger 
 when Andre died ; and according to the reason- 
 ing of the committee, General Washington 
 should have pardoned Andre ; but Andre suf- 
 fered, because the case required that the ex- 
 ample should have its full effect ; and so it was 
 required in the case of Ambrister. Where par- 
 don will have a pernicious effect on the in- 
 terests of society, mercy becomes weakness and 
 
 folly. 
 Iti 
 
 t is alleged that these incidents, the execu- 
 
 * Acts of Maj, 1812. 
 You VI. 17 
 
 tion of Arbuthnot and Ambrister, are at variance 
 with the principles of our constitution and laws. 
 Our constitution and laws were formed for the 
 people of the United States. They have no 
 force in Florida. Ambrister and Hillishajo 
 never came under the shade of the umbrella of 
 the constitution. " They should," says the hon- 
 orable Speaker, (Mr. CLAY,) "have been 
 turned over to the civil authority. So soon as 
 the stranger treads the American soil, he is en- 
 circled by the laws." I answer, there was no 
 civil authority having jurisdiction of their cases, 
 to which they could have been turned over. 
 They never did tread on that portion of Ameri- 
 can ground where they could claim the benefit 
 of our laws. Nor do those laws protect enemies 
 hi time of war. They did not protect Sir 
 Charles Asgill ; they did not protect Andre, or 
 the emissaries who sought to corrupt the sol- 
 diers of the Pennsylvania line. 
 
 FEIDAT, January 22. 
 The Seminole War. 
 
 The committee again took up the subject of 
 the Seminole war. 
 
 Mr. JONES, of Tennessee, next addressed the 
 House. He said he had really felt some degree 
 of astonishment when this resolution was intro- 
 duced by the Committee on Military Affairs ; 
 not because this House ought not to examine, 
 and strictly to examine, the conduct of any of 
 the officers of this Government a right which 
 h hoped it would ever claim, and prayed God 
 it might never fear to exercise. But, said Mr. 
 J., when we are informed that, during this war, 
 not only Arbuthnot and Ambrister, two British 
 gentlemen, have been executed, but that two 
 Indian chiefs have also suffered death, by order 
 of the commanding General, it indeed seems 
 somewhat strange that not a breath should be 
 uttered as to the latter. Why, sir, is this dis- 
 crimination ? Is it because they were Britons ? 
 Is it because they were subjects of a civilized 
 nation? Is it because they understood, but 
 would not obey, the precepts of morality, of 
 mercy, and of justice ? This, sir, I have no 
 doubt, the committee would be unwilling to ad- 
 mit. These Indians, Mr. Chairman, were also 
 human beings ; and, sir, I am free to declare 
 that, on this subject, I partially accord with the 
 honorable Speaker. If those chiefs had been 
 mere Indians, or Indian chiefs, fighting the bat- 
 tles of their country, as they had a right to do, 
 rude, ignorant, and superstitious, as they may 
 have been, I should, to say the least of it, have 
 deeply regretted their execution. Poor, wreteh- 
 ed, miserable beings ! Absolute necessity alone 
 should demand their lives. Rather than shed 
 their blood, rather than drive them from the 
 face of the earth, rather than hunt them down, 
 (as we have been compelled to do,) like the 
 wild beast of the forest, I would, if possible, 
 show them the light of science point out to 
 them the manner by which they may know 
 something themselves, and be acknowledged
 
 258 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 The Seminole War. 
 
 [JANUARY, 1819. 
 
 men by the nations of the earth. But, sir, we 
 are informed, as to these chiefs, that they were 
 not mere Indians, fighting the battles of their 
 country ; but, on the contrary, when our army 
 was lying on the confines of Florida; when 
 General Gaines was ordered merely to demand 
 the perpetrators of murders which had been 
 committed on our defenceless citizens; when 
 we were declaring to them that we were desir- 
 ous of nothing more than peace, these were the 
 men who commanded the party that murdered 
 Lieutenant Scott and his company scalped and 
 tomahawked the women of his party ; and, to 
 close the scene, when the men had fallen, and 
 the women were murdered, against the boat 
 that bore them the heads of the babes were 
 dashed in pieces. But, if the honorable Speaker 
 could convince us that these chiefs should not 
 have suffered, would we, therefore, be convinced 
 that we should adopt the resolution now under 
 consideration, which relates only to the execu- 
 tion of Arbuthnot and Ambrister ? In examin- 
 ing this subject, I beg leave explicitly to state, 
 that I claim not of this House its sympathy or 
 its pity for General Jackson : if he cannot be 
 justified by the law of nations, let him fall. I 
 am rejoiced to learn, Mr. Chairman, that all 
 who have yet expressed an opinion either way 
 on this subject, have willingly admitted that 
 his motives for his actions were of the purest 
 character. I may also be permitted to state, 
 that I have had the honor of a personal ac- 
 quaintance with General Jackson have served 
 under him, and fought with him ; and, although 
 it was my misfortune to differ with him as to 
 the correctness of some of the measures which 
 were adopted during the short period of my 
 service, still, sir, since the commencement of 
 his military career, in 1812, till the present pe- 
 riod, I have had but one uniform opinion as to 
 the main object which he has kept steadily in 
 view ; that is, that it was nothing else than the 
 glory and honor of his country. Now, sir, let 
 us examine what were the charges against these 
 men. They were these: exciting and stirring 
 up the Indians to war, and, as to Ambrister, 
 leading them to battle ; these were the charges 
 of which they were found guilty, and for which 
 they were executed. It was established, beyond 
 a doubt, that these men had crossed the Atlan- 
 tic for no other purpose than to carry into com- 
 plete execution the hellish views of the famous 
 Colonel Nicholls and Captain Woodbine, their 
 predecessors ; that these men, the subjects of a 
 civilized nation, well understood the manner in 
 which these savages carry on war ; that they 
 regard neither age, female, nor infantine inno- 
 cence ; whose almost only rule is indiscriminate 
 murder; that, in fact, they were the prime 
 movers of the war ; that they, in fact, were 
 really the murderers of our women and chil- 
 dren. Are these men, I may here be permitted 
 to ask, less guilty of the murders which they 
 indirectly perpetrated than the wretched savage 
 by whose hand they did the deed ? Ask the 
 soldier whose wife has been murdered by sav- 
 
 age hands, upon whom he would take ven- 
 geance ; or the mother, whose children have 
 been butchered, upon whom she will be 
 avenged. Ask common sense itself, who are 
 the real actors in these bloody scenes. But we 
 are told by the honorable gentleman from Geor- 
 gia, with some degree of triumph, that General 
 Jackson has established a new rule of the law 
 of nations; says the gentleman, he declares 
 that it is an established rule of the law of na- 
 tions, that any individual of a nation, making 
 war against the citizens of another nation, they 
 being at peace, forfeits his allegiance, and be- 
 comes an outlaw and a pirate. It is not Gen- 
 eral Jackson, sir, who is mistaken, but the gen- 
 tleman himself; he has confounded two distinct 
 and separate rules of the law of nations. The 
 first of which is this, that I, a citizen of the 
 United States, have a right, by the law of na- 
 tions, to advise the Government of France to 
 war with Great Britain, or any other power ; 
 and if she choose to take my advice ; if she de- 
 clare war ; if (which is essential to this rule) 
 the act of declaring war be a national act ; or 
 if, without my advice, she be at war, I may of 
 right enlist under her banners ; I may lead or 
 fight with her troops. Under these circumstan- 
 ces, I am identified with the French troops, 
 and, if taken prisoner, am entitled to the same 
 treatment as a French prisoner of war. The 
 other rule of the law of nations will be found to 
 be nearly in the words of the General ; that is, 
 if, as in the case above stated, I advise a nation 
 to go to war, but she does not choose to take 
 my advice, finding that the nation cannot be 
 engaged ; or if, without consulting anybody, I 
 set about making war myself, I engage a set of 
 desperate characters, or whoever else you please, 
 and proceed to acts of hostility against the na- 
 tion I would injure. This, sir, in the words of 
 the General, would be an individual of one na- 
 tion making war against the citizens of another 
 nation, and this band, by the law of nations, 
 are declared outlaws and pirates. "Which of 
 these rules, then, sir, will apply to the case of 
 Arbuthnot and Ambrister ? Are these vagrant 
 savages a nation of people, within the meaning 
 of the rule first mentioned ; and, if so, has that 
 nation declared war, and might these men have 
 enlisted under their banner, and so have been 
 entitled to the rights of prisoners of war? 
 Whoever will take the trouble to examine the 
 history of this war will be satisfied that it never 
 can be viewed as having been a national act, 
 within the rule above mentioned ; and, to prove 
 this, in the first place, I ask, if the fugitive Keel 
 Sticks, having formed a desperate band, partly 
 of the relics of their own nation, and partly of 
 Seminoles, could be considered as a nation, hav- 
 ing a right to make war or peace ? Or \vere 
 they a banditti ? Or what would you call the 
 civilized wretch who would lead them? If 
 these had not the right, I ask if the Indian and 
 negro party of Colonel Nicholls had a right to 
 make war? Will any one pretend to say that 
 this tri-colored party were a nation ? No, sir,
 
 DEBATES OF CONGKESS. 
 
 259 
 
 JANUARY, 1819.] 
 
 The Seminole War. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 they were the refuse of villany itself; and yet, 
 sir, it is an important fact, that these parties 
 were perhaps the most prominent in the war ; 
 they did not enlist under the banners of the na- 
 tion, hut, sir, many of the citizens of the nation, 
 (if it may be so called,) rallied round their 
 standard. It is also a fact, worthy of consider- 
 ation, that a considerable part of the nation 
 were averse to the proceedings of their breth- 
 ren, and fought with us against them. Under 
 these circumstances, General Jackson might 
 well view them in the character of individuals 
 making war upon us, or as leaders of a lawless 
 banditti. But, sir, suppose he was incorrect in 
 this view of their case ; suppose they were not 
 outlaws and pirates, still their punishment was 
 just; .for, sir, the charges against them were not 
 that they wore outlaws and pirates, but that 
 they had excited and led the Indians to war 
 against us, and for this they were executed. 
 Whether the crimes for which they suffered 
 constituted them outlaws and pirates, is a ques- 
 tion different from the establishment of the 
 crime itself. I said, sir, that, admitting they 
 were not outlaws and pirates, that still they 
 suffered justly. If they were not the exciters 
 and leaders of a banditti, and, of course, accord- 
 ing to the rule before stated, outlaws and pi- 
 rates, they were officers or soldiers, fighting un- 
 der the banners of a nation which had the right 
 to declare, and which had declared war, and 
 were identified with the citizens of that nation, 
 and were subject to all the laws of war and of 
 nations, as applied to that nation. They had, 
 in fact, become savages. "What, then, sir, is the 
 rule of the law of nations which will apply to 
 them in this situation? It is this: "that when 
 we are at war with a savage nation, which re- 
 gards no rules, we may retaliate upon its citi- 
 zens the cruelties committed on our own, care 
 being taken to punish alone the guilty." Then, 
 sir, I ask if ever there were fit subjects for pun- 
 ishment, under this rule, if these were not 
 they ? men around whom the light of science 
 had shone in its most refulgent splendor who 
 were not ignorant of the precepts of mercy, of 
 moderation, and of justice, to become worse 
 than savages, to stimulate, to lead those wild, 
 those untutored, those miserable men of the 
 forest, to imbrue their hands in the blood of un- 
 resisting innocence. 
 
 But, it is said, there was no necessity for 
 their execution, because, say gentlemen, the 
 war was nearly over, we had no danger to ap- 
 prehend. Sir, the necessity for executing such 
 lawless miscreants exists now as much as then. 
 What, sir, was the object of their punishment ? 
 Not merely that they should atone for the 
 crimes which they had committed, but, sir, it 
 was to teach an important lesson to the unprin- 
 cipled subjects of Great Britain and Spain; it 
 proclaimed to them, sir, in language which 
 could not be misunderstood, what they might 
 expect for like offences; and, sir, I have no 
 doubt but that if, at the commencement of this 
 Government, a determination had been fixed 
 
 and avowed to the world, to punish with in- 
 stant death all such offences, the effect would 
 have been the salvation of the lives of many of 
 our citizens. 
 
 The honorable committee who reported this 
 resolution, have told us that the court-martial 
 has no jurisdiction of the offence. In reply to 
 which I will observe, that if I have shown that, 
 by the law of nations, these men could be pun- 
 ished with death by a prince or by his general, 
 I may be permitted to ask that honorable com- 
 mittee how the commanding General is to ascer- 
 tain the fact of their guilt ? Is he to sit as judge 
 and juror ? Is he to execute them on the mere 
 suggestion of any one who chooses to charge 
 them, or are the facts to be ascertained by re- 
 spectable and honorable officers detailed for the 
 purpose? Sir, if without the investigation of 
 this respectable court these men had been exe- 
 cuted, well, indeed, might we censure the Gen- 
 eral. The honorable gentleman from Georgia 
 inquires, why General Jackson did not execute 
 Weatherford? and answers the interrogatory 
 himself, unhesitatingly, by stating that General 
 Jackson did not then know the plenitude of his 
 powers. Sir, I am happy to know that I have 
 it in my power to give to this honorable com- 
 mittee the true reason why that gallant chief- 
 tain was not executed. Some time, sir, before 
 the treaty of Fort Jackson, this chief was in- 
 formed that General Jackson intended, if he 
 could take him, to put him to death. He was 
 advised by his friends, as his warriors were al- 
 most all slain, as his country was ruined, and as 
 his escape was almost impossible, to surrender 
 himself to General Jackson; that it was useless 
 to attempt further resistance, and this was the 
 only means by which his life could be saved ; he 
 determined to do so, and presented himself to the 
 General, at his headquarters. We are informed 
 that it was demanded of him who he was, and 
 how he came there. He replied, " My name is 
 Weatherford, one of the chiefs of the Red Sticks. 
 I have fought you till my warriors are all slain. 
 If I had warriors I would fight you still, but I 
 have none ; my country is overrun, and my 
 soldiers are fallen. Here I am in your power 
 do with me as you please only recollect that I 
 am a soldier." This, sir, was the reason why 
 the life of that brave chief was saved. If, un- 
 der these circumstances, our General could have 
 executed so distinguished a savage, the most 
 verdant laurel would have faded on his brow. 
 
 Mr. TALLMADGE, of New York. In rising to 
 address the House at so late an hour of the day, 
 when the attention of the House was necessarily 
 fatigued by those who had preceded him, and 
 its patience somewhat exhausted, Mr. T. said, 
 he was aware of the dangers that awaited him; 
 he was aware of the perils that he must encoun- 
 ter in attempting to proceed. But, Mr. T. said, 
 the resolutions under consideration were so im- 
 portant in their nature, and so replete with con- 
 sequences of such magnitude, involving the in- 
 terest and the honor of our country, that a 
 sense of duty impelled him to go on.
 
 260 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 The Seminole War. 
 
 [JANUARY, 1819. 
 
 Sir, said Mr. T., a question of war discussed 
 in the highest deliberative assembly known to 
 a free people, can never fail to become a ques- 
 tion of great individual excitement of great 
 public interest. Its cause, and its consequences, 
 to the public happiness, present it in an aspect 
 almost appalling. But, said he, when the friends 
 of the proposed resolutions tell this House, and 
 tell this nation, that, in addition to the question 
 of the Seminole war and its natural conse- 
 quences, which we are called upon to discuss, 
 in its progress, the constitution of our country 
 has been violated by military power, and the 
 honor of our nation stained by base and inhu- 
 man cruelties it is then, sir, that the question 
 assumes an aspect of tenfold more importance, 
 and calculated to excite the feelings of this House 
 and to arouse the spirit of the nation. Such, 
 said Mr. T., is the question now presented for 
 discussion. It was due to himself to confess to 
 this House that his feelings were excited upon 
 the occasion, and that he entered upon the dis- 
 cussion with a determination to meet it in all 
 its bearings. But, he said, while he thus frankly 
 avowed his feelings, he begged the indulgence 
 to add, that, while he intended his course in 
 debate should be marked with zeal and decision, 
 yet he also intended to observe the decorum in 
 debate due to the dignity of this House. He 
 said it was his pride to say that, since he had 
 the honor of a seat on this floor, he never had 
 used against any member a harsh expression or 
 severe allusion, and that he never would. He 
 tendered his acknowledgments to the gentleman 
 from Georgia (Mr. OOBB) for the example he 
 had set in the opening ardent in debate, but 
 temperate in expression. Mr. T. said it should 
 be his course ; he hoped others would also ob- 
 serve the example. His own opinion was de- 
 cisively formed upon full examination of all the 
 documents and, while he did not doubt of the 
 proper result, and which he should endeavor to 
 prevail on this House to adopt, yet he was free 
 to declare, there was ample room for difference 
 of opinion, and, therefore, he was not inclined 
 to cast any imputations upon those from whom 
 he might differ. 'He was disposed to proffer to 
 them the most charitable indulgence, and he 
 was the more desirous they should accept from 
 him the proffer, because he solicited it for him- 
 self from them in return. 
 
 Mr. T. said a doubt had already been ex- 
 pressed whether this House had the power to 
 discuss and express its opinion upon the present 
 subject, and a hope had been intimated that 
 those who opposed the resolutions would not 
 put that opposition upon the want of right and 
 power in the House, and thus prevent the in- 
 quiry. He said, as for himself, he would not. 
 It was a point upon whifth he had doubts. A 
 great national question had arisen, connected 
 with a recent war, and which had justly excited 
 public feeling it was, in his opinion, fit and 
 proper that the Representatives of the people 
 should investigate the subject and express their 
 opinion, Mr. T. said, it was asserted that the 
 
 Major General, who had conducted the war in 
 its progress, had violated his orders had broken 
 the constitution, and had, by cruelties, dishon- 
 ored our national character. Yet, said he, the 
 President, from whom those orders emanated, 
 has not arrested him, but has approved of his 
 proceedings, and, consequently, stands responsi- 
 ble for the result. Whatever doubts might 
 have been entertained as to our powers in the 
 question between this House and the Major 
 General, approved and adopted as the transac- 
 tions had been by the President, it was now a 
 question between him and the public ; and no 
 doubt of our powers could be reasonably enter- 
 tained. Mr. T. said he hoped the power of the 
 House would ever be sparingly exercised, and 
 be reserved for great occasions. But, I hold, 
 said he, that we have the power, and that it 
 becomes a duty to investigate and express our 
 opinions on great public occasions, producing 
 public excitement. It is here, on this floor, and 
 through their Representatives, that the people 
 can only speak. Your Administration may be- 
 come corrupt your Executive ofiBcers may vio- 
 late the laws, break the constitution, and, by 
 violent outrages, even involve the country in 
 war. In such an event, here, on this floor, and 
 in this power for which I am now contending, 
 will ever be found the only sure corrective. It 
 is one of the dearest privileges of this House ; 
 one of the most essential to the liberties of the 
 country to be preserved and maintained ; and 
 he hoped it would be the last prerogative ever 
 surrendered. So far, then, from wishing to 
 avoid the present discussion, I hold, said Mr. 
 T., that the charges made are of so deep a dye, 
 and have produced such excitement, that it has 
 become our duty, as the Representatives of the 
 people, to inquire, and to advise ; nay, even to 
 instruct public opinion upon the subject now 
 under discussion. And, Mr. T. said, it afforded 
 him a proud consolation to believe that the 
 State which he had the honor in part to repre- 
 sent, would be willing to adopt as correct the 
 opinion which this House should announce. 
 Such, said Mr. T., has been the sensation pro- 
 duced by the manner and character of the accu- 
 sations which have been thrown out, that he 
 had no hesitation to say, if this House should 
 terminate their session, and omit to inquire into 
 and avow their opinion upon the present sub- 
 ject, it would disappoint the nation, and fix 
 upon this House an eternal stigma, as wanting 
 spirit to pronounce between the country and 
 the Administration; or, if gentlemen would 
 rather have it so, between the proposed resolu- 
 tion and General Jackson. He said he had no 
 unwillingness on his part ; and he hoped the 
 House would hold fast upon the present resolu- 
 tions, and insist upon a direct vote upon the 
 accusing propositions. If the constitution has 
 been violated, if the honor of the nation is 
 stained by cruelties, this House should declare 
 it to the country. If, on the contrary, the ac- 
 cusations are found to be incorrect, it was due 
 to the Administration, it was due to the charac-
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 261 
 
 JANUARY, 1819.] 
 
 The Seminole War. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 ter of General Jackson, that we should so de- 
 clare, and thus wipe away the unjust imputa- 
 tions. A vote of thanks has been talked of. 
 Mr. T. said he should oppose any substitute for 
 the present resolutions. The thanks of this 
 House constitute the best wealth of this nation ; 
 too precious to be used, unless on extraordinary 
 occasions. Such was the affair of Orleans. 
 But, it is sufficient that on investigation of the 
 Seminole war, there shall be found no cause for 
 blame. A decided rejection of the proposed 
 resolutions of censure was all that the present 
 occasion required. 
 
 But, said Mr. T., in addition to the proposed 
 censure contained in the resolutions, they also 
 contain subjects on which legislation is propos- 
 ed. He said he was not prepared to say but 
 legislation on those points might be proper, at a 
 proper time, and under proper circumstances ; 
 but he was prepared to say that, on this occa- 
 sion, under the present public excitement, and 
 coupled with the proposed resolutions for cen- 
 sure, he, for one, would not consent to legislate. 
 The act of legislation, under existing circum- 
 stances, would necessarily imply in itself a dis- 
 approbation of this House to the proceedings ap- 
 proved and adopted by the President, and would 
 include a direct censure upon General Jackson. 
 Let us, said Mr. T., reject the whole of the res- 
 olutions. If any gentleman thinks that legisla- 
 tion on any of these subjects is requisite for the 
 public good ; if he would bring it forward as 
 distinct and disconnected propositions, it would 
 undoubtedly receive the deliberate consideration 
 of this House, and under no other circumstances 
 ought it to be entertained. He said he was op- 
 posed to any act of this House which, by any 
 inference, would look like censure on Gen- 
 eral Jackson, a man whose name and whose 
 fame Avas identified with the history and the 
 glory of his country he would not say the first 
 military captain of any country, but he thought 
 he might say the first in ours. 
 
 But, said Mr. T., we have been told that this 
 war was, on the part of our country, an offen- 
 sive war; and, therefore, it did not come within 
 the powers of the Executive to carry it on ; and 
 therefore the powers of this House, and its right 
 to pronounce on peace and war, had been in- 
 vaded, and our constitution had thus been vio- 
 lated. I am extremely embarrassed to deter- 
 mine how to answer this objection an objec- 
 tion presenting an aspect so tremendous. The 
 prerogatives of this House, on peace and war, 
 are invaded the constitution of our coun- 
 try violated. The Executive of our Govern- 
 ment, upon his own responsibility, has waged 
 an offensive war ; or he has sanctioned, and 
 subsequently approved of, General Jackson's 
 making offensive war upon a defenceless Indian 
 tribe ! Is the Seminole war offensive on our 
 part ? At the last session of this House we spe- 
 cially appropriated money for the support of 
 this war. But my excited feelings, said Mr. T., 
 forbid me to discuss this point. 
 
 Sir, you are an American 1 Go, count the 
 
 bleeding scalps of your murdered countrymen, 
 of all ages and sexes, found by General Jack- 
 son, and then return, and tell to this House if 
 this Seminole war was, on the part of your 
 country, an offensive war! Tell this House, 
 also, if you advise a vote of censure to be pass- 
 ed on the conduct of either the Executive, for 
 his just orders, or upon General Jackson, for 
 discovering upwards of three hundred dried and 
 fifty fresh scalps, with a red pole erected as the 
 beacon of Indian war, and crowned with the 
 scalp of an American citizen ! 
 
 Sir, said Mr. T., if I am correct that the Sem- 
 inole Indians had waged an inhuman and de- 
 structive war upon the frontiers of Georgia, it 
 became obligatory upon the Executive of the 
 Union, both in the spirit and letter of his duty, 
 to extend the arm of Government for their pro- 
 tection : no matter from what causes the war 
 was produced ; no matter from whence its ori- 
 gin. It was sufficient that a sister State was as- 
 sailed, and called upon the Union for defence. 
 Its omission by the Executive would justly have 
 incurred the censure of this House. Sir, the 
 President did not omit, in this respect, his duty. 
 He called General Jackson into the field, and 
 vested him with discretionary powers, " to con- 
 centrate his force, and to adopt the necessary 
 measures to terminate the conflict." General 
 Jackson promptly performed his duty ; he did 
 adopt the necessary measures ; he has terminat- 
 ed the conflict ; he has reported his proceedings ; 
 they have been adopted and approved by the 
 President, Here, then, said Mr. T., the affair 
 with General Jackson is at an end. He stands 
 justified and discharged ; whatever may have 
 been the incidents in the progress and the con- 
 duct of that war, committed to his charge, he is 
 exonerated from all responsibility. Good in- 
 tentions and a faithful exercise of his discretion, 
 under the circumstances as they transpired, 
 were all that could ever be required of General 
 Jackson. This is not doubted. The responsi- 
 bilities of the transaction are therefore cast 
 upon the Executive. It is an affair between 
 the country and the President. Mr. T. said he 
 rejoiced that it was ; for he had no idea of Ex- 
 ecutive irresponsibility. He never would con- 
 sent that a military officer should be charged 
 with discretionary powers, and then be held re- 
 sponsible for any thing more than good inten- 
 tions, and good faith in the performance of his 
 duties. 
 
 But, he said, let me not be misunderstood. 
 He disclaimed any wish to prevent inquiry. He 
 had no desire to claim for General Jackson the 
 protection of Executive responsibility. It would 
 be doing injustice to the high character of that 
 man. And he believed the whole tenor of his 
 conduct would bear the strictest scrutiny. With 
 this view, and although he thought General 
 Jackson was sufficiently acquitted and discharg- 
 ed by Executive approbation, yet he should now 
 proceed to examine the progress of the war ; 
 and he invited the fullest investigation. 
 
 Sir, said Mr. T., I hold that General Jackson
 
 262 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 The Seminole War. 
 
 [JANUARY, 1819. 
 
 was vested with full and ample powers for the 
 conduct of the Seminole war. The orders to 
 him were discretionary ; vesting in him ade- 
 quate authority for every emergency that might 
 be incident to the campaign. Under the cir- 
 cumstances, such discretionary orders were cor- 
 rect. He was about to be immersed in the wil- 
 derness, from whence he could neither commu- 
 nicate nor receive information from the War 
 Department. It was, therefore, necessary to 
 confide to him the whole conduct of the war ; 
 and the orders from the War Department, col- 
 lectively considered, clearly vested in him. am- 
 ple powers for every exigency that the cam- 
 paign might require. The functions of the War 
 Department were expended in the amplitude of 
 his orders. No additional powers could have 
 been given, under any state of circumstances, 
 had the War Office accompanied him into the 
 wilderness. His ample and discretionary pow- 
 ers embraced every case, and covered and jus- 
 tified his whole conduct. Not, said Mr. T., 
 that the orders to General Jaceson could justify 
 him in doing any wrong in making an offen- 
 sive war, or in violating a neutral territory ; but 
 whatever act was required to be done, whatever 
 the events of the war justified to be done, and 
 which the War Office might have ordered, so 
 far the orders to General Jackson extended. If 
 I am correct in this position, there is an end to 
 all question about Violation of orders ; General 
 Jackson is justified ; and the question only re- 
 mains between the Executive and the country. 
 
 SATURDAY, January 23. 
 Monument to De Kalb. 
 
 Mr. EKED submitted the following preamble 
 and resolution : 
 
 Whereas a resolution was passed by the Congress 
 of the United States, on the 14th day of October, in 
 the following words, to wit : 
 
 " Resolved, That a monument be erected to the 
 memory of the late Major General, the Baron de 
 Kalb, in the city of Annapolis, in the State of Mary- 
 land, with the following inscription : 
 
 " Sacred to the memory of the Baron de Kalb, 
 Knight of the Royal Order "of Military Merit, Briga- 
 dier of the Armies of France, and Major General in 
 the service of the United States of America ; having 
 served with honor and reputation for three years, he 
 gave a last and glorious proof of his attachment to 
 the liberties of mankind, and the cause of America, 
 in the action near Camden, in the State of South 
 Carolina, on the 16th of August, 1780, when, leading 
 on the troops of the Maryland and Delaware lines, 
 against superior numbers, and animating by his ex- 
 ample to deeds of valor, he was pierced with many 
 wounds, and, on the 19th following, expired, in the 
 40th year of his age. The Congress of the United 
 States of America, in gratitude to his zeal, services, 
 and merit, have erected this monument." 
 
 Resolved, therefore, That the aforegoing resolution 
 be referred to a select committee, with instructions 
 to report a bill now to carry the same into effect. 
 
 Mr. MEBOER advocated the adoption of this 
 resolution at some length, and with much ar- 
 
 dor ; urging in its support the valuable services 
 of the Baron de Kalb, his gallant character, and 
 illustrious death in defence of the liberty and 
 independence of the United States, &c. 
 
 Mr. ANDEBSON, of Kentucky, in reply, said 
 he would never give his vote for a monument, 
 or any other memorial to any subordinate, or 
 any foreign officer, no matter how meritorious 
 their services, so long as the remains of WASH- 
 INGTON lay neglected. He referred to the reso- 
 lution now before the Senate, proposing an 
 equestrian statue to WASHINGTON; and said, 
 when that had been adopted, it would be then, 
 and not till then, fair and proper to propose 
 similar honors for other Eevolutionary wor- 
 thies. Mr. A. moved that the resolution be laid 
 on the table. 
 
 Mr. REED said it was true that a proposition 
 was now before the Senate to carry into effect 
 the resolution of the Old Congress, which voted 
 an equestrian statue for General WASHINGTON, 
 but whether that should pass or not ought not 
 to interfere with the present motion, and the 
 fate of that proposition would not prevent him, 
 Mr. E. said, from calling on this House to car- 
 ry into effect a law passed nearly forty years 
 ago, and to which the faith and honor of the 
 nation were pledged. If Congress erected no 
 monument to WASHINGTON, it would be no fault 
 of his ; he would go as far as any gentleman in 
 obtaining it. There was, Mr. E. said, a law of 
 the Old Congress directing a monument to 
 Montgomery in the city of New York ; it had 
 been neglected by the nation; but the State 
 of New York, to its lasting credit, has per- 
 formed that duty itself, and, hi the course of 
 last year, removed the bones of the immortal 
 Montgomery from the spot where he fell, to 
 the land which he had so gloriously defended. 
 Propositions had been frequently brought for- 
 ward in this House, Mr. E. said, to erect a me- 
 morial of some kind to WASHINGTON, but, for 
 some reason or other, they were never carried. 
 It had been said, the page of history perpetuated 
 the glory of WASHINGTON ; but was not a mon- 
 ument also a history, in which every one might 
 read not only the virtues of the man, but, also, 
 the gratitude of his country ? Certainly it was. 
 
 The question to lay Mr. EEED'S motion on 
 the table was carried yeas 76, nays 42. 
 
 Seminole War. 
 
 The House then proceeded again to the con- 
 sideration, in Committee of the Whole, (Mr. 
 TEEEY hi the Chair,) of the report of the Mili- 
 tary Committee, and the amendments offered 
 thereto by Mr. COBB. 
 
 Mr. STOEES said, that when he took his seat 
 in the House at the commencement of the ses- 
 sion, he looked with much anxiety to the Mes- 
 sage which should disclose the true character of 
 the transactions during the past year, on our 
 southern frontier. We had, indeed, been in- 
 formed, by the Message of the 25th of March 
 last, that war existed between the United States 
 and the Serninole tribe of Indians that orders
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 263 
 
 JANUARY, 1819.] 
 
 TheSeminole War. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 had been issued for the advance of the army 
 into Florida, but that the commanding officer 
 was strictly enjoined against any attack on the 
 Spanish fortresses, without the sanction of the 
 Government. During the recess, he had heard 
 of the entry of our troops into the territory of 
 Spain, the seizure of St. Marks, the capture of 
 Pensacola and the Barancas, the military trials 
 of Arbuthnot and Ambrister, and the execution 
 of the Seminole chiefs. Notwithstanding no 
 evidence of disapprobation of any of these 
 measures had transpired, except the offer to re- 
 store Pensacola unconditionally, and St. Marks, 
 on terms prescribed by us, he was unwilling 
 to believe that they had received the sanction 
 of the Executive. The documents transmitted 
 to the House had shown how vain was this 
 expectation. He had carefully and attentively 
 examined them, and formed an opinion upon 
 them, he hoped with that deliberation which 
 was due to questions of so great and vital im- 
 portance to the constitution and character of 
 the country. That opinion he had not found 
 reason to change, nor was he ashamed or afraid 
 to avow it, and should discharge his duty with 
 frankness and fearlessness, let the censure, 
 which, in his judgment, these transactions 
 merited, fall where it might. 
 
 When, said he, the trials of Arbuthnot and 
 Ambrister were laid upon our tables, and it 
 was first developed that one of them had suf- 
 fered death in consequence of the reversal of 
 the sentence of the court-martial, by General 
 Jackson, a universal burst of indignation 
 seemed to have electrified the House. Have 
 these manly and generous feelings, so honorable 
 to our nature, fled from our bosoms, or have 
 they chilled into insensibility during the long 
 interval which has elapsed ? He had waited in 
 painful suspense for the report of the Military 
 Committee, and acknowledged his gratitude to 
 them for the firm stand which they had made 
 against these encroachments of military power. 
 He saw among them some of those who, in 
 other times in the darkest days of our adver- 
 sity, when the yoke of parliamentary and mili- 
 tary despotism was riveting on our necks, had 
 stept forth as the protectors of their country, 
 and with unconquerable spirit persisted in the 
 contest which delivered us from the tyranny of 
 Britain. He was happy to find that, during his 
 life, this spirit has not left us that, in his day, 
 those were to be found among us who yet cher- 
 ished the principles of that glorious conflict, and 
 knew how to appreciate the value of those 
 liberties which were earned at the expense of 
 so much blood and treasure. 
 
 I am gratified, said he, to find that, to this 
 period of the debate, excepting by the honor- 
 able gentleman for Virginia, (Mr. SMYTH,) the 
 power of this House to interpose has not been 
 questioned. We are the peculiar guardians of 
 the constitution. Our liberties are safe in the 
 same proportion that we execute our duty with 
 linnikss, vigilance, and fidelity'. Offences short 
 of impeachment, but which threaten the public 
 
 safety, it is the right of this House to present 
 to the nation ; against evils of this sort it is the 
 most effectual remedy. However the direct 
 interposition of our constitutional power of im- 
 peachment may be evaded, there is a tribunal 
 public opinion to whose judgments no man 
 is indifferent, whose decision none can success- 
 fully withstand or defy, and winch causes the 
 stoutest heart to tremble. The genius of our 
 institutions, the experience of other Govern- 
 ments, the records of all history, and the sad 
 and melancholy fate of a long train of fallen 
 republics, admonish us that liberty is only safe 
 when faithfully guarded by the immediate rep- 
 resentatives of an enlightened people. 
 
 The services of General Jackson have been 
 eminently great. He has justly received from 
 a grateful country its high rewards and honors. 
 I am not disposed to detract from his well- 
 merited fame. The victory of New Orleans 
 was, indeed, a proud triumph and, though I 
 do not unite with some gentlemen in pronounc- 
 ing it, in reference to its consequences, the great- 
 est which this country has achieved, I cheerfully 
 accord to the sentiments which have been ex- 
 pressed in praise of that great exploit. Though, 
 with the rest of my countrymen, I felt and 
 gratefully acknowledged that to him we owed 
 much of our national character, and the security 
 of a valuable portion of our territory, yet, I do 
 not forget that even on that occasion he over- 
 stepped his power. I was disposed to forgive it. 
 The evils which he averted and the blessings 
 which he conferred upon us, were some atone- 
 ment for the violated majesty of the constitu- 
 tion. But, great as his services have been, they 
 afford no sanctuary against our inquiry much 
 less do they furnish any exculpation for the 
 violation of the constitution. An example of 
 impunity on such grounds, for these assump- 
 tions of power, will produce the most pernicious 
 consequences among the subordinate officers of 
 the army. Day after day have petitions been 
 presented to this House, from the army, for in- 
 demnity against judgments awarded for the 
 violation of the personal liberty of our citizens. 
 The disposition to encroach upon the civil au- 
 thorities of the Government should receive no 
 encouragement from our hands. For some 
 time past the people of this country have in- 
 dulged a dangerous predilection for the army. 
 In the civil departments one may attain to the 
 highest eminence, and scarcely attract attention 
 beyond the immediate sphere in which he 
 moves ; but, clothe him with the glare of mili- 
 tary renown, and the eyes of the people are 
 dazzled his fame has no limits, and every one 
 is ambitious and eager to honor him. It is tune 
 that we were roused from this fatal delusion. 
 The affections of the country have been too 
 bountifully devoted to the army, and the time 
 may yet come when the people will find it too 
 late to retrieve this error of their hearts. 
 
 If, sir, we consult the past history of other 
 countries, and turn our eye back through ages 
 which have gone before us; or, if we look
 
 264 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 The Seminole War. 
 
 [JANUARY, 1819. 
 
 only to the events of our own times, we find 
 much to warn us against receiving the services 
 of public men as an apology for their usurpa- 
 tions. Every tyrant who has succeeded in over- 
 turning the liberties of his country, first stole 
 away the affections of his countrymen by the 
 services which he had rendered to the State. 
 On this occasion it is well worthy of remark 
 that these have, with few exceptions, been mili- 
 tary services. Cassar and Bonaparte only com- 
 menced their bloody career of tyranny after 
 they had risen to power on the misguided affec- 
 tions of the people. In forming my judgment 
 on the specific propositions before us, I lay alto- 
 gether aside the motives of General Jackson. 
 Laudable as they may have been, or faithfully 
 as he may have believed himself to be acting in 
 the discharge of his duty to his country, these 
 form no part of the inquiry before us. To me 
 it is immaterial with what views or what mo- 
 tives he has infringed upon the constitution. 
 Our object should be to prevent the force of 
 the precedent which these measures establish. 
 If the powers of Congress have been encroach- 
 ed upon, let us declare it, unless we are pre- 
 pared to surrender our prerogatives to a military 
 chieftain, or to give up the constitution to mere 
 matter of delicacy. This is not an inquiry with 
 a view to the censure of General Jackson. It 
 is required from us by the duty of self-preser- 
 vation. The indirect censure which some of 
 these resolutions imply, is no fault of ours. 
 The enemy whom he triumphantly vanquished 
 at New Orleans can derive no self-gratification 
 from our proceedings. Would they boast, I 
 would tell them to meet him in the field. The 
 measures of this House will afford but a miser- 
 able consolation to those who there felt the en- 
 ergy of his arm, and whose pride was there 
 humbled in the dust before his skill and valor. 
 
 The subject of these resolutions divides itself 
 into several inquiries : the capture of Pensacola, 
 the seizure of St. Marks, the crossing of the 
 Florida line, and the execution of the captives. 
 Whatever may be the justification for the seizure 
 of Pensacola, the Barancas, and St. Marks, 
 which the Executive has urged as between us 
 and Spain, it is plainly admitted by him that 
 the occupation of these posts was not justified 
 by any orders which were issued. Such is the 
 fair import of the Message communicated at the 
 commencement of the session. 
 
 The immediate restoration of Pensacola is 
 unequivocal evidence that the post was not 
 captured in conformity to the views or instruc- 
 tions of the Executive, and virtually amounts 
 to a disavowal of its seizure, on the part of our 
 Government. Although, as between us and 
 Spain, the Executive has not, and perhaps ought 
 not, to have yielded to the demand of that Gov- 
 ernment to inflict punishment on General Jack- 
 son, it is not certain how far they have intended 
 to adopt his acts as constitutional. From a 
 careful examination of the letter from the Sec- 
 retary of State to Mr. Erving, I have been led 
 to doubt whether they have, in unqualified 
 
 terms, sanctioned the occupation of St. Marks 
 and Pensacola. In that letter, it is said that 
 " it became, therefore, in the opinion of General 
 Jackson, indispensably necessary to take from 
 the Governor of Pensacola the means of carry- 
 ing his threat into execution." Again : " It 
 was, in his judgment, not sufficient that they 
 (the Indians) should be suffered to rally their 
 numbers under the protection of Spanish forts," 
 &c. The cautious phraseology of these, and 
 many other passages of this letter, leaves it 
 somewhat equivocal whether even the Gov- 
 ernment has, as between General Jackson and us, 
 assumed to their whole extent the doctrines on 
 which General Jackson founded the justification 
 of his proceedings. If, however, such sanction 
 was intended on the part of the Executive, the 
 powers of Congress are doubly jeopardized. 
 
 On the subject of the trials of Arbuthnot and 
 Ambrister, it is said that " the defence of the 
 one consisted solely and exclusively of technical 
 cavils at the nature of part of the evidence 
 against him, and the other confessed his guilt." 
 It is here gravely asserted, that, on a trial for 
 life or death, an objection to the hearsay decla- 
 rations of an Indian is a technical cavil ! that 
 this country recognizes an institution for trial of 
 capital offences, on which an objection to the 
 proof of the hearsay declaration of an Indian, 
 who, if himself present, could not have been a 
 competent witness, is a technical cavil ! To be 
 condemned to an ignominious death on testimony 
 of this sort is what the honorable Secretary has 
 termed " the benefit of a trial by court-martial." 
 The threat contained in the conclusion of this 
 letter deserves, at least, to be remarked by this 
 House : " if the necessities of self-defence should 
 again compel the United States to take posses- 
 sion of the Spanish forts and places in Florida, 
 declare, with the frankness and candor that be- 
 comes us, that another unconditional restoration 
 of them must not be expected." Before a war 
 of conquest is carried into the dominions of 
 Spain ; before the armies of this nation are sent 
 to enforce the conditions which we prescribe to 
 other nations as the tenure by which they 
 shall enjoy the sovereignty of their own terri- 
 tories, I trust that this House will at least be 
 consulted ; that the discretion of Congress alone 
 will determine the question of war or peace. 
 I do not relish the fulmiuation of these threats 
 by a Secretary of Foreign Affairs. We Lave, 
 indeed, heard of imperial edicts in another quar- 
 ter of the globe. At one time it is decreed, 
 that the Bourbon dynasty no longer existed in 
 Spain; at another, the Queen of Etruria no 
 longer reigns, and a band of soldiery is forthwith 
 sent to enforce the mandate, and overturn the 
 Governments of other nations. These imperial 
 examples are hardly worthy of our imitation ; 
 and I pray that, if this letter is to be hereafter 
 the model of our diplomatic correspondence, 
 some means may be devised to remedy its effect 
 upon our national character. It would hardly 
 be imagined, from perusing that letter, by one 
 unversed in our institutions, that our form ot
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 265 
 
 JAMJART, 1819.] 
 
 The Seminole War. 
 
 [H. OP B. 
 
 government was republican. And against whom 
 is this threat issued ? " Poor, miserable, and de- 
 graded Spain !" Indeed she is too weak to repel 
 or scarcely to resent the encroachments of any ; 
 but, fallen as she is, it affords but a sorry tri- 
 umph to insult her weakness. I fear that the 
 wrongs of which she has been guilty towards 
 us have induced less regard for her rights, and 
 that we have not, therefore, been scrupulous to 
 respect them. 
 
 The capture of St. Marks was equally unau- 
 thorized by orders, and was equally in deroga- 
 tion of the rights of Spain. It appears to have 
 been seized as a convenient u depot" to facili 
 tate the operations of our army. I shall not 
 detain you by again repeating what has already 
 been so ably and satisfactorily illustrated by 
 those who have already addressed the committee 
 on this point. The terms, however, on which 
 St. Marks was offered to be restored, are worthy 
 of notice. They tend to show how greatly the 
 importance of this war with the Seminoles, 
 and that necessity which is resorted to as a jus- 
 tification of the capture of this fort, has been 
 magnified. St. Marks is in the heart of the ter- 
 ritory occupied by these tribes and yet it ap- 
 pears, from the letter of the 30th of November, 
 that two hundred and fifty men would be ac- 
 cepted as " a Spanish force adequate to its pro- 
 tection against the Indians." Yes, sir two 
 hundred and fifty " poor, miserable, and degrad- 
 ed" Spaniards, as the honorable gentleman from 
 Massachusetts (Mr. HOLMES) was pleased to call 
 that nation, were considered as competent effect- 
 ually to restrain these tribes from its forcible 
 occupation " for purposes of hostility against the 
 United States." 
 
 Gentlemen have defended these proceedings 
 as a case in which a belligerent is justified in 
 seizing neutral forts or territory, in self-defence, 
 arising out of extreme necessity. I admit that 
 cases may exist of that sort ; they are rather 
 exceptions to the doctrines which I maintain. 
 I can easily imagine that, even under the treaty 
 with Spain, an attack by the Seminoles might 
 be so sudden and unanticipated, that we might 
 be justified in pursuing them even into Florida. 
 But this necessity must not originate from the 
 fault of the belligerent. If, as in the case be- 
 fore us, our neglect for so long a period to re- 
 quire of Spain the fulfilment of the treaty, or to 
 represent to that Government, or even to its 
 Minister here, the hostile intentions of the In- 
 dians, has brought this necessity upon ourselves, 
 the fault is on our side. These Indian tribes, 
 and their associates, have been represented as 
 mere banditti, outlaws, renegadoes. If so, then 
 Spain was answerable to us, on well settled 
 principles, for their acts. But I ask, in what 
 code of the law of nations is an authority assert- 
 ed for one Government, at its own pleasure, to 
 pursue banditti, outlaws, renegadoes, or even its j 
 own felon?, into the territories of another, in ! 
 any case, without first demanding that they : 
 should be delivered up? Sir, I will detain the j 
 commitee no longer on this part of these pro- ; 
 
 ceedings. When the order was issued for the 
 advance of our army into Florida, Congress was 
 in session. Subsequent events have shown how 
 greatly it is to be lamented that an appeal had 
 not been made to that body which could only 
 change our relations with Spam, and which was 
 then in the full exercise of its constitutional 
 functions. I have been somewhat surprised at 
 hearing the encomiums which have been be- 
 stowed on General Jackson for this incursion 
 into Florida. A vote of thanks has been talked 
 of. He has been called by the imposing names 
 of conqueror, hero, benefactor. Conqueror! 
 If the rout and dispersion of a race of barbarians, 
 degraded and defenceless as the Seminoles, can 
 confer this title, high, indeed, is his elevation. 
 When Tigranes, with two hundred thousand 
 men, had been defeated by Lucullus, with only 
 twenty thousand, the Koman soldiers, after pur- 
 suing the enemy for some distance, suddenly 
 stopped, and burst into loud laughter, to think 
 that they had used their swords on such a set 
 of cowardly slaves. Hero! If the blaze of 
 burning towns, the extermination of their 
 wretched inhabitants, the death of captives, 
 and the extirpation of the human race, can con- 
 fer renown and elevate our nature, glorious 
 and ennobling, indeed, are these achievements. 
 Benefactor ! If the honor of our country, the 
 dignity of its character, the justice of its insti- 
 tutions, and the purity of our religion, are sanc- 
 tified by deeds like these, pour out your full 
 libations of praise, and offer the unaffected 
 homage of a nation's gratitude. How keenly 
 does it wound the sensibility, how low should 
 it sink the pride, of an American, to compare 
 the laurels won upon the plains of Orleans with 
 this sickening nightshade, plucked from the 
 morasses of Florida ! 
 
 As to the execution of Arbuthnot and Am- 
 brister, I acquiesce in the moral justice of then* 
 sentence. Without expressing that opinion 
 from the evidence on their trials, they probably 
 deserved their fate. But I can never admit the 
 legality of the trials, or the punishment which 
 was inflicted. Had they been put to death in 
 the heat of battle, considering the course which 
 they have pursued, I should not have censured 
 it, how much soever I should have regretted 
 such an exercise of power. But they were 
 tried by a court-martial. Such it was original- 
 ly called in the despatches of General Jackson, 
 and such it is recognized to have been in the 
 letter to Mr. Erving. 
 
 I shall vote my disapprobation of the trials of 
 Arbuthnot and Ambrister, because they were 
 executed under the forms of law, and because 
 I am not prepared to avow to the world, that 
 we, who boast so much of our justice, recognize 
 an institution of this nature. I am anxious to 
 blot out this stain upon our national character. 
 Their case was not within the jurisdiction of a 
 court-martial. Courts-martial, among us, are 
 but the mere creatures of positive law. Ail 
 their authority is derived from the statute which 
 creates them; without that they are nothing.
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 The Seminole War. 
 
 [JANUARY, 1819. 
 
 They can take cognizance of no offences what 
 ever, except those specifically named in the 
 statute. Their jurisdiction over persons 
 strictly confined to the army and those attachec 
 to it, and, without that express authority which 
 has been conferred, I should doubt whether they, 
 as courts-martial, had any jurisdiction even ir 
 the case of a spy. They are tribunals of special 
 and limited jurisdiction; their powers cannol 
 be extended by implication, and they are strict- 
 ly confined to the powers expressly granted to 
 them. What, sir, is the nature of these tribu- 
 nals ? The accuser prefers the charges ; the ac- 
 cuser, in the first instance, selects the judges 
 from his own subordinate officers ; the accuser 
 appoints the public advocate ; the accuser ap- 
 proves or disapproves the sentence; and the 
 accuser executes it. Lamentable would be our 
 situation if courts-martial should be suffered to 
 transgress a single letter of the law which cre- 
 ates them. Their proceedings are contrary to 
 all those safeguards which the municipal law 
 has provided for the security of personal liberty. 
 The charges are not even sanctioned by an oath ; 
 the arrest is not founded on oath ; the trial is 
 without jury; the decision is in secret, and the 
 correction of their errors depends on the pleas- 
 ure of him to whom the sentence is submitted. 
 It is now asserted that he may even alter it. By 
 the municipal law of England and of this coun- 
 try, a judge who should venture to pronounce 
 a sentence of death, contrary to the punishment 
 which the law has prescribed ; or an officer who 
 should execute even a sentence of death in a 
 different manner from the judgment, would 
 suffer the punishment of death. Is there any 
 thing, then, in the nature or proceedings of a 
 military tribunal, which should induce us to 
 view them with a more partial and indulgent 
 eye? The sword is almost the only emblem of 
 justice which guides them. Shall we now say 
 to Europe that an American army, on entering 
 a foreign country, carries with it these dreadful 
 engines of human misery and oppression ? With 
 my consent these transactions shah 1 never be re- 
 corded by history as the acts of the nation. Mr. 
 S. here entered into an examination of the 
 charges on which Arbuthnot and Ambrister 
 were tried, and concluded that none of them 
 (except that of being a spy, on which they were 
 acquitted) were cognizable by a court-martial ; 
 that they were inconsistent and absurd; and 
 that, as to Arbuthnot, he doubted whether suf- 
 ficient evidence was produced to establish them. 
 
 MONDAY, January 25. 
 Seminole War. 
 
 The House then proceeded to the order of 
 the day, and again took up, in Committee of 
 the Whole, the report of the Military Commit- 
 tee, on the subject of the Seminole war. 
 
 Mr. BAB BOHR, of Virginia, rose, and address- 
 ed the committee, as follows : 
 
 Mr. Chairman, it was my wish to have ad- 
 dressed the committee at an earlier period of 
 
 the debate, but I have not been so fortunate as 
 to get the floor. The subject under considera- 
 tion is one which has excited much interest in 
 this House, as well as in the nation. I have be- 
 stowed upon it all that reflection which AVUS due 
 to its importance : I feel a disposition to state 
 the conclusions to which I have arrived, and the 
 course of reasoning which has conducted me to 
 them. I feel that I labor under great disadvan- 
 tages in following gentlemen, whose eloquent 
 and pathetic appeals have affected the feelings 
 and commanded the attention of the commit- 
 tee ; whilst, on my part, I have nothing to offer 
 them but the plainest kind of argument, con- 
 sisting of a statement of the case, and the prin- 
 ciples of public and constitutional law which 
 apply to it. I feel another disadvantage : Gen- 
 tlemen who have gone before me have neces- 
 sarily anticipated some of the points which I 
 had intended to discuss. In presenting my 
 view, then, in continuity, I must unavoidably 
 recur to some topics which have been already 
 touched upon ; but I will promise, as far as I am 
 able, when this shall be the case, to avoid the 
 tedium of mere reiteration, and to endeavor to 
 present them in some new point of light, and 
 with some variety of illustration. I will, how- 
 ever, without further preface or apology, pro- 
 ceed at once to the argument. 
 
 This subject seems to me to present three 
 distinct questions to our consideration : 1st, the 
 ropriety of marching the Army of the United 
 tates across the Florida line; 2dly, the pro- 
 priety of the occupation of the Spanish posts 
 of St. Marks and Pensacola, and the Barancas ; 
 and, 3dly, the trial and execution of Arbuthnot 
 and Ambrister. These are the questions which, 
 t seems to me, we are called upon to decide, 
 and this the natural and consecutive order in 
 which they present themselves. Each of these 
 questions, too, as had been justly remarked by 
 the Speaker in an early part of the debate, pre- 
 sents itself in a twofold aspect 1st, as between 
 mr own and a foreign Government ; and, 2dly, 
 is between our Government and its officers. 
 ?irst, then, as between the Government of the 
 United States and Spain, had we a right to 
 march our armies across the Florida line? I 
 shall endeavor to prove that we had. There 
 would be no sort of difficulty in this question, 
 if it were the case of a nation confessedly sov- 
 ereign and independent. That one nation when 
 at war with another, has a right to pursue that 
 other into its own territory, I am persuaded no 
 member of the committee would question ; and 
 '. shall, therefore, take it for granted, as one of 
 hose principles which, in public law, have be- 
 ;onie axioms ; but the difficulty arises from the 
 anomalous character of the Indian tribes. Gen- 
 lemen have gone much into the discussion upon 
 ;he question, whether they are or are not sov- 
 sreign. I shall not enter into a controversy 
 .bout words ; I care not whether they are call- 
 d sovereign, demi-sovereign, or by what other 
 mine they are designated. I shall attempt to 
 define their character by some of the attributes
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 267 
 
 JANUARY, 1819.] 
 
 The Seminole War. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 of sovereignty which belong to them, or which 
 at least they have been in the habitual practice 
 of exercising. One of the criteria of sovereign- 
 ty which has been adopted by Martens, a writer 
 of some celebrity on public law, is this : 
 
 " That a nation is governed by its own laws, and 
 acknowledges no legislative superior on earth ; though 
 there are certain limitations or restrictions on its sov- 
 ereignty, by treaty or otherwise, if it possess this at- 
 tribute, it is sovereign ; and examples are given of 
 States, which, though under treaties of alliance, of 
 protection, and even of vassalage, are nevertheless 
 considered sovereign." 
 
 If the character of the Indian tribes be tried 
 by this standard, I believe they will be able to 
 sustain their claim to sovereignty. True, it is, 
 they have no regular legislative body, and no 
 code of written laws, but they have customs 
 and maxims, which may be considered as a sort 
 of common law among them which have been 
 adopted either by express consent or tacit ac- 
 quiescence which have been consecrated by 
 time, and handed down from one generation 
 to another by traditionary history ; by these 
 maxims and customs are they governed, with- 
 out any legislative superior, though we claim a 
 right of regulating their trade, and a kind of 
 pre-emptive right of purchasing their lands ; 
 yet I have never heard that we pretended to 
 any right of legislating for them, or interfering 
 in their interior concerns, hi the administration 
 of justice or otherwise. But there is another 
 distinguishing and characteristic attribute of 
 sovereignty which belongs to them, and which 
 from the earliest settlement of this country they 
 have exercised I mean that of making war. 
 This bears directly upon the present question. 
 If they have a right of making war, they have 
 a right to make it against whom they please, 
 and they have chosen to make it against us. 
 Ilave we not a right to defend ourselves against 
 them? Yes, sir, and I will point you to the 
 source from which we derive it. The princi- 
 ple of self-defence is a part of the instinct of our 
 nature ; " not written on the heart by precept, 
 but engraven by destiny ; not instilled by edu- 
 cation, but infused at our nativity ;" it belongs 
 to us, as individuals, in a state of nature ; we 
 carry it with us when we form societies, which 
 are only aggregations of individuals. "We then 
 have a right to defend ourselves against the 
 Seniinole Indians. But they reside within the 
 limits of Florida, on lands to which they have 
 at least the title of occupancy, but within the 
 jurisdictional limits of Spain ; from thence they 
 make their incursions against us, and having 
 committed their devastations and murders re- 
 pass the Florida line. Shall we cease to pursue 
 them when we reach that line ? Is there any 
 principle of national law which tells us that, in 
 our pursuit, thus far we shall go, and no fur- 
 ther ( If these questions must be answered in 
 the affirmative, then is the right of self-defence 
 a mere mockery ; then, indeed, are we in the 
 situation of a man against whom a ferocious 
 wild beast is let loose, and who, bound hand 
 
 and foot, is cut off from the means of destroy- 
 ing him. 
 
 I come now, in the order of my argument, to 
 the second question; that is, the propriety of 
 the occupation of the Spanish posts of St. Marks 
 and Pensacola, and the fortress of Barancas; 
 and, first, its propriety as between Spain and 
 the United States ; and here, sir, at the thresh- 
 old, I will lay down a principle, the correct- 
 ness of which, I presume, will not be questioned 
 it is this : That, as it regards Spain, if any 
 act shall have been committed which amounts 
 to war, it is to be considered a public war ; reg- 
 ularly carried on by the sovereign power of the 
 United States. The different powers which 
 constitute the whole mass of sovereignty, ori- 
 ginally resident in a nation, may be separated 
 or limited according to its will ; in conformity 
 with this idea, in the distribution of power, the 
 Constitution of the United States has assigned 
 to Congress that of making war. If the Pres- 
 ident shall ever encroach upon this constitu- 
 tional power of Congress, either by engaging, 
 without a previous declaration in an offensive 
 war, or hi the prosecution of a defensive one, 
 by committing any act of hostility which may 
 amount to war against a neutral nation, any 
 question which may arise out of such a viola- 
 tion of the constitution, will be between him- 
 self and Congress. But, surely, it cannot be 
 competent for a foreign power to open our 
 constitution, construe it for us, define the dis- 
 tribution of the powers of sovereignty among 
 the respective departments of our Government, 
 and object that the President has impinged 
 upon the sphere of Congressional jurisdiction. 
 No, sir ; as between us and Spain, admitting 
 for the present, that what has been done 
 amounts to war, it is to be considered and 
 treated as a public war duly declared by the 
 proper authority, and therefore to be followed 
 by all the consequences which flow from one ot 
 that character. Assuming this, then, as a prin- 
 ciple, the United States, as a Government, will 
 stand justified, if we had just cause of war 
 against Spain. Now, without recurring to an- 
 cient grievances, which have long been the sub- 
 ject of negotiation between the two nations, I 
 think, sir, there are two palpable causes of war 
 of recent date ; the first is, the violation of her 
 neutrality during and immediately after the late 
 war with Great Britain, in suffering her terri- 
 tory, as well as forts erected on it, to be made 
 use of by our enemies, to our great annoyance ; 
 the second is a violation of a positive treaty 
 stipulation, in not only not restraining Indian 
 hostilities, but, on the contrary, in giving them 
 countenance and aid. It does not require a re- 
 ference to books to prove that a violation of 
 neutrality is cause of war ; equally plain is the 
 proposition, that the violation of a treaty stipu- 
 lation is so too. It rests upon this obvious 
 principle, that a positive stipulation in a treaty 
 imposes a perfect obligation on one party, and 
 consequently vo>t> a perfect right in the other ; 
 for right and obligation are always correlative.
 
 268 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 The Seminole War. 
 
 [JANUARY, 1819. 
 
 Now, the violation of a perfect right is on all 
 hands considered as legitimate cause of war. 
 
 The next inquiry is, whether the conduct of 
 the Spanish authorities be such as to make them 
 associates in the war ; if it were, they were, as I 
 have already remarked, equally our enemies with 
 the Indians, and liable to be treated as such 
 without any necessity for a declaration of war. 
 Vattel, in b. 3, ch. 6, s. 97, says, " I account asso- 
 ciates of my enemy, those who assist him, in his 
 war, without being obliged to it, by any treaty." 
 If, sir, we had been left to this definition alone, it 
 might have been fairly contended that the Span- 
 ish authorities were associates, because they as- 
 sisted the Indians in the war, in various ways 
 which I have already enumerated. But the au- 
 thor goes on, afterwards, in the same section, to 
 explain, more particularly, this general proposi- 
 tion; and from a case which he puts, and the 
 reasoning which follows, I acknowledge it to be 
 my own opinion that the assistance afforded was 
 not of that character which he requires, to make 
 them associates, so as to authorize the occupation 
 of those posts, without a declaration of war. 
 Considering the subject in this point of view, it 
 results that this part of the proceedings of the 
 commanding General is not strictly defensible ; 
 and yet, sir, I cannot concur in a vote of cen- 
 sure upon his conduct ; because, in relation to 
 each of the points, to which I have just called 
 the attention of the committee, the correctness 
 of his course depends upon the decision of a 
 question of degree only. Thus there is a degree 
 of necessity which would justify the seizing and 
 garrisoning a neutral fort, without violating the 
 rights of the neutral to whom it belonged. And 
 there is a degree of co-operation with the 
 enemy, on the part of the Spanish authorities, 
 which would have made them associates ; and 
 which would, consequently, have authorized 
 the commanding General to have treated them 
 as his enemies, without the necessity of a decla- 
 ration of war against them. If, for example, 
 our army had been in imminent danger of 
 being cut off by the enemy, that would have 
 justified their occupation, without making it an 
 act of hostility. If the garrison of St. Marks, 
 or Pensacola, had actually fought with the In- 
 dians, or if the Governor of Pensacola had ex- 
 ecuted his threat, by actually using force, either 
 of these things would have made them com- 
 pletely associates. Here, then, was a graduated 
 scale, before the commanding General, on which 
 there was a degree, both of necessity and mili- 
 tary co-operation, which would have strictly 
 justified him. The question for him to decide 
 was, which was that degree? Is there no 
 difficulty in deciding this question ? Yes, sir. 
 The nation is divided upon it ; the members of 
 this House, after much investigation, after much 
 debate, and quotations from public law, are 
 greatly and variously divided in opinion. Some 
 justify the whole proceedings, some justify a 
 part and disapprove a part. Thus, some think 
 the occupation of St. Marks correct, but not 
 that of Pensacola; some justify the occupation 
 
 of Pensacola, some approve both, whilst others 
 disapprove both. What one gentleman thinks 
 correct, another altogether reprobates : and even 
 those who agree in the same conclusions, arrive 
 at them by different modes of reasoning. 
 
 I come now, sir, in the order of my argument, 
 to the trial and execution of Arbuthnot and 
 Ambrister. I beg leave, in the first place, to 
 call the attention of the committee to the facts, 
 in relation to these two men. Arbuthnot was 
 guilty of exciting and stirring up the Creek In- 
 dians to war against the United States, and of 
 aiding and abetting them, by supporting them 
 with the means of war. Ambrister led and 
 commanded the Lower Creeks, in carrying on 
 the war. These are the facts. 
 
 Since the institution of Government, if the 
 citizen or subject of one country commit an or- 
 dinary outrage against the sovereignty of anoth- 
 er, the mode of punishment is a plain and sim- 
 ple one, and is, I believe, almost universally 
 acquiesced in throughout the civilized world. 
 If the guilty person be within the jurisdiction 
 of the offended sovereign, he, without difficulty, 
 punishes him ; if he escape and return into his 
 own country, his own sovereign will either in- 
 flict exemplary punishment upon him, or, some- 
 times, deliver him up to the offended State, 
 there to receive justice. But, sir, if, instead 
 of its being an ordinary crime, it have a hostile 
 character ; if it be an act of war, in alliance 
 with, or under the auspices of the enemies of 
 the country against which the hostility is com- 
 mitted, then it assumes a different aspect ; it is 
 either sanctioned by the nation of the person 
 committing it, or it is not ; if it be sanctioned, 
 then it is cause of war against that nation ; if 
 it be not, then the person, by thus committing 
 an act of hostility, imparts to himself the char- 
 acter of the people with whom he unites him- 
 self. If they be civilized, he, in common with 
 them, is entitled to the laws of civilized war. 
 If they bo savage, in like manner he must be 
 content, having embarked himself upon the 
 same bottom, to share the same fate. What 
 that fate may rightfully be, will now be the 
 ubject of my inquiry ; and here, sir, it will be 
 necessary to ascend to first principles, in order 
 to understand the rights of Avar, in the various 
 circumstances in which nations may be placed. 
 " War," says Bynkershoek, page 2, " is a con- 
 test by force." The author goes on to remark, 
 that every force is lawful in war ; that it is law- 
 ful to destroy an enemy, though he be unarmed 
 and defenceless; it is lawful to make use of 
 poison, of missile weapons, &c. ; in short, he 
 idds, that every thing is lawful against an ene- 
 my. This, then, is the original and funda- 
 mental principle of the rights of war. In the 
 progress of time, as civilization advanced, and 
 noderation and philanthropy obtained a great 
 prevalence, the nations of the earth have in- 
 grafted upon this principle many modifications, 
 ;he whole of which combined constitute what 
 are called the usages of civilized warfare. 
 Though, therefore, by the original principle
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 269 
 
 JAXTJABY, 1819.] 
 
 The Seminole War. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 the mere existence of war made every individ- 
 ual, and every description of property belong- 
 ing to each country, mutually and reciprocally 
 hostile, and subject to destruction in every 
 possible mode, yet, since the usages of civiliz- 
 ed warfare were introduced, certain instru- 
 ments of war are altogether reprobated, and 
 persons as well as property of certain descrip- 
 tions, and under particular circumstances, are 
 spared. Sir, at the moment of expressing this 
 sentiment, I behold one memorable exception 
 to this mitigated rule, in an act perpetrated by 
 a nation conspicuous for its civilization. I see 
 the Capitol of my country just rearing its head 
 from a heap of ruin and desolation ; in its de- 
 struction a lasting monument of British out- 
 rage ; in its re-edification a magnificent emblem 
 of the recuperative energy of my country ! But 
 I will let the pall of oblivion fall upon any pain- 
 ful recollections I will return to my subject. 
 Those usages of civilized warfare which I men- 
 tioned a moment since to the committee, are 
 the subject, though not of express yet of tacit 
 compact ; they are founded upon the idea of an 
 equivalent, and based upon the principle of re- 
 ciprocal obligation. Thus the language of one 
 nation to another is, spare my monuments of 
 art, and I will not ravage your country spare 
 ray people engaged in the peaceable pursuits of 
 agriculture, and I will spare your women and 
 children. Am I asked for the proof of this ? 
 It is found at once in the doctrine of retalia- 
 tion, universally recognized as a sound princi- 
 ple of public law. If, contrary to the rules of 
 modern war, you put my soldiers, when made 
 prisoners, to death, in return I may inflict the 
 same severity upon yours, if, by the fortune of 
 war, they shall chance to fall into my power ; 
 because, in this instance, as you have violated 
 your part of the compact in relation to mitiga- 
 ted war, I am consequently absolved from mine, 
 and restored to my original rights. What is an 
 exception merely in civilized States, is the gen- 
 eral rule in relation to savages; because, as 
 they never acknowledge the obligations of the' 
 rules of modern war, they are without the pale 
 of the compact, and can, therefore, claim no 
 benefit from it. But as against them we have 
 a right, if we choose, to exercise, in its fullest 
 extent, the original rule which I have just laid 
 down. True it is, sir, that we do extend to 
 them many of the benefits of this compact, but 
 it is a gratuitous act on our part, and what, 
 therefore, they have no right to demand ; for, 
 in the language of Bynkershoek, though jus- 
 tice may be insisted on in. war, yet generosity 
 cannot. 
 
 Sir, it was Arbuthnot who poured the secret 
 poison of discontent into the minds of the In- 
 dians; it was he who awakened the sleeping 
 tiger and let him loose against us, with all his 
 native ferocity whetted by exasperation; it 
 was he who sharpened with new keenness the 
 edge of the tomahawk; it was he who us^d the 
 deluded savages as the instrument of his wicked 
 purpose, as the man who stabs you to the heart 
 
 makes use of the poniard. But, said the 
 Speaker, we have never, in a long series of 
 wars, practised retaliation for Indian barbarity. 
 Sir, this is not retaliation. That consists in a 
 literal execution of the great precept of "an 
 eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth " that 
 " measures blood by drops, and bates not one 
 in the repay." It is never appeased until it 
 sacrifice just as many victims as the enemy has, 
 and those, too, of the same grade, if within its 
 reach. Thus, if the Indians had killed three 
 hundred of our men, women, and children, we 
 should, upon this principle, put to death an 
 equal number of theirs. Retaliation then not 
 only may, but frequently does, fall upon the in- 
 nocent. The execution of these two men is, in 
 the most prominent points of view, the reverse 
 of this. Instead of the innocent, we have pun- 
 ished the guilty ; instead of counting the vic- 
 tims, and sacrificing an equal number, though 
 we have lost hundreds, we have only executed 
 units. It is said, however, that we have never 
 departed from the rules of modem war but in 
 burning their habitations and destroying their 
 food. Is this departure, indeed, allowable; and 
 will gentlemen yet say, that it is not a measure 
 of more rigorous severity than the death of 
 the two men, who are the subject of this dis- 
 cussion ? 
 
 When we destroy their habitations, we turn 
 out, not only their warriors, but the old and 
 the young, without respect to age or sex, with- 
 out a roof to shelter them from the pelting of 
 the pitiless storm. The miserable pittance of 
 property which they own, is all consumed by 
 the same devouring flame which destroys their 
 dwellings and makes them houseless wanderers. 
 When we destroy their food, we expose them 
 to the danger of all the horrors of famine which 
 may involve in indiscriminate death the guilty 
 and the innnocent ; whilst, in the execution of 
 these men, the guilty only have suffered. Gen- 
 tlemen have, indeed, in the most glowing colors 
 of pathetic eloquence portrayed to us the suffer- 
 ings of Arbuthnot and Ambrister. If I could 
 dip my pencil in as vivid colors as they have 
 used, and if I had occasion to use them, I, too, 
 could present a picture which, I am persuaded, 
 would excite the keenest sympathies of the hu- 
 man heart. I would present to you, not two 
 guilty men, suffering death according to the sen- 
 tence of the law, but a scene of slaughtered in- 
 nocence not one or two suffering victims 
 only, but a group, a family group. That is but 
 a miniature painting. To make it as large as 
 life, I would present yon almost a national 
 group. The figures represented on it would be, 
 old men bending beneath a weight of years, in- 
 humanly butchered ; multitudes of women and 
 children gored with wounds and weltering in 
 their own blood; and others, sleeping in the 
 arms of death, with here and there a solitary 
 survivor to deplore their fate. But, sir, I will 
 not attempt to harrow up the feelings of the 
 committee by even a further description of 
 such scenes ^it is not necessary ; for I cannot
 
 270 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 The Seminole War. 
 
 [JANUARY, 1819. 
 
 but believe that the execution of these men 
 stands justified by the laws of nature and o 
 nations. 
 
 But, it has been objected, that whatever our 
 rights may have been, it was not competent to 
 the commanding General to execute them. Do 
 gentlemen mean to say, that their offences were 
 cognizable before any court having criminal ju- 
 risdiction ? I answer, that they could not have 
 been tried in the United States ; because the 
 acts were not committed within our jurisdic- 
 tional limits. They could not have been tried 
 in England, for the same reason. And, indeed, 
 though the offences were committed within the 
 territorial limits of Spain, yet the authors of 
 them were on the lands owned, or at least oc- 
 cupied, by the Indians. I do not believe that 
 they could have been tried there for, I will 
 ask, whether we should claim jurisdiction to 
 punish an offence against a foreign Government, 
 committed by an Indian on the lands occupied 
 by his tribe within our boundary ? This, how- 
 ever, is an objection to jurisdiction founded upon 
 locality only. I assume a much higher ground. 
 I object to it upon the ground of the nature and 
 character of the act committed. My principle 
 is this that it is a right directly derived from, 
 and appertaining to war, and, therefore, the 
 civil power has no jurisdiction over it. 
 
 In regard to the court-martial, gentlemen say 
 it had no jurisdiction. This is conceded to be 
 correct ; and I have attempted to show, that the 
 power belonged to the commanding General. 
 Although, however, the court had no jurisdic- 
 tion to decide the fate of the two men, it was 
 not improper through them to get at the facts ; 
 and though they had no jurisdiction, it would 
 have been desirable that the General, after sub- 
 mitting the case to them, should have followed 
 the sentence which they pronounced, but for 
 an unanswerable reason, which, I believe, has 
 already been urged, that the punishment which 
 they pronounced in the case in which their 
 sentence was not followed was unknown to the 
 national law, and therefore could not properly 
 be inflicted. I have thus, sir, shown, as I think, 
 that the power of putting these men to death, 
 belonged to us as one of the rights of war, and 
 that it was legitimately exercised by the com- 
 manding General; and yet, sir, I acknowledge 
 that I feel a regret at their execution but what 
 kind of regret ? Just such as I would feel for 
 the execution of a man who had been sentenced 
 to death under the municipal law of the coun- 
 try, and in whose favor, under certain circum- 
 stances, I might join in a petition for a pardon, 
 which petition was rejected. I could not, how- 
 ever, in the case which I have stated, concur in 
 a vote of censure against the executive officer 
 for refusing this pardon, because he has only 
 executed the sentence of the law ; because he 
 has carried into effect the public justice of the 
 country ; and, because an act, conformably to 
 law, and in accordance with the principles of 
 justice, even if you call it stern justice, cannot 
 be morally wrong. 
 
 Mr. SAWYER, of North Carolina, rose and 
 said 
 
 Mr. Chairman : As it is not my intention to 
 go over the same grounds that other gentlemen 
 have, my observations will be necessarily few. 
 And I am sorry to be obliged to differ with my 
 friend from New York, in the outset, with re- 
 spect to the powers of this House over the pres- 
 ent question. 
 
 I think the principle a new one, that Congress 
 has no power to pass any resolution of condem- 
 nation or removal, nor of censure, of any mili- 
 tary officer. If such a power exists, let it be 
 pointed out. I have examined the constitution, 
 clause by clause, for such a power, but I have 
 searched in vain. The Legislative and Execu- 
 tive powers are distinctly marked and independ- 
 ently delegated, and we cannot pursue this 
 course without infringing upon the rights of the 
 Executive. He is, by the constitution, the 
 Commander-in-chief of all our forces, and to 
 him alone are our officers responsible. Besides, 
 a resolution of this kind implies a censure on 
 our Executive, by intimating that he had been 
 so negligent in his duty or partial in his affec- 
 tions, as to permit a fault in one of his officers 
 to pass unnoticed, which this House might think 
 worthy of animadversion. I have too much 
 confidence in the Executive to believe he would 
 fail to do his duty, upon the commission of any 
 criminal act on the part of General Jackson. 
 But I am yet to learn whether such has been 
 the case on the part of the General. What is 
 the true state of the case? Arbuthnot and 
 Ambrister were apprehended in the Indian 
 country, under such circumstances as would 
 have justified their immediate execution. But 
 General Jackson, wishing to afford proofs to the 
 world of their guilt, ordered a special court of 
 inquiry to convene at St. Marks, the 26th of 
 April last, for the purpose of investigating the 
 charges, and imbodying the evidence against 
 them. [Here, Mr. S. read the order, &c.] This 
 court, as a court of inquiry, had no right to 
 pass judgment. They were sitting merely as 
 jurors, and were to find a verdict of guilty or 
 not guilty. They did find the prisoners guilty 
 of such charges as subjected them to the pun- 
 ishment of death. They found Arbuthnot guilty 
 of both charges ; exciting the Creek Indians to 
 war against the United States, and of cornfort- 
 "ng and supporting the enemy, by furnishing 
 lim with the means to carry it on. This was, 
 n fact, treason against the United States; for 
 these Creek Indians were quasi citizens, enjoy- 
 ing the protection, and were under the jurisdic- 
 tion of the United States, and, notwithstanding 
 Arbuthnot was a foreigner, he could commit 
 treason against the United States as well as a 
 citizen, and would be either punished for it 
 ivilly, by being turned over to the civil au- 
 hority, or by martial law, for such other of- 
 ences as came under the cognizance of that tri- 
 junal. As to Ambrister, it was proved that he 
 gave intelligence to the enemy, and he plead 
 guilty to the second change, that of being ?
 
 DEBATES OF CONGTKESS. 
 
 271 
 
 JAMTAKY, 1819.] 
 
 The Seminole War. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 party and even a leader in the war ; of course, 
 they brought on themselves and justly deserved 
 that punishment, which the right of retaliation 
 entitled us, and the orders of General Jackson 
 commanded him, to inflict upon the savage foe. 
 The prisoners being found guilty on' such charges 
 
 to assail his character? Will the people endure 
 to be dragged before this council of anatomists, 
 to undergo the worst of all dissections ? I for 
 one will not, by any act of mine, sanction the 
 extension of this censorial power over my con- 
 stituents. The age of proscription, I trust, is 
 
 as subjected them to capital punishment, there over, never to be revived. There is a proper 
 was an end of lie authority of the court, and it tribunal, clearly marked out 'by the constitution, 
 remained with General Jackson to apply the for the punishment and censure of every griev- 
 law of the military code, and see it executed, j ance ; to that tribunal General Jackson is an- 
 The opinion which the court thought proper i swerable, and no other. If the President has 
 afterwards to express, that the offence of Am- | omitted to do his duty, let the gentleman im- 
 orister did not deserve capital punishment, peach him ; but this criminating course, in this 
 could only be viewed by General Jackson as a | House, is mere Trrutum fulmen, without any 
 recommendation to mercy by several respecta- corresponding power, but fraught with great 
 ble individuals ; but which, in obedience to the mischief, by fixing a sting in the bosom of a 
 laws of the army, he could not observe. But I person who is not permitted to be present to 
 it was inconsistent with the sentence which ' make his defence. What effect can the passage 
 they had already pronounced against Arbuthnot ; of this resolution have ? Can it deprive General 
 for they had ordered him to be hung, although ! Jackson of his commission? If the President 
 
 he was only an accessory in the war, and how 
 could they condemn Ambrister to a less severe 
 punishment, who was a principal in it ! General 
 Jackson was merely reconciling their own de- 
 cisions, when he, at the same time, conformed 
 to the laws of his country, which forbid the 
 infliction of torture, and was the minister of 
 even-handed justice, that "returned the poison- 
 ed chalice to their lips who prepared it." 
 
 approves his conduct, will he be driven to act 
 the ungrateful task of dismissing from his ser- 
 vice the man whom he may think deserves well 
 of his country, by any officious intermeddling 
 on our part ? Sir, I trust the President has too 
 high a sense of his own rights and dignity. The 
 Government the people have too high a sense 
 of Jackson's merit, ever to give him up as a 
 victim to the manes of such creatures as Ar- 
 
 Although I am hurt at the zeal with which I | buthnot and Ambrister. So far from censure, 
 see this prosecution carried on, and the joy man- j he deserves the grateful thanks of this House, 
 ifested at it from a certain quarter of the House, I and I trust he will receive them. I consider 
 yet I cannot be so uncharitable as to impute j we are bound to tender him a vote of thanks, 
 their motives to the conduct of General Jacks 
 
 json j as a balm to his wounded spirit as an antidote 
 
 prior to this event Surely no gentleman within | to the worst of all poisons that which is inflict- 
 these walls can harbor a prejudice against him ed with the tooth of ingratitude ? 
 for his victories over any of our enemies. I 
 must believe their motives are pure, but I can- 
 not but think their views are erroneous. What 
 would they have, even admitting, for argument's 
 sake, that the conduct of General Jackson was 
 
 not strictly legal ? Would they wish to see that 
 man, at his time of life, grown gray in his coun- 
 try's service, dragged before a military tribunal 
 to answer for it? Can his age can his services 
 can his victories plead nothing ? Must they 
 all be buried at the shrine of two demi-devils, 
 whose conduct has drawn tons of blood from 
 an unoffending country's breast ? I trust not. 
 The blaze of Jackson's glory is too bright, in 
 my eyes, to be obscured by the transaction. But 
 the course proposed is very extraordinary. Are 
 we a self-constituted tribunal, to whom General 
 Jackson is responsible ? What purpose can it 
 serve to pass a resolution criminating the com- 
 manding General? Have we any authority, 
 and can we claim the privilege of attacking the 
 characters of the best and greatest men among 
 us, and of depriving them of the most " precious 
 jewels of their souls?" This is a new species of 
 legislative domination, dangerous to the liber- 
 ties of the people. If you claim the use of it, 
 what man can be safe ? There is no man of 
 elevated rank but what may be obnoxious to 
 some member of this House ; and would it be 
 
 And here I beg leave to quote the General's 
 own words, for, as ably as he has been defended 
 on this floor, I believe his own defence, consid- 
 ering all circumstances, is nearly as good as 
 any that can be made for him. I will take the 
 
 liberty of reading an extract from his letter of 
 the 5th of May last, dated at Fort Gadsden, to 
 the Secretary of War. This letter affords an- 
 other proof that he had the heart to conceive, 
 the hand to execute, and the talents to defend, 
 the best measures which the urgency of the 
 occasion required. 
 
 " I hope the execution of these two unprincipled 
 villains will prove an awful example to the world, and 
 convince the Government of Great Britain, as well as 
 her subjects, that certain, if slow, retribution awaits 
 those iinchristian wretches, who, by false promises, 
 delude and excite an Indian tribe to all the horrid 
 deeds of savage war. Previous to my leaving Fort 
 Gadsden, I had occasion to address a communication 
 to the Governor of Pensacola, on the subject of per 
 mitting supplies to pass up the Escambia River to 
 Fort Crawford. This letter, with another from St 
 Marks, on the subject of some United States clothing, 
 shipped in a vessel in the employ of the Spanish 
 Government to that post, I now enclose, with his 
 reply. The Governor of Pensacola's refusal to my 
 demand, cannot but be viewed as a hostile feeling 
 on his part, particularly in connection with some cir 
 cumstances reported to me from the most unque 
 
 right for him to use his privilege of a member J tionable authority. It has been stated that the In-
 
 272 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 Regulation of Coins. 
 
 [JANUARY, 1819. 
 
 dians at war with the United States have free access 
 into Pensacola, that they are kept advised, from that 
 quarter, of all our movements ; that they are sup- 
 plied from thence with ammunition and munitions of 
 v.-ar ; and that they are now collecting in a body, to 
 the amount of four or five hundred warriors, in that 
 town ; that inroads from thence have been lately made 
 on the Alabama, in one of which eighteen settlers fell 
 bv the tomahawk. These statements compel me to 
 make a movement to the west of the Appalachicola, 
 arid, should they prove correct, Pensacola must be 
 occupied with an American force, the Governor treated 
 according to his deserts, or as policy may dictate. I 
 shall leave strong garrisons in Forts St. Marks, Gads- 
 den, and Scott, and in Pensacola, should it be neces- 
 sary to possess it. It becomes my duty to state it as 
 wy confirmed opinion, that so long as Spain has not 
 the power or will to enforce the treaties by which she 
 is solemnly bound to preserve the Indians within her 
 territory at peace with the United States, no security 
 can be given to our southern frontier, without occupy- 
 ing a cordon of posts along the shore. The moment 
 the American army retires from Florida the war 
 hatchet will be again raised, and the same scenes of 
 indiscriminate massacre, with which our frontier set- 
 tlers have been visited, will be repeated, so long as 
 the Indians within the territory of Spain are exposed 
 to the delusion of false prophets and poison of foreign 
 intrigue ; so long as they can receive ammunition, 
 munitions of war, from pretended traders and Spanish 
 commandants, it will be impossible to restrain their 
 outrages. The burning their towns, destroying their 
 stock and provisions, will produce but temporary em- 
 barrassments. Resupplied by Spanish authorities, 
 they may concentrate and disperse at will, and keep 
 up a lasting and predatory warfare against the Unit- 
 ed States, as expensive to our Government as harass- 
 ing to our troops. The savages, therefore, must be 
 made dependent on us, and cannot be kept at peace 
 without being persuaded of the certainty of chastise- 
 ment being inflicted on the commission of the first 
 offence. I trust, therefore, that the measures which 
 have been pursued will meet with the approbation of 
 the President of the United States ; they have been 
 adopted in pursuance of your instructions, and under 
 a firm conviction that they alone were calculated to 
 insure peace and security to the Georgian frontier." 
 
 There would have been no end to the war, if 
 he had permitted the enemy to retreat to those 
 strongholds, the Spanish forts, without pursu- 
 ing them with fiery expedition. The trial was 
 made, and as soon as our forces retraced their 
 steps, the Indians recommenced their system of 
 robbing and murder. Does the gentleman re- 
 quire that we should be at the expense of keep- 
 ing up a regular standing force throughout the 
 whole extent of the Georgia frontier; to make 
 it an armed barrier against the savages ? Ought 
 he not to be satisfied that the war has termi- 
 nated in the manner it has, in the complete 
 dispersion and conquest of the enemy, by the 
 ouly mode in which it could be done promptly 
 and completely ? Ought he not to be thankful 
 that his constituents can now pursue their 
 peaceful avocations, without hourly apprehen- 
 sions of murder and conflagration? If any 
 irregularities have happened in the course of 
 this war, leave it to be settled between us and 
 
 Spain ; let us not be guilty of such monstrous 
 ingratitude to our worthy commander a-; tu 
 forget all his services, his midnight vigils, and 
 his uniform success, by passing a string of res- 
 olutions which many of us do not comprehend, 
 and which he never could have intended to vio- 
 late. For, I believe it is not usual to censure a 
 general for his success ; he could have expected 
 no worse had he been beaten. This is but poor 
 encouragement to our officers. 
 
 TUESDAY, January 26. 
 Honor to Learning and Philanthropy. 
 Mr. BASSETT addressed the Chair, and said 
 that he rose to perform a pleasing task, because 
 it was connected with humanity. It was to 
 give praise and honor where praise and honor 
 were due. It was, continued Mr. B., said last 
 night, from that chair, that sensible objects 
 most forcibly attracted us. My heart responds 
 to its truth. Most sensibly did I feel, on be- 
 holding in that chair a man whose life has been 
 devoted to the amelioration of the state of man ; 
 one who, without influence of kindred or coun- 
 try, and without any aid save that of a common 
 tongue, has passed the vast Atlantic, to make 
 known the hidden powers and blessings of 
 knowledge. Thousands, said Mr. B., are now 
 enjoying the happy fruits of his exertions, and 
 millions to come will reap then* profits, and 
 drink again and again of the never-failing spring. 
 I should do injustice to the feelings of the House, 
 to dwell on this subject. Mr. B. then submitted 
 the following resolution, which was read and 
 
 Resolved, That Joseph Lancaster, the friend of 
 learning and of man, be admitted to a seat within 
 the hall of the House of Representatives. 
 
 The bill for the relief of Hannah Ring and 
 Luther Frink, was ordered to a third reading ; 
 and the bill for the relief of Lewis Joseph Beau- 
 lieu, was taken up, and ordered to lie on the 
 table. 
 
 Regulation of Coins. 
 
 Mr. LOWNDES, from the committee appointed 
 to inquire whether it be expedient to make any 
 amendment in the laws which regulate the coins 
 of the United States, and foreign coins, made 
 the following report : 
 
 That the laws of the United States make aU gold 
 and silver corns issued from their Mint, and Spanish 
 dollars, and the parts of such dollars, a legal tender 
 for the payment of debts. The gold coins of Great 
 Britain, Portugal, France, Spain, and the dominions 
 of Spain, and the crowns and five franc pieces of 
 France, are also declared to be a tender, by an act 
 passed on the 29th of April, 1818. These coins, ex 
 cepting the five franc pieces, had been made legal by 
 two earlier acts, which had been allowed to expire, 
 and their renewal, with slight modification, must be 
 attributed, not to a disregard of the inconveniences 
 which the use of corns so various and unequal in their 
 purity must produce, but to the exigencies of a coun- 
 try endeavoring suddenly to recover a specie circula- 
 tion. The act of 1816 was accordingly passed but
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 273 
 
 JAXCART, 1819.] 
 
 The Seminole War. 
 
 OF R. 
 
 for tliree years, and will expire on the 29th of April, 
 1819, after which, no foreign coin but the Spanish 
 dollar will, under our present laws, pass current as 
 money within the United States. The act for estab- 
 lishing a Mint was passed in April, 1792, and it was 
 then expected that foreign coins, including the Span- 
 ish dollar, might be disused after three years. But, 
 neither an. examination of the laws which regulate 
 the currency of American and foreign corns, nor the 
 observations of the effects which they have as yet pro- 
 duced, will justify us in expecting that a continued 
 reliance upon them will enable us to dispense at any 
 time with foreign coins. 
 
 To preserve the coins which are issued from the 
 Mint from being melted and exported, the laws must 
 give them some advantages in internal commerce 
 over foreign coins of equal purity and weight. In re- 
 spect to the gold coinage of the United States, the 
 Mint depends for its supply of bullion upon banks or 
 individuals, as it does in the coinage of silver. But 
 there is a difficulty in the operations of the Mint, 
 which is peculiar to the coinage of the gold. The 
 relative value of gold to silver is fixed by our law at 
 one to fifteen, which is much below the relative value 
 which is assigned to it in all those countries from 
 which we might have expected to procure it. In 
 Spain and Portugal, the legal value of gold is to that 
 of silver as one to sixteen ; and in the colony of Spain 
 with which our intercourse is most frequent and val- 
 uable, (Cuba,) its price in commerce is at least seven- 
 teen for one. Hence, we are not only precluded in 
 the common course of trade from obtaining gold from 
 these rich sources of supply, but the little which finds 
 its way into the country from other quarters, is drawn 
 from us by the higher estimate which is there placed 
 upon it. In France, the legal value of gold is to that 
 of silver nearly as 1 to 15 1-2. In most parts of 
 Italy, it is somewhat higher. In England, silver 
 coin is only current in small sums ; but if a specie 
 circulation shall be restored in that country on the 
 basis of its present mint regulations, the relative 
 value of gold to silver will be about 1 for 15 1-5. The 
 exaction of a seignorage on its silver coins makes the 
 comparison less easy; but the merchant who shall 
 carry bullion to the British mint, will obtain very 
 nearly the same amount of current money for one 
 ounce of pure gold, or 15 1-5 of pure silver. In Hol- 
 land, the relative value of gold to silver is estimated 
 (if there have been no recent changes in respect to it) 
 at 1 to about 14 3-4. In Germany, and the north of 
 Europe, the value may be stated as rather below an 
 average of 1 to 15. The West Indies, which are 
 probably our most considerable bullion market, esti- 
 mate gold in proportion to silver very little, if at all, 
 below an average of 1 to 16. .And this is done, al- 
 though some of the most considerable colonies belong 
 to powers whose laws assign to gold a lower relative 
 value in their European dominions. This estimate, 
 which was forced upon many of the colonies by the 
 necessity of giving for gold the price which it com- 
 manded in their neighborhood, and particularly in 
 the countries which formed the great sources of their 
 supply, seems to indicate the fair proportion between 
 the metals in the West Indies, since it is believed to 
 have been, in most instances, confirmed by the colo- 
 nial laws, ratHer than introduced by them. The 
 difference established by custom in the United States, 
 between corned gold and silver, before the establish- 
 ment of the present Government, seems to have been 
 nearly as 1 to 15 6-10. The difference proposed by 
 Congress, in their resolution of the 8th of August, 
 VoL.VI.-18 
 
 1786, was nearly 1 to 15 1-4 ; and the reduction in 
 the valuation of gold by the act of April 12th, 1792, 
 to the proportion of 1 to 15, may be attributed to the 
 belief, which was expressed in the report on which 
 that act was founded, " that the highest actual pro- 
 portion in any part of Europe, very little, if at all, 
 exceeds 1 to 15 ; and that the average proportion was 
 probably not more than 1 to 14 8-10." The diffi- 
 culty of obtaining correct information upon points 
 of this kind, makes it not improbable, that there may 
 have been some error as to the state of the Mint 
 regulations of Europe at the period of the report. But, 
 be this as it may, the principle which seems to be 
 assumed in it, that the valuation of gold in this coun- 
 try should be higher than in Europe, would lead to 
 the conclusion, that the present valuation of 1 to 15 
 is too low. 
 
 This conclusion is confirmed by the circumstance 
 of the contract made not long since, between the 
 Bank of the United States and Messrs. Baring and 
 Reed, for the supply of specie. Under this contract, 
 gold and silver were to be furnished, if it were prac- 
 ticable, in equal amounts, according to the American 
 relative valuation of 1 to 15. Upwards of two mil- 
 lions of dollars of silver have been accordingly sup- 
 plied, but not an ounce of gold. 
 
 As the committee entertain no doubt that gold i? 
 estimated below its fair relative value, in comparison 
 to silver, by the present regulations of the Mint ; and 
 as it can scarcely be considered as having . formed a 
 material part of our money circulation for the last 
 twenty-six years, they have no hesitation in recom- 
 mending that its valuation shall be raised, so as to 
 make it bear a juster proportion to its price in the 
 commercial world. But the smallest change which is 
 likely to secure this object (a just proportion of gold 
 coins in our circulation) is that which the committee 
 prefer, and they believe it sufficient to restore gold to 
 its original valuation in this country, of 1 to 15 6-10. 
 
 Seminole War. 
 
 The House then again proceeded, in Com- 
 mittee of the "Whole, (Mr. PITKIN in the chair,) 
 to the consideration of the report of the Mili- 
 tary Committee, and the amendments moved 
 thereto by Mr. COBB, touching the transactions 
 of the Seminole war. 
 
 Mr. MERCER addressed the Chair as follows : 
 The resolutions before us have for their ob- 
 ject neither a censure of General Jackson nor 
 of the Executive. Pursuing the natural course 
 of legislation, they ascertain the existence of a 
 public abuse, and recommend the application of 
 a constitutional corrective. They spring from 
 an inquiry into the conduct of the Seminole 
 war, to which the President's Message at the 
 opening of the present session, called the atten- 
 tion of the House. It cannot be forgotten, that, 
 during the two first administrations of the 
 Federal Government, the President, at the 
 commencement of every session of Congress, 
 met in person the two Houses, convened to- 
 gether, and pronounced the address which his 
 Secretary now conveys to us in the form of a 
 Message. In relation to every part of the ad- 
 dress, the two Houses separately exercised the 
 unquestioned right of responding. These re- 
 sponses brought into brief review the whole 
 course of administration. All the political acts
 
 274 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 The Seminole War. 
 
 [JANUARY, 1819. 
 
 and the actors of the past year were held open 
 to the scrutiny and opinion of either Honse. 
 
 Such was the operation given to this Govern- 
 ment by the framers of the constitution, who 
 filled the first Congress which assembled after 
 its ratification. Such continued to be its oper- 
 ation for the first twelve years of its existence. 
 
 During the last eighteen years, this practice 
 has been disused, but it would be difficult to 
 prove that the powers of this House have been 
 abridged by the substitution of the President's 
 Message for Iris speech. Like the latter, the 
 former yet undergoes, at the opening of each 
 session, a political analysis, which terminates 
 in the reference of every important member of 
 it to some committee, charged with the duty of 
 reporting an opinion upon the subject which it 
 embraces, and of recommending, if necessary, 
 some correspondent act of legislation. Hence 
 the origin of the report which has given rise to 
 the present debate. 
 
 Is it not absurd to imagine, even, said Mr. M., 
 that the President of the United States can ap- 
 prise this House that its highest powers have 
 been usurped ? That the constitution has been 
 violated, and yet no complaint can be made of 
 the usurpation, nor any exertion to prevent its 
 recurrence ? 
 
 I find myself arrested, Mr. Chairman, on the 
 very threshold of my first proposition, by the 
 assertion of one of my colleagues, (Mr. SMYTH,) 
 that the Indians cannot wage war ; because, he 
 added, they do not make prisoners of war ; while 
 another honorable member, (Mr. JOHNSON,) who 
 preceded him on the same side of the question, 
 maintained that our statute book contains a 
 declaration of perpetual war against all the In- 
 dian tribes within our limits. Let the statute 
 book answer these extraordinary doctrines. The 
 aborigines of this country have been our asso- 
 ciates, or our neighbors, for more than two 
 centuries; and we have maintained towards 
 them, during that period, relations of commerce 
 and amity, as well as of war, by the same means 
 by which we have regulated our intercourse 
 with other States. Instead of recurring to the 
 treaty and correspondence of Ghent, allow me 
 to consult the volume which I hold in my hand, 
 and to ascertain, from our own intercourse with 
 this unfortunate race of men, in what light we 
 have hitherto regarded them. To ascend no 
 further back than to the formation of our Union, 
 the first volume of the laws of the United 
 States will afford us Indian treaties, embracing 
 every variety of stipulation known in the dip- 
 lomatic intercourse of the most polished na- 
 tions ; from the articles of agreement and con- 
 federation with the Delaware nation, a treaty 
 of alliance and commerce, concluded at Fort 
 Pitt in 1798, down to the articles of agreement 
 and capitulation, a treaty of conquest, but of 
 peace also, concluded at Fort Jackson in 1814. 
 In direct contradiction of the assertion of my 
 colleague, we find among the intermediate con- 
 ventions stipulations for the mutual exchange 
 
 doctrine contended for by the honorable mem- 
 ber from Kentucky, the far greater number of 
 them are treaties of peace, promising the obli- 
 vion of past injuries, and the establishment of 
 perpetual friendship. Nor will a recurrence to 
 the history of the United States authorize art 
 unfavorable comparison of the good faith of 
 these untutored savages with that of our more 
 polished European allies. With the Chickasaw 
 and Choctaw nations we have made several 
 treaties of boundary, but have had occasion to 
 make no treaty of peace since that of Hopewell, 
 concluded two and thirty years ago, under the 
 old confederation. The treaty of Greenville, 
 with the Northwestern Indians, endured from 
 1795 till the battle of Tippecanoe, in 1813. The 
 first treaty with the Creeks and Seminoles, con- 
 cluded with the White Chief, McGilvray. in 
 New York, in 1790, was, with the exception of 
 some border hostilities with Georgia, of ques- 
 tionable origin, and terminated by the treaty of 
 Colerain, in June, 1796, preserved inviolate till 
 1815. Compare these dates, sir, with those of 
 our treaties with England, France, and Spain. 
 Call to mind the repeated violations of these 
 treaties, and then ask your conscience if it will 
 permit you to cast an imputation of bad faith 
 on your savage neighbors. 
 
 It has not, and I presume will not be pretend- 
 ed, that the destruction of the negro and Indian 
 fort near the mouth of the Appalachicola, was 
 required by any absolute necessity. The Gov- 
 ernor of Pensacola, so far from authorizing the 
 act, expresses his expectation " that, until he 
 receives the decision of his Captain General, no 
 steps will be taken by the 1 Government of the 
 United States, or by General Jackson, prejudi- 
 cial to the sovereignty of the King of Spain, or 
 the district of Appalachicola, a dependency of 
 his Government." It cannot be pretended that 
 this hostile measure was taken with the consent 
 of the Seminole Indians ; and if, as I hope, it 
 was done without the order of the President of 
 the United States, it was certainly without any 
 legitimate sanction the authority of Con- 
 
 If the alleged reason for this wanton injustice 
 were deemed sufficient to warrant it, " that the 
 fort had become a refuge for runaway negroes 
 and disaffected Indians," where would it carry 
 us? With what neighboring nation, civilized 
 or savage, could we preserve relations of amity ? 
 Will it be pretended that we have a right to 
 punish disaffection in those who owe us no 
 allegiance ; or to recover by violence the persons 
 of our fugitives, whether bond or free ? The 
 attempt to gloss over this cruelty by the sug- 
 gestion that the force of the miserable negroes 
 was "daily increasing, and that the fertile 
 banks of the Appalachicola were about to yield 
 them every article of subsistence,", is calculated 
 to shed additional horror over a transaction 
 wanton in its motive, and savage in its execu- 
 tion. A war upon the peaceful negro settle- 
 ments on the Wabash would be equally politic, 
 
 of prisoners of war ; and, in hostility with the | and, in principle, alike justifiable.
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 275 
 
 JANUARY, 1819.] 
 
 The SeminoU War. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 I have thus traced the Seminole war, Mr. 
 Chairman, to the unauthorized invasion of East 
 Florida in 181G ; but, from thence to the month 
 of October of the ensuing year, the terror in- 
 spired by this act seems not to have produced 
 the usual retaliation of savages the indulgence 
 of private revenge. Along a line of four hun- 
 dred and seventy miles, from the mouth of the 
 St. Marys to the intersection of the Perdido, by 
 the thirty-first degree of latitude, we hear, in 
 fact, of scarcely an Indian aggression. The 
 destruction of their fort, and the murder in cold 
 blood of two of their chiefs, must have inspired 
 the sentiment of hostility, but they wanted the 
 means of indulging it. Even at the moment 
 when the friendly Indians of Fowltown, who 
 had preserved their neutrality during the whole 
 Creek war, were assailed by order of the Amer- 
 ican General, there had been no invasion of 
 our territory by any Indian force. Stories, 
 indeed, sir, have been told us of Indian massa- 
 cres, at the recital of which my very soul sick- 
 ened ; and, were it not for the documents on 
 our table, I should believe that the tomahawk 
 and scalping-knife had deluged our Southern 
 frontier with blood. But, in addition to the 
 President's declaration on the 16th of Novem- 
 ber, 1817, that we were at peace with the In- 
 dian tribes, I discover that, with but two ex- 
 ceptions, that murder of a family on St. Mary's 
 River, and of some travellers five hundred 
 miles off in the Alabama Territory transactions 
 which I deplore as much as any man we were 
 ourselves the aggressors. The unfortunate de- 
 tachment of Scott, (the attack upon which is 
 said to have given " a new character to the 
 Seminole war, and to have justified the invasion 
 of Florida,) fell a victim to savage revenge, 
 upon the river Appalachicola, without the ter- 
 ritory of the United States. After the destruc- 
 tion of the Indian fort in the preceding year, 
 was it too much to expect that the Seminole 
 Indians would resist the progress of another 
 armed force through the bosom of their terri- 
 tory ? Had they to consult authorities for the 
 right of self-defence ? They recurred to that 
 which nature has stamped upon the hearts of all 
 men. Sir, these Indians are represented to have 
 been sufficiently powerful to be the objects of 
 our fears. They must be regarded as independ- 
 ent of us from our own express acknowledg- 
 ment. Spain asserted that they had subverted 
 her sovereignty; and, under our constitution, 
 war could not be waged upon an independent 
 neighboring power without the authority of 
 Congress. At one moment, indeed, we hear 
 the Indians of East Florida styled wretched 
 savages, outlawed Creeks, fugitive slaves. At 
 another they are represented to be capable of 
 bringing a force of thirty-five hundred men into 
 the field, a force equivalent to half our military 
 establishment, and the most alarming necessity 
 is plead to justify the infraction of the neutrality 
 of Spain in our hostilities against them. 
 
 I will now proceed to consider the alleged ne- 
 seizing those fortresses. And, first, 
 
 that of St. Marks. General Jackson, as early 
 as the 25th day of March, soon after crossing 
 the Florida line, announced his intention of 
 taking St. Marks " as a depot for his supplies, 
 should he find it in the possession of the Span- 
 iards, they having supplied the Indians." That 
 he derived no right to take it from the latter 
 use of it, I have already demonstrated, and that 
 he derived none from the use which he meant 
 to make of it himself, an attention to the local 
 position of St. Marks will readily evince. St. 
 Marks is situated one hundred and four miles to 
 the northwest of the Suwannee towns, the main 
 object of General Jackson's campaign. It stands 
 on the bank of the river to which it has given or 
 owes its name, and nine miles above its mouth. 
 The fort is surrounded by an open prairie, about 
 two miles across, and below it extends an open 
 forest of pine. As a military depot, a position 
 below St. Marks, on the same river, would have 
 been more accessible to the vessels, which were 
 to furnish supplies from New Orleans; and the 
 labor of a fatigue party, for a few days, would 
 have constructed, of the adjacent forest, a pro- 
 tection sufficiently strong to resist the attack of 
 any savage force which could have threatened 
 the safety of the position. Such is the necessity, 
 on which this infraction of neutral right is 
 grounded. The Spanish fort deriving its sup- 
 plies, also, from the water, would have been 
 dependent on the American, and the danger of 
 an Indian attack, which threatened St. Marks, 
 before the arrival of the American army, had 
 ended with its approach. Nor is it the least 
 extenuation of this unauthorized act of war, 
 that discoveries were made, after the capture 
 of the fort, which evinced that its commander 
 was unfriendly to the American arms. The 
 antecedent act should be tried by its own evi- 
 dence. The subsequent discoveries, if they 
 amounted to any thing, constituted, as I have re- 
 marked, a cause of war against Spain, which 
 General Jackson had no right to declare, or to 
 wage, without a declaration. 
 
 St. Marks was more than a hundred miles 
 from the Suwanee towns. To reach Pensacola, 
 it was necessary to march across West Florida 
 one hundred and fifty miles further from the 
 principal theatre of the war. The necessity, 
 however, which urged the occupation of the 
 capital of West Florida is, if possible, less ap- 
 parent than that which was plead for the seizure 
 and occupation of St. Marks. The defeated 
 Indians had retired down the peninsula of 
 Florida, or crossed over it towards St. Augus- 
 tine. Fort Gadsden and the Appalachicola 
 River, to say nothing of St. Marks, then in our 
 possession, cut off their retreat upon Pensacola. 
 Above Pensacola itself, on the Canuco, a branch 
 of the Escambia, Fort Crawford served as a 
 check upon the Indians in that vicinity, and 
 fifty miles from this last position stood the 
 American fort Montgomery, on the Alabama. 
 The desert country between the Appalaohicola 
 and the Bay of Pensacola, contained neither 
 Spaniards nor Indians ; yet, on the 5th of May,
 
 276 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OP R.] 
 
 The Seminole War. 
 
 [JANUARY, 1819. 
 
 after having discharged a part of his force, and 
 
 S reclaimed the war to be at an end, General 
 ackson announces to his Government his in- 
 tention to occupy Pensacola, if certain reports, 
 which he had heard, should prove trne, while 
 the whole tenor of his letter of that date evinces 
 a determination to occupy it at all events. He 
 expresses it to be his confirmed opinion, " that, 
 so long as Spain has not the power or will to 
 enforce the treaty, by which she is solemnly 
 bound to preserve the Indians within her terri- 
 tory at peace with the United States, no security 
 can be given to our Southern frontier, without 
 occupying a cordon of posts along the seashore." 
 After the seizure of Pensacola, he enforces the 
 same reasoning, in an argument in favor of its 
 restoration. 
 
 In the subsequent proceedings of General 
 Jackson, a more striking illustration is offered 
 of the extent to which his conduct was influ- 
 enced by this threat. Not satisfied with the 
 seizure of Pensacola, without resistance, he 
 proceeded fourteen miles below it, invested, and, 
 after a heavy cannonade of many hours, took 
 the fortress of the Barancas and the Governor, 
 by capitulation. Nor did he stop here; but, 
 regarding the Spanish troops as prisoners of 
 war, and all West Florida as a conquered coun- 
 try, he shipped the former to the Havana, and 
 usurped over the latter the civil, as well as mili- 
 tary, administration. One of my honorable 
 colleagues has, with singular felicity, offered the 
 same apology for these defensive measures of 
 the American commander which he allows to 
 the Emperor of France for subverting the Prus- 
 sian monarchy. The honor of the French arms 
 required that a threat should be repelled ! Sir, 
 the force of the argument will appear very 
 nearly the same, in both cases, when reference 
 is had to the relative strength of the combat- 
 ants; but there is this remarkable difference 
 between the Emperor of France and General 
 Jackson, that the former was the acknowledged 
 sovereign of France, and the latter had merely 
 usurped the authority of Congress to make war 
 upon a foreign State. Whether General Jack- 
 son's conduct was in obedience to his orders, as 
 my honorable colleague (Mr. SMYTH) has so 
 earnestly and ingeniously maintained, is a 
 question between him and the authority from 
 which he derived them, except so far as regards 
 the pernicious example of military insubordina- 
 tion, which is afforded by the impunity of this 
 act. 
 
 Allow me, also, Mr. Chairman, to say, that, 
 although Spain, in my opinion, has given us 
 ample cause of war, I am decidedly opposed to 
 a declaration of hostilities against her. We 
 claim, I understand, as our western boundary, 
 the territory west of the Mississippi, as far as 
 the Kio del Norte. If by treaty it is ours, let 
 it be occupied by our arms ; and, having taken 
 possession of that which belongs to us, let us 
 tender to Spain the exchange of that part of it 
 adjacent to her Mexican possessions, for Florida, 
 which she does not want, and which would be 
 
 to us of great value. If she shall now reject 
 this proposition, the time must speedily arrive 
 when she will perceive it to be her interest to 
 accede to it. So far would I go, and no farther. 
 Not from any apprehension of the power of 
 Spain, but for reasons of policy, too obvious to 
 require to be enforced. A war, even with 
 Spain, would cripple that commerce, on the 
 prosperity of which materially depends the fu- 
 ture growth of our yet infant navy. In such a 
 war we would have to contend, not with Spain 
 alone, but to encounter, under the disguise of a 
 Spanish flag, the enterprise and resources of 
 France, of England, and I greatly fear of some 
 of the most abandoned of our own citizens. 
 
 Having, Mr. Chairman, consumed so much 
 of the time of the committee on the first propo- 
 sitions which I proposed to sustain, I shall pass, 
 with more brevity, over the last, which involves 
 the character rather than the constitution of 
 our Government. In the inquiry, whether the 
 rules of judicial proceeding in the trial of mili- 
 tary officers have been wantonly disregarded in 
 the trial and execution of Arbuthnot and Am- 
 brister, an unexpected difficulty is started by 
 our opponents, who question whether the spe- 
 cial court which tried them was a court-martial, 
 or a mere board of officers. It was not suffi- 
 cient, it seems, that General Jackson informed 
 the Secretary of War that "Arbuthnot and 
 Ambrister were tried under his orders by a 
 special court of select officers ; legally convicted ; 
 legally condemned; and most justly punished:" 
 or, that he calls the court a court-martial wher- 
 ever he speaks of it, whether in his letters, or 
 his general orders. His friends, acknowledging 
 their utter incapacity to defend him, on his 
 grounds, persist in denominating the court a 
 mere board of officers. Its proceedings they re- 
 gard as subject to no legal restraint; its judg- 
 ment as mere counsel or advice, submitted to 
 the discretion of the General, to be altered or 
 extended at his mere pleasure. Is their view 
 then, sir, correct? Were Arbuthnot and Am- 
 brister tried by a court-martial, or merely ex- 
 amined by a board of officers? A court-mar- 
 tial is either a general court for the trial of all 
 offences whatever, or a regimental or garrison 
 court, for the trial of offences not capital. The 
 former must consist of five, and may consist of 
 thirteen officers. The latter cannot exceed 
 three. A prisoner was here sentenced to death, 
 and the assemblage of officers who sentenced 
 him to that punishment consisted of thirteen ; 
 it was, therefore, either a general court-martial 
 or no court at all. A general court-martial is 
 required, by the rules and articles of war, to 
 consist of " any number of commissioned offi- 
 cers from five to thirteen; but it shall not con- 
 sist of less than thirteen, where that number 
 can be convened without manifest injury to the 
 service." The court which tried Arbuthnot and 
 Ambrister consisted of thirteen officers, with a 
 supernumerary appointed to act, in case of un- 
 foreseen absence or incapacity of any one of 
 that number. A general court-inartial is re-
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 277 
 
 JANUARY, 1819.] 
 
 The Seminole Wa 
 
 [H. OK K. 
 
 quired to have a judge advocate, whose duty it 
 is to administer to the officers the oath pre- 
 scribed by the sixty-ninth article of war, and to 
 act as counsel for the accused as well as the 
 court. The court which tried Arbuthnot and 
 Ambrister had a judge advocate, Avho adminis- 
 tered the oath required by law, and interro- 
 gated the . witnesses. The prisoner may chal- 
 lenge any member of a general court-martial 
 appointed to try him. Arbuthnot and Ambris- 
 ter were called upon to exercise this privilege. 
 The prisoner before a court-martial is regularly 
 arraigned upon charges and specifications filed 
 ;igainst him. So were Arbuthnot and Am- 
 brister. He is entitled to counsel if he requires 
 it. Arbuthnot made application for counsel, 
 and counsel was allowed him. A court-mar- 
 tial sits with open doors, except when it decides 
 a question, and then the doors are closed. So 
 proceeded the court which tried these prison- 
 ers. A court-martial has only a limited juris- 
 diction, both as to offences and persons. So 
 this court decided, for, of the third charge and 
 specification against Arbuthnot, the court de- 
 cided, " upon the suggestion of a member, after 
 mature deliberation, that it had no jurisdiction." 
 A court-martial can sit, unless by express per- 
 mission from the officer creating it, only between 
 certain hours of the day. This court was, by 
 order, allowed to sit without regard to hours. 
 In the organization of a general court-martial 
 the members are seated alternately, according 
 to rank, on each side of the President. So was 
 this court arranged. A court-martial records, 
 along with a minute of its proceedings, all the 
 testimony laid before it. So did this court. It 
 is its special province to decide on the guilt 
 ur innocence of the accused, and on the punish- 
 ment, if any, which shall be inflicted upon 
 them. So was this court required to do, and so 
 it did. A general court-martial is required to 
 pronounce upon every charge and specification 
 exhibited against a prisoner. This court obeyed 
 this requisition by acquitting the prisoner, Ar- 
 buthnot, of being a spy, and responding to all 
 the charges and specifications against him ex- 
 cept that, of which they disclaimed any juris- 
 diction. A general court-martial cannot sen- 
 tence a prisoner to death, without the concur- 
 rence of two-thirds of its members. A con- 
 currence of two-thirds of the court is here 
 certified. 
 
 The general order of the 29th of April, com- 
 manding the immediate execution of Arbuthnot 
 and Ambrister, uncondemned even to this day, 
 nay, more than tacitly approved, is, Mr. Chair- 
 man, a stain on the records of the judicial proceed- 
 ings of this nation, to the insecurity of the honor 
 and life of every officer and soldier of the armies 
 of the United States, and of every citizen of 
 America, who may be legally, or otherwise, 
 subjected to the judgment of a court-martial ; a 
 proceeding which imperiously calls for the in- 
 terposition of the authority of Congress, in 
 order that, instead of being converted into a 
 precedent for future imitation, it may be 
 
 shunned as an object of abhorrence. Sir. it is 
 no little cause of alarm to behold the highest 
 military court of criminal justice, which should 
 be the shield of innocence, converted into a rod 
 of oppression. While I listened with equal at- 
 tention and delight to the eloquent and able 
 argument of my honorable friend from New 
 York, I thought that even he underrated the 
 security which a military court is designed to 
 afford to an innocent prisoner. I thought he 
 supposed that a military judge was not sworn 
 to discharge the duties of his office with fidelity 
 and impartiality. [Mr. STOBBS arose to ex- 
 plain. He had remarked, he said, that the 
 charges were not sworn to on which a prisoner 
 was arrested.] I misunderstood my honorable 
 friend, said Mr. MEBCBB; but even here the 
 charge must be sanctioned by the honor of an 
 officer. A general court-martial derives its ap- 
 pointment from the sound discretion of the 
 highest military authority in an army ; its sen- 
 tence is inoperative until it receives his appro- 
 bation ; and any officer who should seek, by the 
 instrumentality of such a court, to gratify secret 
 resentment or malignity, would render himself 
 odious to his whole corps. 
 
 Who, sir, were the other captives condemned 
 to death ? It has been said of some of the 
 Suwanee chiefs, that he was the author of the 
 massacre of Scott's detachment, destroyed, as I 
 have proved, in that Indian territory which our 
 army was not only preparing to invade, but 
 had, in fact, invaded ; and the participation of 
 this chief La the bloody massacre which closed 
 this scene, is unsnstained by any proof what- 
 ever. 
 
 As to his unfortunate comrade, the Indian 
 Prophet, what are his imputed crimes ? That 
 he was, himself*, the victim of superstition ; that 
 he deluded his wretched followers. Such was 
 the guilt, sir, of all the augurs and soothsayers 
 of the ancient republics, sometimes Praetors, 
 Consuls, and Dictators, not to Rome alone, but 
 to a conquered world. A guilt, in which lies 
 still involved three-fourths of the human race ; 
 many of whom yet groan, in cities, in palaces, 
 and temples, beneath a superstition, compared 
 with which, the religion of the wandering in- 
 habitants of our western wilds is simple, peace- 
 ful, and consolatory. Or did his guilt consist 
 in returning home with a foreign commission, 
 after having crossed the Atlantic in quest of 
 aid, to sustain the sinking fortune of his tribe? 
 Has it, then, become a crime, in our day, to 
 love our country ; to plead her wrongs ; to 
 maintain her rights; or to die in her defence? 
 Sir, had not the God I worship, a God of mercy 
 as well as truth, taught me to forgive mine 
 enemies, did he, as the Great Spirit whom the 
 Seminole adores, allow me to indulge revenge ; 
 were I an Indian, I would swear eternal hatred 
 to your race. What crimes have they com- 
 mitted against us, that we have not, with supe- 
 rior skill, practised upon them ? Whither are 
 they gone ? How many of them have been sent 
 to untimely graves? How many driven from
 
 278 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OP R.] 
 
 The Seminole War. 
 
 [JANUARY, 1819. 
 
 their lawful possessions? Their tribes and 
 their very names are almost extinct. My hon- 
 orable colleague, (Mr. BAEBOUR,) who differs 
 from us on this question my honorable friend 
 I will, call him, for he inspired that sentiment, 
 while he eloquently described the wrongs and 
 sufferings of this unhappy race will not con- 
 demn in a poor Seminole Indian that love of 
 country, of which, if it be indeed a crime, no 
 man is more guilty than himself. But it seems 
 he was an Indian. The Suwanee chief, his 
 comrade, was so too. Arbuthnot and Ambris- 
 ter, who inspired their counsels and led them to 
 combat, are to be regarded as themselves, and, 
 under the law of retaliation, they were all li- 
 able to suffer death, at the pleasure of General 
 Jackson. And thus, Mr. Chairman, the clem- 
 ency which has been observed, for two centu- 
 ries, in all our conflicts with the aborigines of 
 America, is at length discovered to have been 
 an impolitic abandonment of the rights which 
 we derive from the laws and usages of war. 
 Nay, sir, the victories of all our former com- 
 manders, in all other Indian wars, are cast into 
 the shade, in order to magnify the effect of this 
 new policy. In the hard-fought battle of Point 
 Pleasant, in which I have heard that three hun- 
 dred Virginians fell, my colleague (Mr. SMYTH) 
 tells us, that only eighteen Indian warriors 
 were found dead on the field. Before the im- 
 petuous charge of the gallant "Wayne, but twenty 
 fell. At Tippecanoe, but thirty. On the banks 
 of the Tallapoosa, General Jackson left eight 
 hundred Indians dead. Sir, it is consolatory to 
 humanity to look beyond these fields of slaugh- 
 ter, to the peace which followed them, the only 
 object of a just war. From the battle of Point 
 Pleasant to the present day, Indian hostilities 
 have ceased in Virginia. The victories of 
 Wayne led to the treaty of Greenville, and was 
 followed by a peace of eighteen years. The 
 treaties of Hopewell, of New York, and of Cole- 
 rain, preceded by no battles, were succeeded 
 by a peace, which, with the Creeks and Semi- 
 noles, it required, after the lapse of nineteen 
 years, another British war to disturb; and 
 which, with the Choctaw and Chickasaw In- 
 dians, endures to this moment. "While the 
 splendid victory of Tallapoosa, and the treaty 
 of Fort Jackson, have not yet, it is said, secured 
 to us peace, although aided by our new code 
 of retaliation, and its practical commentary, 
 the execution, in cold blood, of four Indian 
 captives. 
 
 Mr. COLSTON said that he rose at that late pe- 
 riod of the debate, trusting that the committee 
 would excuse his trespassing, for a short time, 
 upon their attention, whilst he discharged his 
 duty to himself, his constituents, and his coun- 
 try, by expressing his sentiments on this im- 
 portant question, involving, as it did, the co'nsti- 
 tution and laws of the country. In the investi- 
 gation of it, he would not be deterred from ex- 
 pressing his opinion freely, either by the decla- 
 rations of those high in authority, that General 
 Jackson's conduct must be defended, or by the 
 
 character of the individual who was the subject 
 of this investigation, or by any of those ineitn- 
 which had been used to prevent the expression 
 of disapprobation by those who thought his 
 conduct censurable. 
 
 Sir, had an ordinary man said that the Gov- 
 ernor of an independent State had no right to 
 issue a military order to the militia of that 
 State, under his command, whilst an officer of 
 the United States was in service, we should 
 have smiled at his ignorance of our peculiar 
 form of Government; but the same doctrine, 
 coming from General Jackson, becomes dan- 
 gerous. Had one individual indulged in the 
 same style of correspondence with another in- 
 dividual, which is used in the letters to the 
 Governor of Georgia, we should have consid- 
 ered it rude ; but, coming from a general in the 
 service of the United States, and that officer 
 General Jackson, it has an awful squinting to- 
 wards the degradation of State authorities the 
 prostration of State sovereignties, with the pre- 
 servation of which is connected the best inter- 
 ests of this nation. And, finally, had a man 
 unknown to fame, executed two individuals, 
 without any law of this nation to justify it, we 
 should have found no difficulty in giving to the 
 deed a name ; but, when it is done under claim 
 of military authority, it constitutes a political 
 offence of a much higher and more dangerous 
 nature. Such acts, he must confess, roused all 
 his jealousy of military power and military 
 usurpations. 
 
 "With regard to entering Florida, much na- 
 tional law had been quoted to justify the meas- 
 ure ; but all those principles apply to sovereign 
 powers, and only serve to show that this na- 
 tion, in its high sovereign capacity, would have 
 had a right to order its armies into that prov- 
 ince, without giving just cause of offence to 
 Spain. But where is this sovereign power 
 lodged by the constitution of this country ? In 
 Congress, unquestionably, and not in the Ex- 
 ecutive. I am not prepared, however, to say 
 that, being once involved hi war with the 
 Seminoles, the Executive had no right, even 
 under our form of Government, to order the 
 troops into Florida, without the consent of 
 Congress, as an incident to that war. But here 
 another question will arise as to the power of 
 the Executive to enter into that war, without 
 a law. The wars which have heretofore been 
 waged against Indian nations have always been 
 against those within our acknowledged ter- 
 ritorial limits. The use of the army against 
 them has resembled more the case of suppress- 
 ing an internal enemy, than waging a foreign 
 war. The President, therefore, has, under the 
 authority of a general law, exercised the power 
 of calling out the militia, and sending against 
 them the military force of the United States, 
 without a particular law to authorize it; but 
 surely the case is very different in relation to 
 Indian nations without our territorial limits, 
 and, as far as regards us, to all intents and pur- 
 poses independent. "With regard to these, he
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 279 
 
 JANUARY, 1819.] 
 
 The Seminole War. 
 
 [H. OF R 
 
 had no doubt the assent of Congress to the 
 war was as necessary by the constitution as in 
 any other war whatever, although he had no 
 doubt the omission to obtain that assent arose 
 from the former practice of the Government, 
 and their not having reflected upon the change 
 in circumstances, which, in the present instance, 
 required, a change of that practice. He was 
 never disposed to blame, upon slight grounds, 
 the Executive Magistrate of the Government. 
 But these two last questions were entirely of 
 a domestic nature, and were only differences of 
 opinion as to the mode of exercising a right un- 
 questionably belonging to the nation ; and, as 
 he before observed, that Spain had no right to 
 complain of the entrance into Florida, so also 
 phe has no right to inquire into the legality of 
 this war against the Seminoles. But, with re- 
 gard to other acts in the progress of the war, 
 of which Spain has just reason to complain, 
 which might have involved this nation in a for- 
 eign war, and which did, in effect, amount to a 
 war on her part against Spain, let us again 
 recur to the original question, whether they 
 proceed from the Executive, or were the acts 
 of General Jackson, upon his own responsi- 
 bility. 
 
 To ascertain this, let us examine his orders. 
 They were given to General Gaines on the 16th 
 of December, 1817, and are referred to in the 
 order directing General Jackson to take the com- 
 mand of the army. In those orders the Exe- 
 cutive strictly conforms to the established laws 
 of nations ; they permit the army to cross the 
 Florida line, if necessary, but expressly direct 
 that, if the Indians should even take shelter 
 under a Spanish fort, and be protected by them, 
 not to attack the place, but report it to the War 
 Department, and wait for further orders. Did 
 General Jackson obey these orders? Let St. 
 Marks, Pensacola, and the Barancas answer. 
 But I am not disposed to censure General Jack- 
 son unjustly ; there may have been some reason 
 for his taking St. Marks, notwithstanding his 
 orders. As far as the laws of nations are con- 
 cerned, it might certainly be justified by a 
 milder code than that from which he has drawn 
 his definition of a pirate. But where was the 
 necessity of taking Pensacola and the Barancas ? 
 General Jackson himself shows that there was 
 none ; for, in his letter of the 20th of April, he 
 states that the war may be considered at an 
 end that only a few Bed Sticks, &c., remain- 
 ed, who were not a formidable enemy, and that 
 even if the war were renewed, the posts they 
 then had, with only a small military force, 
 would be sufficient to restrain the Indians. If 
 this be the case, where the necessity of taking 
 Pensacola? General Jackson himself does not 
 put it upon the ground of necessity, nor entire- 
 ly upon the ground of their hostility, manifest- 
 ed by affording comfort and supplies to the In- 
 dians; for that could not have justified him, 
 inasmuch as his orders had forbidden him to 
 attack a Spanish fort, even under circum- 
 stances of much greater hostility, viz., the In- 
 
 dians taking shelter under it, and being pro- 
 tected by it. "What, then, is the immediate 
 cause assigned for the capture of that place? 
 He states that on the 23d of May, being then in 
 full march towards Pensacola, he received a pro- 
 test from the Governor of that place, which 
 protest Mr. C. was surprised to hear some gen- 
 tlemen call a threat. Now, what was this 
 protest? Only that he disapproved of General 
 Jackson's conduct in approaching his command 
 with a large military force, in a tune of pro- 
 found peace between the two nations, without 
 having given those explanatioas and security 
 against aggressions which the neutral has always 
 aright to demand; and a declaration, that, if 
 the aggression was continued, that is, his post 
 attacked, he should repel force by force. And 
 this General Jackson construes into such a mani- 
 festation of hostility, that he no longer hesitated 
 upon the course to be pursued, but marched 
 the next day to take possession of the place. 
 A manifestation of hostility, sir ! "What could 
 the Spanish officer have done less ? He did his 
 duty merely, and less would have been incon- 
 sistent with his own honor, or that of his nation. 
 In this transaction, sir, General Jackson seems 
 to have yielded to the impressions of anger, that 
 any one should have dared to oppose the slightest 
 obstacle to his wishes. He took the place in 
 violation of his orders ; and, in violating them, 
 he violated the constitution of his country, and 
 for this the Congress of the United States 
 should express their decided disapprobation. 
 And yet some gentlemen speak of voting 
 thanks. Thanks, sir, for what? Mr. C. con- 
 fessed that, for his part, in the conduct of the 
 Seminole war, he saw but little to approve, and 
 much, very much, to censure. 
 
 WEDNESDAY, January 27. 
 Seminole War. 
 
 The House then proceeded to the orders of 
 the day, and resumed in Committee of the 
 Whole, (Mr. NELSON in the chair,) the report of 
 the Military Committee on the subject of the 
 Seminole war. 
 
 Mr. STBOTHEB said, that at that late hour of 
 the day, when the subject had been so much 
 exhausted, and the attention of the committee 
 so much wearied, he with reluctance engaged 
 in the debate ; but his excuse would be found 
 in the artificial importance the subject had as- 
 sumed by the wide excursions in which gentle- 
 men had indulged, embracing, in the scope of 
 their arguments, not only the illustrious chief 
 against whom the attack is directly aimed, but 
 mounting up to the Executive, and charging 
 him with a violation of the constitution. 
 
 He said, the advocates of these resolutions 
 ckimed to be the exclusive guardians of the 
 constitution : a portion of them, he admitted, 
 held the title by prescription ; they had sound- 
 ed the tocsin when the midnight judiciary dis- 
 ajipoarod; they had raised a warning voice 
 I against the embargo, and the whole restrictive
 
 280 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 The Seminole War. 
 
 [JASUAHY, 1819. 
 
 system, as infractions of that sacred charter; 
 and they protested against rejoicing for the 
 brilliant victories achieved by our heroic armies 
 and gallant navy, as unbecoming a moral and 
 religious people : when now called upon, as 
 formerly, to put the finger upon the principle 
 which is wounded in that instrument, they 
 cannot agree upon the point where it is to be 
 found ; it was an intangible, fleeting principle, 
 which eludes the grasp of examination. He 
 claimed no participation in the vision, but he 
 claimed a conscientious discharge of duty, and 
 the credit of the humble endeavor to vindicate 
 the honor of the nation, and to preserve the 
 constitution inviolate. 
 
 He objected to the mode of proceeding ; he 
 denied Congress had power to proceed in this 
 manner ; the bright page that records the im- 
 mortal deeds of our ancestors, and the happi- 
 ness of this favored people, is shaded by the 
 paroxysms of party heat. The Cdngress of the 
 United States once stepped down from the ele- 
 vated duties of legislation, to censure the self- 
 created democratic societies ; it was then the 
 eloquent Ames sung the syren song that spell- 
 bound the people : the delusion was but for a 
 season ; the enchantment dissolved ; the nation 
 awakened from its trance, and, gifted with the 
 energy that freedom bestows, sprung upon that 
 basis of correct principle upon which the pres- 
 ent Administration stands ; then the democratic 
 party contended, in vain, that the right to the 
 proceeding was not vested in this House. On 
 another occasion, when the army, commanded 
 by St. Clair, sustained a bloody and disastrous 
 defeat, a democratic member proposed a reso- 
 lution, requesting the then President, General 
 WASHINGTON, to set on foot an inquiry into the 
 causes of that inglorious affair; the Federal 
 majority rejected the proposition as unconsti- 
 tutional, and improperly interfering with the 
 powers of the Executive department. 
 
 Each party was correct when contending for 
 the negative, as will appear from an examina- 
 tion of the question. This is a Government of 
 departments, shedding light, emitting heat, and 
 promoting political health. When each re- 
 volves in its peculiar orbit, the limits and ex- 
 tent of each are distinctly marked out in the 
 constitution. Congress can speak an army into 
 existence; by repealing the law that gave it 
 being, you annihilate it ; or, by refusing to ap- 
 propriate tl|,e means of subsistence, it languishes 
 and expires. The management of this army is 
 placed in the hands of the Executive ; speak it 
 into existence, it bounds into another sphere 
 beyond your control. This division of power 
 is wisely ordained guarding against this dan- 
 gerous machine by legislative jealousy, and giv- 
 ing it energy and promptitude of movement by 
 the Executive. This army, existing by your 
 will, is only responsible to the Executive and 
 the Judiciary. Personal wrong, and the inva- 
 sion of private rights, give the courts jurisdic- 
 tion. If the peace of the nation is compro- 
 mitted, and its honor tarnished, the Executive 
 
 holds the corrective ; and, if this high consti- 
 tutional officer sleeps at his post ; if he shield 
 the delinquent, and hesitates to redeem the 
 sullied justice of his country, he becomes acces- 
 sory is implicated in the guilt, and subjects 
 himself to punishment, by impeachment. The 
 inconvenience and impracticability of exercising 
 this power, prove it is not granted to this de- 
 partment of the Government. If it is your 
 right and your duty to stoop beneath the Com- 
 mander-in-chief, to lay hold of a Major Gen- 
 eral, it is equally incumbent upon you to de- 
 scend into the ranks ; place a private soldier 
 into legislative inquisition, and gravely discuss, 
 and sagely decide, upon his demerits. 'The doc- 
 trine contended for lays hold of both ends of 
 the Military Establishment. He said, amidst 
 the awful convulsions of the French revolution, 
 the convention wasted an entire night in exam- 
 ining a sergeant; descending from "riding in 
 the whirlwind, and directing the storm," to the 
 examination of a soldier. Some claim the right 
 to censure, as the correlative of the practice of 
 giving thanks. He denied that this practice 
 was predicated upon right. This is no novel 
 idea, intended for the present moment. In a 
 proposition to return thanks to General Wayne, 
 for the brilliant victory of the Miami, Mr. Tracy 
 and others denied that Congress possessed this 
 power. The practice has grown out of usur- 
 pation. It can only be claimed upon the pre- 
 supposition that Congress represent the entire 
 sovereignty of the people, and reflect their feel- 
 ings. On the contrary, the members of this 
 House are only special agents, for limited and 
 defined purposes. This power is not delegated 
 to you by any affirmative grant, nor is it inci- 
 dental to any express grant. When Congress, 
 warmed by the gratitude which glowed in the 
 bosom of this nation, poured out the rich liba- 
 tion of its thanks, and entwined the laurel 
 around the brow of the hero, no one paused to 
 inquire if, beneath the leaf, the asp was hid, 
 whose poison would wither that laurel, and 
 sting the wearer to death. 
 
 No, sir, this people have not constituted yon 
 the agents to confer her thanks, or to select ob- 
 jects of benevolence, and distribute her gratui- 
 ties. More arduous employments are assigned 
 more important duties imposed. You have 
 been tolerated in weaving eulogies, and braid- 
 ing and festooning them with all the art of taste 
 and criticism, to decorate the favorite of the 
 day. It was an innocent waste of time ; it did 
 not render a heroic deed more brilliant, nor did 
 it sully the bright chastity of a well-earned re- 
 nown. But when you censure, you desert leg- 
 islation; you exercise high judicial power; you 
 inflict punishments upon ex parte examination ; 
 you deprive a man of that property which he 
 holds in a cherished reputation ; that property 
 which he hugs nearest to his heart, and which 
 is the richest and most precious patrimony of 
 his descendants; your censure " rives and blasts 
 like the lightning of heaven," leaving its victim 
 exposed to scorn and contumely, and brings
 
 DEBATES OF CONGKESS. 
 
 281 
 
 JAXUAKY, 1819.] 
 
 The Seminole War. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 him to trial, if a military court shall be ordered, 
 with presumed guilt, and anticipated convic- 
 tion. By practice you are the grand almoners 
 of the nation. In the spirit of beneficence, you 
 made a magnificent donation to a South Ameri- 
 can province ; charity cast her mantle over the 
 act, and the nation would not rend the veil. 
 Sir, this, nation has a heart to feel, and magna- 
 nimity to forgive, when the error is on the side 
 of generosity and humanity. Build upon this 
 acquiescence a right to punish ; touch but a 
 vested right in the humblest citizen, and its 
 justice will lead you back to the constitution, 
 the instrument of your power and their pro- 
 tection. 
 
 But, admitting that this House possess the 
 power, the transactions of the Seminole war do 
 not justify its exercise. The advocates of the 
 resolutions, by different routes, arrive at one 
 common conclusion: one contends that the 
 President made war, and usurped the powers 
 of this House ; others take post at the thirty- 
 first degree of south latitude, and some few 
 push on to Pensacola, and contend that there 
 the original sin was committed there the for- 
 bidden fruit was eaten that stains the whole 
 Government with the guilt of violating the con- 
 stitution, and insulting the majesty of the King 
 of Spain. Many, to be sure, Mr. Chairman, 
 drop by the way, and fill up the intermediate 
 chasms. Did the President make war, and 
 usurp the powers of Congress, the just exposi- 
 tion of our constitution is best seen, and most 
 clearly understood, in the uninterrupted prac- 
 tice of this Government. The Administration 
 of Washington, to which we all look with pride, 
 and many with regret, as the good old consti- 
 tutional times, presents the first link in that 
 chain of precedent which reaches down to the 
 present transaction. This Government found 
 several of the States engaged in hostilities with 
 the Indians. The President communicated this 
 circumstance to the first Congress, who imme- 
 diately appropriated money ; a.nd a bloody con- 
 test ensued, distinguished only by appropria- 
 tions and defeat. Harmar's army sprung from 
 an appropriation bill ; that commanded by the 
 unfortunate St. Clair stood upon the same basis, 
 and when its disastrous defeat roused the Gov- 
 ernment to the miserable condition of the fron- 
 tier, the military establishment was considera- 
 bly increased, and placed under the command 
 of the gallant Wayne, who infused his martial 
 spirit into that army, and achieved the victory 
 which gave peace and tranquillity to the ha- 
 rassed and bleeding frontier. As early as 1792, 
 Congress vested power in the President to call 
 out the militia to suppress insurrections, or re- 
 pel invasion from any foreign power or Indian 
 tribe. The power transferred by that act being 
 insufficient to the purpose contemplated, in 1795 
 another law was enacted, clothing him with 
 further power authorizing him to take advan- 
 tage of the indications of hostility to antici- 
 pate the approach of the storm, and to strike 
 before the elements of havoc and desolation 
 
 were collected together, and poured upon the 
 frontier in fire and indiscriminate massacre. 
 
 Those who then filled the Government were 
 fresh from the Revolution, and were animated 
 by the spirit which is embodied in your con- 
 stitution. No passion then existed in which 
 could flourish party spirit ; it could germinate, 
 but to expire, in the then pure state of our po- 
 litical atmosphere ; in the calm light of mild 
 philosophy, they examined their duties and 
 transferred this power ; these were the men 
 who worshipped Liberty in her favorite tem- 
 ple, in sincerity and in truth ; these were the 
 men whose blood and suffering elevated yon to 
 the rank of a nation, and whose wisdom gave 
 you a constitution which breaks upon the view 
 of enslaved and benighted Europe, like the star 
 in the East, happy harbinger of hope, proclaim- 
 ing there is power sufficient to redeem from 
 thraldom and misery. 
 
 This treaty is said to have violated the re- 
 ligion of the Indians, by demanding their 
 prophets : and they appeal to modern Europe 
 and ancient Eome, to suffuse the American 
 cheek with the blush of guilt. Those prophets 
 were not the ministers of religion they were 
 political agitators ; instigators to war, they 
 were not the messengers of peace and good will 
 towards man, that stilled the tempest of the 
 savage soul, and called the chaos into light and 
 order ; they were the fit and supple instruments 
 of Woodbine ; they breathed confusion and 
 havoc humanity to these Indians, and the 
 interest of this country, demanded their sur- 
 render. Rome never lost sight of policy ; she 
 transplanted the idols of the subdued provinces, 
 and incorporated them with her gods ; and by 
 the strong tie of superstition, chained the prov- 
 ince to the foot of the Capitol. Yet the Druids 
 were extirpated, and the forests of Germany 
 tell a bloody tale. These forests still echo the 
 expiring groans of those priests who smoothed 
 the brow of the rugged warrior in peace, and 
 nerved his arm in the hour of battle. England 
 extracts a revenue from the idolatrous worship- 
 pers of the bloody Juggernaut, whilst the Irish 
 Catholic, who believes in the same God, and 
 relies upon the same Redeemer, is torn from 
 the horns of the altar, a victim to ecclesiastical 
 pride, and the jealousy of despotism. The gen- 
 ius of these polished and religious courts, passed 
 from those seats of science and the arts, into 
 the wilds of Africa; it dealt in slavery and 
 blood, and sundered every tie that connects 
 man to his species. It spread its wings over 
 the East Indies fifty millions of human beings 
 have there for years, been hunted as lawful 
 prey, in the indiscriminate chase of death. The 
 timid Hindoo has been swept from the plains, 
 and is now pursued to the mountain top, where 
 he sought refuge amidst the clouds. This Gov- 
 ernment need not hang its head upon an appeal 
 to Europe, unless the mere glitter of a diadem 
 shall dazzle and confuse. 
 
 Sir, he said, the western frontier is that por- 
 tion of the world where civilization is making
 
 282 
 
 ABKIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 The Seminole War. 
 
 [JANUARY, 1810. 
 
 the most rapid and extensive conquest on the 
 wilderness, carrying in its train the Christian 
 religion, and all the social virtues. It is the 
 point where the race of man is most progres- 
 sive ; establish but the principle, that the God 
 of nature has limited your march in that direc- 
 tion that the Indian is lord paramount of that 
 wide domain, around which justice and religion 
 have drawn a circle which you dare not pass 
 the progress of mankind is arrested, and you 
 condemn one of the most beautiful and fertile 
 tracts of the earth to perpetual sterility, as the 
 hunting ground of a few savages. The most 
 celebrated philosophers have spoken a different 
 language, and the ermine of the judiciary has 
 interposed against these theories, and, without 
 a stain, given this country to civilization and 
 Christianity. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, it cannot now be denied, that, 
 this being a defensive war, resulting from the 
 necessity of repelling invasion, military move- 
 ment was the bounden duty of the Executive, 
 not only upon the principle of self-preservation 
 a law written by the finger of nature upon 
 all animated creation but under the practice of 
 the Government and the laws of the country ; 
 and it will be found that the rights of war, ex- 
 tended to the management of the war by the 
 international law, were exercised with extra- 
 ordinary forbearance never transcended. It 
 would require no prophetic spirit to predict, 
 that, so long as you confined your military op- 
 erations to chasing the Indian from your terri- 
 tory, the war would rage, and the citizens 
 would continue to fall under the tomahawk and 
 scalping-knife. This Government has ever ex- 
 ercised its rights with forbearance : in the love 
 of peace, it has relinquished many. This na- 
 tion has bent under the weight of insult, and 
 seldom appealed to the exercise of her rights, 
 in full latitude, until compelled to it by prin- 
 ciples identified with the paramount duty of all 
 Governments. How long were your citizens 
 torn from their families, scourged by a British 
 captain, and compelled, in some instances, to 
 point the cannon against their countrymen? 
 The bitter cup of humiliation was emptied to 
 the dregs. In scorn, it was said this Govern- 
 ment could not be kicked into a war. The 
 nation rose in the majesty of its strength, and 
 hurled destruction upon the foe ! Experience 
 at length satisfied the Administration that 
 these vexatious and cruel incursions could only 
 be terminated by pursuing the erratic Indian. 
 At length the ghost of the departed sovereignty 
 of Spain in Florida, no longer alarmed. It fled 
 before the demands of Georgia and Alabama 
 for protection; and the extent of the orders 
 given to the troops was communicated to you 
 by the President, in his Message of the 25th 
 March, 1818. He told you that "Orders had 
 been given to the General in command, not to 
 enter Florida, unless it be in pursuit of the ene- 
 my, and, in that case, to respect the Spanish 
 authority wherever it is maintained; and he 
 will be instructed to withdraw his forces from 
 
 this province, as soon as he shall have reduced 
 that tribe to order, and secured our fellow-citi- 
 zens in that quarter, by satisfactory arrange- 
 ments against its unprovoked and savage hos- 
 tilities in future." How did you proceed upon 
 the receipt of this Message? It was the basis 
 of legislative acts, legitimatizing what had been 
 done ; countenancing the doctrine the Message 
 contained; and embracing its views, you di- 
 rected a brigade of militia to be called into 
 service ; you increased the pay of the Georgia 
 militia engaged in the Semiuole war. He said 
 he recollected the proposition was made by his 
 friend from that State, (Mr. COBB.) He felt a 
 repugnance to it, but his objections melted 
 away under the fervid zeal and eloquence of 
 that gentleman ; and a large appropriation was 
 made to meet the expenses of the war. Here 
 is a shield broad enough and thick enougli to 
 protect the Executive from attack, the work of 
 your own hands. 
 
 But, considering the subject unaccompanied 
 with this quasi declaration of war and the aux- 
 iliary measures, the step was strictly justifiable. 
 If Spam had been a neutral power, and the In- 
 dians belligerent, not inhabiting her territory 
 and being within her sovereignty, but merely 
 retreating, then the Americans would have had 
 an indisputable right to pursue them by the 
 usages of nations. "We will find this doctrine 
 in Vattel, 515. It is certain that on my ene- 
 my's being defeated, and too much weakened 
 to escape me, even if my neighbor affords him 
 a retreat, his conduct, so pernicious to my safe- 
 ty and interests, would be incompatible with 
 neutrality. If, therefore, my enemy on a defeat 
 retires into a neutral country, he is to cause 
 the troops as soon as possible to continue their 
 march, and not permit them to watch an op- 
 portunity to attack me, because otherwise he 
 *ives me a right to enter his territory in pursuit 
 of my enemy a misfortune that often attends 
 nations unable to command respect. The ene- 
 my not only retreated into the Spanish terri- 
 tory, and watched an opportunity to attack our 
 citizens, but were the inhabitants of the coun- 
 try, and kept the Spanish authorities in sub- 
 jection. It was said by a member from New 
 York, (Mr. STORES,) that the line should not 
 have been crossed, until application had been 
 made to the Spanish Court. For months had 
 your soil been polluted by the foot of savage 
 invasion ; for months had this land, sacred to 
 liberty, to justice, and to humanity, been crim- 
 soned by the blood of its inhabitants ; yet there 
 should have been a pause in our movements 
 until a messenger had crossed the Atlantic to 
 call the attention of Ferdinand to the condition 
 of his subjects to awaken him to a sense of 
 duty, and to ask him to re-assume the sover- 
 eignty of the Floridas, which he had carelessly 
 .ost. Your messenger would have found him 
 tambouring a petticoat for the Virgin, sur- 
 rounded by lazy monks, dreaming of schemes 
 ;o establish the Inquisition, under whose tor- 
 tures hypocrisy flourishes, and religion expires.
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 283 
 
 JANUARY, 1819.] 
 
 The Seminole War. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 Tbe Indian is only vulnerable in his town. An 
 Indian war can only be terminated by destroy- 
 ing his means of subsistence, and penetrating 
 his fastnesses, where he flies for shelter, until, 
 like the tiger, in the still darkness of the night, 
 he can spring upon his prey. It was said, the 
 present Secretary of War gave vigor to the 
 operations ; that he boldly ordered the com- 
 mander of our forces to terminate the war. It 
 was the patriotic vigor that meets the exi- 
 gency. Let that distinguished statesman pur- 
 sue the course he has commenced, and ere long 
 the hand of gratitude will crown him with the 
 proudest honors of the Republic. 
 
 The execution of Ambrister and Arbuthnot is 
 said to be unconstitutional ; but ingenious gen- 
 tlemen have not condescended to point out the 
 provision which is invaded, unless, as his col- 
 league (Mr. COLSTON) had contended, the con- 
 stitution had repealed the law of nations, making 
 this a transaction casus ommus, and carrying 
 back the right of punishment to the old ground 
 of natural law, where authority sufficient would 
 be found for the measure. On' the contrary this 
 people, when they assumed a stand amongst the 
 powers of the earth, became entitled to the 
 benefit of all the law of nations. The constitu- 
 tion only distributes the exercise of these rights 
 amongst a variety of departments, defining what 
 portion of sovereignty shall be exercised by the 
 one and the other all the sovereign power that 
 attaches to an independent government in its 
 foreign relations and intercourse existing in, and 
 to be performed by one of these departments, or 
 by the co-operation of all. This Government 
 claims all the rights of war and peace permitted 
 to be exercised by the law of nations. This law, 
 and the practice and usage of all governments, 
 vest the right of punishing incendiaries like 
 those in the commanders of armies. Your con- 
 stitution does not interdict the exercise of this 
 power in this ordinary mode, nor is it confined, 
 by that instrument, to any particular depart- 
 ment, nor has it been the subject of legislation. 
 
 Mr. S. said, that, although this was ample vin- 
 dication, he placed the justification of these exe- 
 cutions upon different ground. He did not con- 
 sider these men British subjects. The doctrine 
 of perpetual allegiance once a subject always 
 a subject was not to be found in his political 
 creed. The right of expatriation was admitted 
 by this Government the tide of emigration 
 flowed into this country upon that principle ; 
 and its preservation is the shield of a large por- 
 tion of your population, Avho have sought refuge 
 here from tyranny and persecution. The evi- 
 dence of the exercise of this right is, residence 
 or acceptance of office. When an effort was 
 made in this House, by an able and zealous friend 
 to the rights of man, to prescribe a mode for the 
 exercise of this right, it was rejected, for the 
 simple reason that the right then stood upon 
 the surest basis. These men had become mem- 
 bers of the Indian tribe they had incorporated 
 themselves with the savages. Ambrister com- 
 manded a detachment, and marched at the head 
 
 of an army, composed of negroes and Indians, 
 to meet the American troops. Arbuthnot was 
 admitted into the council of the nation, as a 
 chief ; he was the minister of foreign relations 
 of the Seminole tribes and their dependencies, 
 St. Marks and Pensacola. Appointed and com- 
 missioned to his high office by special power of 
 attorney, he corresponded, officially, with Brit- 
 ish Governors and Spanish commandants; he 
 communicated with the British Minister near 
 the American Government, until the interesting 
 correspondence was interrupted by the weight 
 of postage. Sir, he said, it would have been an 
 interesting spectacle to have seen the arrival, in 
 this circle of etiquette, of this representative of 
 Hillishajo, Bowlegs, Nero, and the Spanish 
 commandants; he would have been a little 
 smoked with monarchy, and great commotion 
 would have resulted from the difficulty of fixing 
 his rank in the scale of fashion. These men 
 having incorporated themselves with the In- 
 dians having voluntarily stepped down from 
 civilized society and Christian warfare, made 
 common cause with the savages, and contributed 
 to their indiscriminate massacre ; they were sub- 
 ject to the same treatment that the usages of 
 the country and the laws of war permitted to 
 be inflicted upon the savage. Hillishajo was 
 hung; his memory is not embalmed, nor his 
 fame perpetuated, by a single plaintive strain. 
 Yet Hillishajo was a king and a prophet; he 
 had swept your frontier with a besom of deso- 
 lation ; no feeling of his heart protected the in- 
 fant or the timid female ; indiscriminate murder 
 marked his operations. Ambrister and Arbuth- 
 not, enlightened by the Christian dispensation, 
 which breathes peace and good will towards 
 man, whetted his appetite for blood ; stimulated 
 him, by false and deceptive promises, to tear 
 the scalp from the infant's head, and plunge the 
 tomahawk in the aged matron's breast, and 
 drove him inevitably to the fate he deservedly 
 met. They were apprehended in the fact, and 
 condign punishment inflicted. 
 
 Mr. WALKEK, of North Carolina. Mr. Chair- 
 man, it is with considerable difficulty I approach 
 this subject, which has been discussed with so 
 much interest and ability by those who have 
 preceded me in this debate, as almost to pre- 
 clude any further inquiry; like a body com- 
 pletely anatomized, leaves little room for the 
 most skilful artist to improve upon the plan ; 
 much less one who does not profess to be very 
 learned in the constitution or laws of nations, 
 and has no pretensions to literary or legal ac- 
 quirements. The ground which I shall attempt 
 to take will be founded in plain facts and com- 
 mon sense. I do not calculate on giving any 
 illustration on the subject in a legal point of 
 view, as every point has been brought to the 
 law and to the testimony, by gentlemen whose 
 talents and abilities have proved them adequate 
 to the task. But I shall briefly state the prin- 
 ciples and reasons that shall govern my vote on 
 this important and interesting question. Im- 
 portant, sir, as it will stamp a character on this
 
 284 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 The Seminole War. 
 
 [JANUARY, 1819. 
 
 uation, that will last for ages, and may be a pre- 
 cedent for future legislators, when we who are 
 about to give this vote will be sleeping in the 
 dust ; important, as it respects the feelings of 
 the nation, as we are accountable to them who 
 sent us here, and the people are competent judges 
 of our political opinions, and we must return 
 and submit to the tribunal of public opinion. 
 But, sir, it is materially important, as it will 
 take into view the character and conduct of one 
 of our most illustrious citizens, and one of the 
 greatest captains the world ever saw, whose 
 achievements and military fame have not been 
 surpassed by any who has gone before him. 
 Sir, from the high consideration I have for the 
 honor and dignity of my country, and the es- 
 teem and veneration I entertain for the charac- 
 ter of that brave and meritorious officer, I ap- 
 proach this vote with a due solemnity. 
 
 Sir, the Seminole war, which has made such 
 au earthquake in this House, and on which so 
 much eloquence has been displayed, and against 
 which the constitution, the laws of our own 
 country, and the laws of nations, have all been 
 arrayed, so inconsiderable in the beginning, has 
 become so magnified as to end in this House. 
 Sir, I have paid a due attention to the debates 
 on both sides of this question, and with much 
 satisfaction have heard it clearly proved that 
 the war was authorized consistently with the 
 constitution and laws of our country, and that 
 it was promptly and correctly carried on with 
 energy and decision, and terminated in the event 
 to the honor and interest of the TJnited States ; 
 and all the lucid explanations delivered in sup- 
 port of that war, have, to my mind, been like 
 so many candles lighted to the sun. Truth may 
 be embellished, but cannot be changed. The 
 necessity and expediency of that expedition al- 
 ways appeared clear as the light, duly author- 
 ized by the President, the proper organ of Ex- 
 ecutive power ; and in the prosecution of that 
 war, I have seen nothing done but what ought 
 to be done, and nothing else could be done to 
 effect the purpose. The nature and efiects of 
 savage warfare have been ably depicted by gen- 
 tlemen who preceded me; but, as truth may 
 sometimes be twice told, I will proceed to ex- 
 emplify some of its horrors, which I not only 
 know by the hearing of the ear, but mine eye 
 hath seen it. Savages do not war as civilized 
 nations, by formal declaration. No, sir, they 
 come as a thief in the night ; when peace and 
 safety cover our dwellings, then cometh their 
 dreadful, secret, and horrible depredations, when 
 least expected ; the instruments of death are in 
 their hands, destruction attends their footsteps, 
 no kind messenger to give us the watchword, 
 no intimation of their approach ; the blow is 
 struck before it is known, and darkness, the 
 pavilion that covers their deep design, and am- 
 bush secures them from the eye of the traveller, 
 where neither age nor sex is spared ; the hoary 
 head, the sprightly youth, the suckling infant, 
 and the tender and trembling mother, all indis- 
 criminately fall victims to their savage fury ; 
 
 and those who are so unfortunate as to come 
 within their grasp, and are made prisoners, are 
 often reserved for a death more horrible than 
 death itself for the burning stake or bloody 
 hatchet, the savage yell sounding through the 
 forests, and desolation and destruction on every 
 side. Hear the words of a great man on the 
 subject of savage warfare: "The darkness of 
 midnight shall glitter with the blaze of your 
 dwellings, and the war-whoop shall wake the 
 sleep of the cradle." Such a war was com- 
 menced by the Seminoles on the frontiers of 
 Georgia, unprovoked and unknown to us. When 
 application was made by the Executive of that 
 State for a defensive force to repel the enemy, 
 did they then request the President to consult 
 the constitution or the Sibyl books to inquire 
 into his Executive powers, whether he could 
 send an army to their relief ? No such reserve 
 in any of their messages ; they must have an 
 army, they must have a general ; it was then 
 constitutional, highly approved, and graciously 
 received ; but now, Mr. Chairman, when their 
 battles are fought and victory gained, peace con- 
 cluded, and order and tranquillity restored oh. 
 it is now unconstitutional, and their voice is 
 against the hand that saved them. But reverse 
 the subject ; sometimes things appear most true 
 and best proved by their opposite. Suppose the 
 President had hesitated, and adopted the policy 
 gentlemen so strongly urge on this floor, and 
 told the people of Georgia that he doubted his 
 Executive powers, and that the constitution did 
 not authorize him to send an army over the 
 Spanish line, and so passed by on the one side ; 
 and that General Jackson, at the head of his 
 army, advanced to the Spanish line, had also 
 hesitated, and said, hitherto I go, and no farther, 
 and passed by on the other side ; what good 
 Samaritan would they have found to come that 
 way, and heal the wounds of their bleeding 
 country ? I fear they would have found none. 
 What would have been then, and what now, 
 the situation of the people of Georgia? For 
 aught we know, the blood of the defenceless in- 
 habitants might be yet streaming, and the Sem- 
 inoles encamped in battle array on the banks 
 of the Oconey. But the President chose the 
 better part, and acted as he ought to have done ; 
 sent our army under the command of a General 
 whose character and abilities were adapted to 
 the enterprise ever active, ever fortunate 
 and whatsoever his hand found to do, did it 
 with his might. 
 
 I have always entertained a high sense of the 
 merit of military men who have given their aid 
 to rescue their country from oppression, and to 
 secure the rights and liberties of mankind ; their 
 reputation is dearly earned ; they have to en- 
 counter the extremes of every climate, the in- 
 clemency of every season, and all the conflicts 
 of a military life, and deaths and dangers await 
 them at every post ; while we, who are here, 
 are gaming the plaudits of our country, on a 
 political eminence, as legislators, with good ac 
 commodations, and faring sumptuously every
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 285 
 
 JANUARY, 1819.] 
 
 The Seminole War. 
 
 [H. OF K. 
 
 day ; they would be cheered by a crumb from 
 our tables while suffering_and fighting the bat- 
 tles of our country. Sir, 1 am not among those 
 who pay an unlimited devotion to any man's 
 rank or character, abstractly, or because he is 
 so ; but it is my pride, and I ever feel it a grate- 
 ful and pleasant duty to pay my tribute of re- 
 spect to every faithful servant of his country, 
 whether in the cabinet or the field, or in any 
 condition of life. General Jackson to me is per- 
 sonally unknown, but I cannot be mistaken in 
 giving my support to a man who has rendered 
 such eminent services to his country ; who has 
 fought our battles, gained our victories, and re- 
 stored peace and tranquillity to our Southern 
 frontier. I trust, on this question, we will pay 
 a due regard to public feeling, and do justice to 
 him who has done so much for us, and declare to 
 this nation, and to the world, that GeneralJack- 
 son well deserves the gratitude of his country. 
 
 Mr. KHEA, of Tennessee, addressed the House 
 as follows: 
 
 The United States of America and Great Brit- 
 ain terminated the war of the Revolution by the 
 definitive Treaty of Peace made at Paris. The 
 nations and tribes of Indians, over whom British 
 influence prevailed, were allies of Great Britain 
 in that war, and perpetrated barbarous cruel- 
 ties. Desolation, burning, and murder, attended 
 their movements their paths were stained with 
 blood the tomahawk and scalping-knife spared 
 neither age nor sex a price was paid for scalps, 
 from the mangled heads of men, women, and 
 children, and triumphed over by the enemies of 
 the people contending for liberty. 
 
 The United States of America, in the year 
 one thousand seven hundred and seventy-eight, 
 made articles of agreement and confederation 
 with the Delaware nation of Indians that treaty 
 provided for perpetual peace and friendship 
 through all generations the territorial rights 
 of that nation were amply provided for. The 
 Delawares were the first with whom the United 
 States treated, and were pre-eminently honored ; 
 and it seems, by the sixth article of the treaty, 
 that, in that year, it was contemplated to in- 
 stitute an Indian State, with the Delawares at 
 its head, with a right to a representation in 
 Congress. The wandering life and habits of the 
 Indians frustrated that benevolent plan. The 
 experience of Indian disposition manifests the 
 impracticability of a confederacy of that nature. 
 It appears by a separate article of the treaty 
 made with the "Wyandot, Delaware, Chippewa, 
 and Ottawa nations, that the Delawares were 
 not able to resist British influence they fell off. 
 Three chiefs, Kehlamond, Hengue Pashees, and 
 Wycocalind, only, with their families, continued 
 to hold the chain of friendship with the United 
 States. 
 
 The war of the Eevplution ended ; the terri- 
 torial limits of the United States were defined ; 
 the nations of Indians, allies of Great Britain in 
 the war, were not protected or covered by the 
 Treaty of Peace ; they were left to the humanity 
 and mercy of the United States. Hence it is in- 
 
 I ferred, that all right whatever to lands claimed 
 
 ' by Indian nations, who were allies of Great 
 
 Britain in time of the war, and residing within 
 
 the limits of the United States, were void, and 
 
 ceased to be. 
 
 The United States, in the year 1784, by treaty, 
 gave peace and protection to the Senecas, Mo- 
 hawks, Onondagas, and Cayugas. The Oneidas 
 and Tuscaroras were secured in the possession 
 of the lands they lived on, and the boundaries 
 of the Six Nations were fixed. 
 
 The United States, by treaties made in the 
 year 1785, gave peace and protection to the 
 Wyandot, Delaware, Chippewa, and Ottawa na- 
 tions of Indians, and to the Cherokee nation 
 and these nations acknowledged themselves un- 
 der the protection of the United States of Amer- 
 ica, and of no other sovereign whatever. Lands 
 were allotted to them, respectively, to live and 
 hunt on. 
 
 The United States, in the year 1786, by 
 treaties, gave peace and protection to the Choc- 
 taw, Chickasaw, and Shawanee nations of In- 
 dians, respectively, and they acknowledged 
 themselves to be under the protection of the 
 United States, and no other sovereign what- 
 ever. Lands were allotted to them, to live and 
 hunt on. 
 
 The United States of America, in the year 
 1790, made a treaty with the Creek nation of 
 Indians. The first article provides that there 
 shall be perpetual peace and friendship between 
 all the citizens of the United States of America, 
 and all the individuals, towns, and tribes, of the 
 upper, middle, and lower Creeks, and Seminoles, 
 composing the Creek nation. By the second 
 article, the kings, chiefs, and warriors, for them- 
 selves and all parts of the Creek nation within 
 the limits of the United States, acknowledged 
 themselves and ah 1 parts of the Creek nation, to" 
 be under the protection of the United States, 
 and of no other sovereign whatever. A bound- 
 ary line was designated, and the lands allotted 
 were guaranteed to them to live and hunt on. 
 The second article of the treaty manifests that 
 the Creek nation had been hostile to the United 
 States. Two other treaties were made with 
 the Creek nation; one in 1802, the other in 
 1806, whereby ample provision was made for 
 their comfort, and to promote their civilization. 
 Great Britain, by the Treaty of Peace, acknowl- 
 edged the United States to be free, sovereign, 
 and independent ; that he treated with them as 
 such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, 
 relinquished all claims to the government, pro- 
 prietary, and territorial rights of the same, and 
 every part thereof. The United States of Amer- 
 ica, by that treaty, became the acknowledged 
 sovereign of, and over, all the territories within 
 the boundaries designated by that treaty, agree- 
 ably to the principles of the confederation. 
 The nations and tribes of Indians, allies of Great 
 Britain, and enemies to the UniU-J Sratos, in 
 the Revolutionary war, not covered and pro- 
 tected by the Treaty of Peace, no longer re- 
 tained any right or claim to landa within the
 
 286 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 The Seminole War. 
 
 [JANUARY, 1819. 
 
 limits of the United States ; all their rights and 
 claim to land therein became void, and ceased 
 to be, the Delaware nation not excepted. 
 
 The United States, said Mr. E., proceeding on 
 this principle, made, after the Treaty of Peace 
 with Great Britain, treaties with the several 
 nations and tribes of Indians within their terri- 
 torial limits ; and gave peace to, and received 
 them into their protection, and these nations 
 and tribes acknowledged themselves under the 
 protection of the United States of America, and 
 of no other sovereign whatever. The United 
 States allotted lands to them to live and hunt on. 
 
 The treaty of Holston was made with the 
 Cherokee nation of Indians, in the year 1791, 
 and that nation again acknowledged themselves 
 to be under the protection of the United States, 
 and of no other sovereign whatever. 
 
 The Creek nation, soon after the treaty of 
 1 790, began to manifest a disposition hostile to the 
 people of the United States living on the south- 
 western frontier. That disposition was known 
 to have been excited by foreign emissaries in- 
 ducing the Indians to believe that the United 
 States had wrongfully taken land from them. 
 In the year 1792, the Creeks began their ravages 
 on the frontier, and murdered several persons. 
 A large body of them, aided by a considerable 
 reinforcement of Cherokees, crossed Tennessee 
 river, marched to the Cumberland settlements, 
 attacked Buchanan's fort there, and, being re- 
 pulsed with great loss, returned, after having 
 committed depredations and murders, conform- 
 ably to their usual manner. The Indians con- 
 tinued the war on the frontier of the south- 
 western territory, until another treaty was made 
 with the Cherokees, at Philadelphia, in the 
 year 1794. The articles of which were stipu- 
 lated to be considered as permanent additions 
 to the treaty of Holston. 
 
 In the year 1795, a treaty of amity, friendship, 
 limits, and navigation, was made between the 
 United States of America and Spain : and after- 
 wards, in the year 1796, another treaty was 
 made at Colerain, in Georgia, with the Creek 
 nation, and by it the treaty of 1790 is declared 
 to be obligatory on the contracting parties, ex- 
 cept as provided for by the treaty of Colerain. 
 So ended that war with the Creek Indians and 
 Cherokees. 
 
 A variety of circumstances manifested that, 
 in the time of the Kevolutionary war, frequent 
 communications had been, between the northern 
 and southern nations of Indians ; and that their 
 hostilities, by certain excitements, against the 
 people of the United States, operated to the 
 same object, namely : the depression of the 
 people of this nation. That, also, said Mr. R., 
 appears to have operated in the time of the war 
 I have been speaking of; during that war a 
 powerful confederacy of Indian nations carried 
 on a destructive war against the United States 
 on the north-western frontier. The British Gov- 
 ernment retained the north-western posts, and 
 erected and garrisoned another within the limits 
 of the United States. The Indians carried on 
 
 the war in their usual savage manner ; murder- 
 ing, scalping, and destroying. General Harmar 
 was sent with a body of forces against them, 
 but did not prevail. General St. Glair, with a 
 larger body of troops, was ordered against 
 them ; he was defeated with great loss. Gen- 
 eral Wayne was ultimately sent against them 
 with a more numerous army ; and he defeated 
 the Indians. The treaty of amity, commerce, 
 and navigation, between the United States and 
 Great Britain, was made in November, 1794, 
 by which Great Britain stipulated to surrender 
 the north-western posts. In August, 1795, a 
 treaty of peace was made at Greenville, between 
 the United States and the "Wyandots, Delawares, 
 Shawanees, Ottawas, Chippewas, Patawatimies, 
 Miamis, Eel Eivers, Weas, Kickapoos, Pianke- 
 shaws, andKaskaskias and so ended that Indian 
 war ; but not until a treaty had been made with 
 Great Britain. I take notice of these past events 
 first, said Mr. K., that the connection of the In- 
 dian war operations of the several Indian nations, 
 and the influence of foreign agency may be ob- 
 served, that the exciting causes be considered, in 
 order to illustrate the subject under consideration, 
 and that the Indian character may be understood. 
 
 The northern and southern nations of Indians 
 engaged in the wars on the northwest and south- 
 west frontiers, which, said Mr. R., I have been 
 speaking of, had, in and by the first treaties made 
 with them, respectively, after the Revolutionary 
 war, acknowledged themselves to be under the 
 protection of the United States of America, and 
 of no other sovereign whatever. In making 
 and carrying on war against the people of the 
 United States, they renounced and abandoned 
 that protection ; they violated the treaties they 
 had made with the United States, and put them- 
 selves out of their protection ; the forfeiture might 
 have been taken against them ; but humanity, the 
 consideration of their ignorance of the obligations 
 of social compact and morality, and compassion 
 for their miserable condition, prevailed ; and, 
 in pursuance thereof, the several treaties alluded 
 to were made with them, and various other 
 treaties, previous to the year 1811. 
 
 The Indian rude, wild, and savage igno- 
 rant of the principles of morality, of the doc- 
 trines of Christianity, and of the kno wledge of the 
 true God is prone to superstition, to fanaticism, 
 and to a vain desire of knowing future events, 
 not within the view of man. In the year 1807, 
 an Indian chief of the Shawanee nation, who 
 has been named the Prophet, excited by foreign 
 corruption, is said to have began to propagate 
 his delusions among the northern Indian nations ; 
 and, of them, to form a strong confederacy 
 against the United States. The influence of that 
 Indian chief increased in that and succeeding 
 years. Large quantities of goods were delivered 
 to the Indians by British agents ; and British 
 emissaries excited them to war, insinuating that 
 they would now be aided by their great father 
 in driving back the Americans, and recovering 
 the lands the Americans had taken from them. 
 The United States were pay ing large annual subsi-
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 287 
 
 JAMJAKT, 1819.] 
 
 The Seminole War. 
 
 [H. OP R. 
 
 dies to the Indian nations ; but the influence of 
 British corrupt agents, the distribution of goods, 
 arms, and ammunition, and the declarations of 
 the Indian fanatical prophets, prevailed against 
 the peace of the Indians. In the year 1811, a 
 confederacy of Indian nations was formed ; and, 
 in the month of November of that year, the battle 
 of Tippecanoe was fought, in which the Ameri- 
 can army defeated the deluded, hostile Indians. 
 
 In the month of June, 1812, the Congress of 
 the United States passed an act declaring that 
 war be, and did exist, between the United King- 
 doms of Great Britain and Ireland and the 
 United States of America. The promulgation 
 of that act excited more strenuous efforts of 
 British agents and emissaries to instigate the 
 Indians to continue the war. 
 
 In the month of August, 1811, the Shawanee 
 chief, Tecumseh, brother to the fanatic prophet, 
 passed down the Wabash Kiver with a party of 
 about six Shawanees, six Kickapoos, and six of 
 some tribe far to the northwest, as they said, the 
 name of which they refused to tell, on his way 
 to the Creek nation. The object of his visit 
 could not be mistaken to excite the Creek and 
 other southern nations of Indians to war against 
 the United States, was his object. Indian fanat- 
 ic prophets increased in the northern Indian 
 nations. The Creek Indians had, soon after the 
 visit of Tecumseh, their fanatic prophets also, 
 inciting them to war, of whom Hillishajo, or 
 Francis, appears to have been one. Strong 
 suspicion is attached to six of the persons ac- 
 companying Tecumseh on his visit to the Creeks ; 
 they would not tell to what tribe they belonged. 
 Who they were has not been perfectly ascer- 
 tained. The effects of the visit of Tecumseh to 
 the Creek nation soon became apparent. An 
 infuriated fanaticism was propagated among 
 them ; they were taught to believe themselves 
 invincible. The greatest part of them were 
 hostile ; they prepared for war, and soon after 
 began their ravages on the frontier. They at- 
 tacked Fort Mimms, took it, and massacred al- 
 most all the people who were in it. War with 
 the Creek nation was inevitable. 
 
 The Executive of the United States had or- 
 dered fifteen hundred men from Georgia, and as 
 many from Tennessee, to be called out in defence 
 of the frontier. The fifteen hundred men from 
 Tennessee were not raised previous to the 
 meeting of the General Assembly of that State. 
 That General Assembly convened at Nashville 
 in September, 1813. The destruction at Fort 
 Mimms and other ravages of the savages were 
 known ; and it was understood that a large force 
 of them was preparing to attack the frontier 
 settlements. The tune was precious, the dan- 
 ger was imminent, and did not admit of delay. 
 The southern frontier of Tennessee, including 
 Madison county, is about four hundred miles 
 long, without any fort or place of strength, and 
 liable to the incursion of the savage. A partial 
 success of the hostile Indians would have added 
 to their force a large number of warriors from 
 the neighboring nations of Indians. The Gen- 
 
 eral Assembly of Tennessee, sanctioned by the 
 Constitution of the United States of America, 
 immediately enacted a law to raise and complete, 
 with the fifteen hundred men previously ordered, 
 an effective force of five thousand men; and 
 also a law to raise and appropriate $300,000, to 
 pay and support the troops while in service. 
 That army was raised with all possible despatch. 
 General Jackson, who was Major General of 
 militia in Tennessee, took the command. To 
 prevent the ravages of the Indians on the 
 frontiers, the troops poured out from Tennessee; 
 and, expecting soon to meet the enemy and fin- 
 ish the war, they crossed Tennessee Eiver, and 
 commenced operations on the frontiers of the 
 Creek nation. The war was carried on with 
 various success, several battles were fought. The 
 General with his intrepid troops approached the 
 strong fortifications of the enemy at the Horse 
 Shoe. He ordered an assault ; the fortification 
 was stormed ; the battle raged hand to hand, 
 within the fort ; and ceased with the destruc- 
 tion of nearly all the Indian warriors in the fort. 
 General Jackson afterwards marched, with part 
 of his troops, to the Hickory Ground ; and there, 
 meeting with a large body of troops from 
 Georgia, he left the country in their possession, 
 and returned with his army to Tennessee. The 
 proceedings of General Jackson with the army 
 under his command, against the hostile Creeks, 
 were approved, and the State of Tennessee was 
 relieved, by the General Government, from 
 payment of the expense. The hostile Creek 
 Indians were beaten, but the war was not 
 finished. In this war, the Cherokee Indians 
 aided against the Creeks, and did good service. 
 Soon after his return from the Creek nation, 
 General Jackson was appointed a Brigadier 
 General, with brevet of Major General; that 
 was soon followed by being appointed a Major 
 General in the armies of the United States. 
 The Creek Indians wished for peace ; General 
 Jackson was appointed commissioner to treat 
 with them ; and, in the month of August, 1814, 
 he concluded a treaty with the Creek nation. 
 Hillishajo, or Francis, the fanatic prophet, and 
 some more chiefs of that nation, did not attend 
 the making of that treaty ; they, with others of 
 the hostile Creeks, retired towards Florida, 
 from whence to carry on the war against the 
 people of the United States. 
 
 The Seminoles, a part of the Creek nation, 
 were party to the treaty of 1790; and David 
 Francis, alias Meemagechee, appears to have 
 signed it. The Seminoles had acknowledged 
 themselves under the protection of the United 
 States, and of no other sovereign whatever. 
 Lands, in common with other tribes of the Creek 
 nation, were allotted to them. Other treaties, 
 as has been observed, were made with the Creek 
 nation ; one as late as November, 1805, and rati- 
 fied in June following. Of the benefits stipulated 
 for in these treaties, the Seminoles participated. 
 In all disputes or wars between the United 
 States^nd foreign powers, the Indian nations 
 who OKL acknowledged themselves under the
 
 288 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 The Seminole War. 
 
 [JANUARY, 1819. 
 
 protection of the United States, ought to have 
 continued neutral. They suffered themselves 
 to be made the willing instruments of war 
 against the United States, by the persuasion of 
 emissaries of foreign nations, who trafficked in 
 blood, whose goods were poison, whose friend- 
 ship was destruction. In a letter from Governor 
 Mitchell to Mr. Monroe, of September, 1812, he 
 informs that the Governor of Augustine has 
 had sufficient influence with the Indians residing 
 in Florida, called the Seminoles, to induce them 
 to fall upon the defenceless settlers on the St. 
 Johns and St. Marys. On the St. Johns they 
 had killed and scalped eight or ten persons; 
 and on the Georgia side of St. Marys, they had 
 killed and scalped one and wounded two more. 
 Colonel Smith, in a letter dated September 22, 
 1812, informs Governor Mitchell that, on the 
 12th of that month, the escort with the pro- 
 vision wagons, under command of Captain Wil- 
 liams, was attacked by a party of Indians and 
 negroes, to the number of fifty or sixty, from 
 St. Augustine. Captain Williams's command 
 consisted of a non-commissioned officer and 
 nineteen privates, besides drivers. The wagons 
 were lost; both the officers and six privates 
 wounded, Captain Williams mortally, the non- 
 commissioned officer killed. Colonel Williams, 
 in December, in that year, marched with a vol- 
 unteer corps from Tennessee to aid in defending 
 the frontiers of Georgia from the incursions of 
 the Seminole Indians. About that time, the 
 movement of the Creek Indians, incited to war 
 by their fanatics, was extensive. They would 
 have war, and war came upon them ; they put 
 themselves out of the protection of the United 
 States, by making war against them ; and, by 
 so doing, all the hostile Creeks and Seminoles 
 who refused to agree to the treaty of August, 
 1814, made themselves outlaws ; Hillishajo, 
 and Hemathlemico, chiefs of the Creek nation, 
 being of that number. 
 
 In August, 1814, a British force took posses- 
 sion of Pensacola and the Fort of Barancas. A 
 Colonel Nicholls commanded the land force, 
 part of which was a corps of colonial marines, 
 in which George Woodbine was a captain, and 
 Robert C. Ambrister a lieutenant. On the 29th 
 of August, in that year, and about twenty days 
 after the date of the treaty made with the Creek 
 nation at Fort Jackson, Colonel Nicholls, who, 
 it is presumed, had a knowledge of that treaty, 
 issued his proclamation from Pensacola, inviting 
 persons of every description to join and aid him 
 to abolish (as he said) American usurpation in 
 the country, and to put the lawful owners in 
 possession ; stating that he was at the head of a 
 large body of Indians, well armed, disciplined, 
 and commanded by British officers. On the 
 31st of that month he addressed a letter to Mr. 
 Lafitte, informing him that he had arrived in 
 the Floridas for the purpose of annoying the 
 only enemy Great Britain had in the world. 
 He continued not long at Pensacola and Baran- 
 cas. General Jackson, having, on the^th of 
 that month, concluded the treaty wifn the 
 
 Creeks, and approached Pensacola with an 
 American force, compelled the invading British 
 to evacuate Pensacola, and to abandon the Ba- 
 rancas, after having blown up the fortifications. 
 After that, General Jackson retired with the 
 army under his command from Pensacola, and 
 hastened to New Orleans to resist the British at 
 that place. Colonel Nicholls, after having been 
 driven from Pensacola and Barancas, moved to 
 Appalachicola, and erected his fort for the re- 
 ception of hostile Indians and negroes, from 
 whence he might sally out, with his motley 
 crew of black, white, and red combatants, and 
 annoy the defenceless frontiers of the United 
 States. 
 
 Colonel Nicholls retained his post at Appa- 
 lachicola several months after the ratification of 
 the Treaty of Ghent. His correspondence with 
 Colonel Hawkins, commencing on the 28th of 
 April, 1815, shows that he did not consider that 
 the peace made between the United States and 
 Great Britain had put an end to his operations 
 at his fort, or to his negotiation with the Indi- 
 ans against the United States ; that he enclosed 
 a copy of part of the ninth article of the Treaty 
 of Ghent, stating that the Indians had accepted 
 and signed it, and requested Colonel Hawkins 
 to understand their territories to be as they 
 stood in 1811 ; that they had signed a treaty of 
 offensive and defensive alliance with Great 
 Britain, as also one of commerce and naviga- 
 tion ; that he was desired by the Indian chiefs 
 to say to Colonel Hawkins, that they do not 
 find that his citizens were evacuating their 
 lands, according to the 9th article of the Treaty 
 of Peace, but that they were fresh provisioning 
 the forts. By a letter from General Gaines, of 
 the 22d May, 1815, it appears that Colonel 
 Nicholls was then at Appalachicola, with about 
 900 Indians and 450 negroes, under arms. 
 Hillishajo, or Francis, and other chiefs of the 
 Creek nation, with others who did not attend at 
 the Treaty of Fort Jackson, who continued hos- 
 tile, are presumed to be of that party, and, with 
 Colonel Nicholls, exciting to continue the war. 
 
 After having instigated the Indians to con- 
 tinue the war, by inducing them to believe that, 
 by the ninth article of the Treaty of Ghent, they 
 were entitled to repossess the territory, as in 
 1811 ; and having furnished them with a large 
 quantity of arms and ammunition to carry on 
 the war, Colonel Nicholls departed for Great 
 Britain, taking with him Hillishajo, the fanatic, 
 and an address from hostile chiefs to the King 
 of England. It appears by a letter of Colonel 
 Hawkins, of the 28th of May, 1815, and by the 
 letters of General Gaines, of the month of De- 
 cember, 1817, and of January, 1818, that hos- 
 tilities were continued by the Indians ; in the 
 course of which, it appears that Edward Daniels, 
 taken prisoner, was tarred and burnt alive; 
 that Mrs. Garret and her two children were 
 murdered she and the eldest scalped ; Lieu- 
 tenant Scott and his party, in a boat, fired on 
 six men of thirty, and one woman of seven, 
 escaped four little children taken by the legs
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 289 
 
 JANUARY, 1819.] 
 
 The Seminole War. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 and their brains dashed out against the boat, 
 with other murders, and ravages, and barbari- 
 ties. The time had arrived when it was abso- 
 lutely necessary for the United States to exert 
 their power to put an end to the war. The 
 salus popitli, or, in other words, the safety of 
 the people, the supreme, irrevocable law of all 
 nation?, demanded that this savage war, carried 
 on by Indians out of the protection of the 
 United States, and negroes, and continued to 
 be excited by foreign emissaries, who had 
 identified themselves with the savages, be ter- 
 minated. 
 
 On the 26th of December, 181T, the Depart- 
 ment of War addressed a letter to Major Gen- 
 eral Andrew Jackson, then at Nashville, Ten- 
 nessee, ordering him to repair, with as little 
 delay as practicable, to Fort Scott, and assume 
 the immediate command of the forces in that 
 quarter of the southern division ; advising him 
 of the strength of the forces there that General 
 Gaines estimated the strength of the Indians at 
 2,700 ; and to call on the Executives of the ad- 
 jacent States, if, in his opinion, the troops of the 
 United States were too few in number to beat 
 the enemy ; and to adopt the necessary meas- 
 ures to terminate a conflict which it has ever 
 been the desire of the President, from consider- 
 ations of humanity, to avoid, but Avhich is now 
 made necessary by their settled hostilities. On 
 the 16th of January, 1818, the Secretary of 
 War wrote to General Gaines, informing him 
 that the honor of the United States requires 
 that the war with the Seminoles should be ter- 
 minated speedily, and with exemplary punish- 
 ment for hostilities so unprovoked; and that 
 orders were issued, directing the war to be car- 
 ried on within the limits of Florida, should it 
 be necessary to its speedy and effectual termi- 
 nation. These orders, I presume, have been 
 received. That, as soon as it was known that 
 he had repaired to Amelia Island, in obedience 
 to orders, and it being uncertain how long he 
 might be detained there, the state of things at 
 Fort Scott made it necessary to order General 
 Jackson to take command there. From his 
 known promptitude, it is presumable his arrival 
 may be soon expected. A letter from the Sec- 
 retary at War, of the 29th January, 1818, to 
 General Jackson, acknowledges the receipt of 
 letters from him of the 12th and 13th of that 
 month ; and that the measur.es he had taken to 
 bring an efficient force into the field were ap- 
 probated ; and expressing a confident hope that 
 a speedy and successful termination of the In- 
 dian war will follow his exertions. 
 
 On the 20th of January. 1818, General Jack- 
 son wrote to the Secretary of War further in- 
 formation respecting the measures by him 
 adopted to carry on the war, and that he would 
 leave Nashville on the 22d of that month for 
 Fort Scott, via Fort Hawkins. On the 6th of 
 February, 1818, the Secretary of War wrote to 
 General Jackson, (Fort Scott, Georgia,) ac- 
 knowledging the receipt of his letter of ihr 'Jmh 
 ultimo, and acquainting him of tho entire ap- 
 VOL. VI. 19 
 
 probation of the President of all the measures 
 he had adopted to terminate the war ; that the 
 honor of our army, as well as the interest of 
 the country, requires that it should be terminat- 
 ed as soon as practicable. It appears that Gen- 
 eral Jackson was at Fort Hawkins on the 10th 
 of February, 1818; at Hartford, in Georgia, on 
 the 14th ; at Fort Early on the 26th ; and on 
 the 25th of March, 1818, at Fort Gadsden, east 
 bank of Appalachicola, where formerly Negro 
 Fort stood. Having reached Fort Scott on the 
 9th, with the brigade of Georgia militia, 900 
 bayonets strong, and some friendly Creeks, 
 when, on the morning of the 10th, he assumed 
 the command ordered the live stock to be 
 slaughtered, and issued to the troops, with one 
 quart of corn to each man, and the line of 
 march to be taken up at twelve, meridian, 
 Near St. Marks, on the 8th April, 1818, the 
 General writes to the Secretary of War that he 
 had defeated a negro and Indian force pursued 
 them through the Mickasukian towns ; that the 
 towns were consumed, and the greatest abun- 
 dance of corn, cattle, &c., brought in; that 
 Captain McKever had secured Francis, or Hillis- 
 hajo, the great prophet, and Hemathlemico, an 
 old Red Stick chief, and that Arbuthnot, a 
 Scotchman, and suspected as an instigator of 
 the war, was found in St. Marks ; that there 
 were found in the council-house of Kenhagu's 
 town, the King of the Mickasukians, more than 
 fifty fresh scalps, and in the centre of the square 
 the old Ked Stick's standard (a red pole) was 
 erected, crowned with scalps, recognized, by the 
 hair, as torn from the heads of the unfortunate 
 companions of Scott ; that Indians and negroes 
 combined had demanded the surrender of St. 
 Marks ; that the Spanish garrison was too weak 
 to defend it; that he had occupied it with an 
 American garrison, and the commandant and 
 garrison furnished with transportation to Pen- 
 sacola. On the 9th of April, from camp sixteen 
 miles from St. Marks, on march to Suwanee, 
 the General wrote to the Secretary of War, 
 " There is little room to doubt but what one of 
 the chiefs found slain on the field in advance of 
 the Mickasukian villages, was Kenhajee. Fran- 
 cis, or Hillishajo, and Hemathlemico, the prune 
 instigators of this war, have been hung. The 
 latter commanded the party who so inhumanly 
 sacrificed Scott and his companions." 
 
 General Jackson was authorized by the su- 
 preme law of nature and nations, the law of 
 self-defence, corresponding with the great na- 
 tional maxim, namely, the safety of the people 
 is the supreme law, to enter the Spanish terri- 
 tory of Florida in pursuit of, and to destroy, 
 hostile, murdering savages, not bound by any 
 obligation, who were without the practice of 
 any moral principle reciprocally obligatory on 
 nations. 
 
 FRIDAY, January 29. 
 
 Seminole War. 
 The House resumed, in Committee of the
 
 290 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R] 
 
 The Seminole War. 
 
 [JANUARY, 1819. 
 
 Whole, (Mr. BASSETT in the chair,) the consid- 
 eration of the report of the Military Committee, 
 on the transactions of the Seminole war. 
 
 Mr. HOPKINSON, of Pennsylvania, addressed 
 the House as follows : 
 
 Mr. Chairman, if, after the discussion this 
 subject has undergone, I were to promise the 
 committee to present it with entire novelty, I 
 
 to perform, and which would betray a pre- 
 sumption, of which, I trust, I am incapable. I 
 have the hope, however, that I may be able to 
 offer some principles in relation to it which 
 have not yet been presented, and are entitled to 
 some influence on the decision of the commit- 
 tee, and to make some new applications of prin- 
 ciples already established. 
 
 The matters in controversy seem to me to 
 obtain infinite importance, from the connection 
 they have with the character of our country. 
 "We stand in a most peculiar and responsible 
 situation in this respect. The nations of Eu- 
 rope, from their contiguity, may be said to form 
 a family or an association of nations, controlled 
 by and accountable to each other. They have 
 alliances which all respect, ties which all must 
 feel, balances and checks which all are interest- 
 ed to preserve, and rules of conduct in their 
 mutual intercourse which all are made to obey. 
 The American people, removed far from the 
 rest of the civilized world, and placed beyond 
 the control of the policy or force of Europe, 
 have none of those means to keep them to the 
 path of justice. They acknowledge no guide 
 authorized to direct them but their own con- 
 sciences, and feel no responsibility but to their 
 God. This, sir, is a trying and a tempting situ- 
 ation, placing us on the highest ground of vir- 
 tue, if we do not abuse it; but exposing us to 
 infinite danger from the suggestions of pride, 
 interest, and self-love. But, sir, let us not for- 
 get that we belong to the family of civilized 
 nations, and be most forward to prove our de- 
 votion to those rules of conduct which the ex- 
 perience and wisdom of ages have established, 
 as necessary for the peace and usefulness of all. 
 Let us cherish those laws which increase the 
 blessings of peace and mitigate the calamities 
 of war. 
 
 The dangers which our country may appre- 
 hend from the encouragement of a military 
 spirit in our people, have been eloquently por- 
 trayed on this occasion. It is undoubtedly true 
 that a strong disposition of this sort has been 
 manifested, and was rapidly rising, in the peo- 
 ple of the United States ; and a greater evil 
 could hardly befall us than the consummation 
 of its ascendency. There is something so in- 
 fatuating in the pomp and triumphs of war, that 
 a young and brave people who have known but 
 little of its destructive miseries may require to 
 be guarded against falling into the snare, and 
 led to direct their energies to other and better 
 objects. It is worthy of remark that, in the 
 various ways in which the genius and powers 
 of men display themselves, the military course 
 
 is the only one eminently dangerous to his spe- 
 cies. Genius in every other department, how- 
 ever dazzling and powerful, is never hurtful is 
 generally a blessing to the world. The stupen- 
 dous genius of Newton elevated the dignity of 
 man, and brought him nearer to his God ; it 
 gave him a path to walk in the firmament, and 
 knowledge to hold converse with the stars. 
 The erratic comet cannot elude his vigilance, 
 nor the powerful sun disappoint his calculations. 
 Yet, this genius, so mighty in the production 
 of good, was harmless of the evil as a child. It 
 never inflicted injury or pain on any thing that 
 lives or feels. Shakspeare prepared an inex- 
 haustible feast of instruction and delight for his 
 own age and the ages to come ; but he brought 
 no tears into the world but thoije of fictitious 
 woe, which the other end of his wand was al- 
 ways ready to cure. It is military genius alone 
 that must be nourished with blood, and can find 
 employment only in inflicting misery and death 
 upon man. 
 
 The character and services of General Jack- 
 son have called forth eloquent eulogiums from 
 various parts of the House. I have no disposi- 
 tion to depreciate them, although I think some 
 of the praise bestowed upon them has been 
 somewhat extravagant. I cannot think him 
 the greatest commander this country has pro- 
 duced ; much less is he the greatest general of 
 the age ; an age so productive of military won- 
 ders. He is unquestionably a man of undaunted 
 courage, of indefatigable perseverance, of strik- 
 ing decision and celerity, and of great resources. 
 If his private virtues, of which I know nothing, 
 are equal to his public services, he is, assuredly, 
 a man worthy of all estimation. These things 
 will not influence my opinion or my vote, in 
 the discussion and decision of questions of na- 
 tional law and public importance, which have 
 no other connection with the character or ser- 
 vices of General Jackson, than that they have 
 arisen out of transactions in which he has been 
 
 e have seen, in this debate, a very laborious 
 examination of books, for principles applicable 
 to the questions in discussion ; and authorities 
 have been quoted, without end, on the several 
 points. In truth, however, this is not the diffi- 
 culty of the case; the principles of the laws of 
 nations, which have relation to it, are very clear 
 and unquestionable;, and the inquiry should be 
 into the facts and circumstances of this cam- 
 paign. These being distinctly ascertained, the 
 decision of the law upon them will be found at 
 once. Indeed, it is the excellence of that sys- 
 tem which is called the laws of nations, that 
 there is little in it that is technical or arbitrary ; 
 the rule is, generally, that which the sound un- 
 derstanding and common sense of every man 
 would suggest to him, if he had never read a 
 line on the subject. My object will be to draw 
 the attention of the committee to the prominent 
 points of inquiry ; to fix with precision the facts 
 in relation to each, and show the principles of 
 national law which ought to govern us in de-
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 291 
 
 JANUARY, 1819.] 
 
 The Seminole War. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 ciding upon them. General Jackson has been 
 arraigned ; first, for crossing the line separating 
 the United States from Florida; second, for 
 taking the fortress of St. Marks from the Span- 
 ish authorities ; third, for taking Pensacola and 
 Barancas ; fourth, for the execution of Ambris- 
 ter and Arbuthnot. I beg leave to premise 
 that, in discussing a transaction in which so 
 many distinct questions arise, it will necessarily 
 happen that different gentlemen of the commit- 
 tee will agree upon some, and disagree upon 
 others ; and even when they come to the same 
 result of approbation or disapprobation, it may 
 be for reasons wholly different. This renders a 
 particular explanation of the ground of opinion 
 more necessary than in ordinary cases. In 
 crossing the Florida line and entering upon the 
 Spanish territory, General Jackson certainly 
 violated the neutral and national rights of 
 Spain, unless he can show it was done for rea- 
 sons, and under circumstances, which, by the 
 agreement of nations, or, in other words, by the 
 laws of nations, justify it, and remove its offen- 
 sive character. Several grounds of defence 
 have been taken for this act, both by General 
 Jackson and on this floor. And here I may re- 
 mark, in relation to this part of the case, as well 
 as some of the others, that it is unfortunate for 
 a man, when he has done that which is really 
 right and defensible, to stumble upon a bad 
 reason for it. His reason will be successfully 
 attacked, and he will appear to stand condemned, 
 when, in truth, his injudicious defence only has 
 been overthrown. So it has happened to the 
 General. It has been said for him, that he was 
 justified in crossing the Spanish line to attack 
 the Indians, because Spain had, by her treaty, 
 stipulated that she would restrain the Indians 
 within her territory from hostilities against the 
 United States ; and that, not having done this, 
 we had a right to pass into the territory to do 
 that for her and ourselves which she was bound, 
 but had failed to do. It is obvious, on the least 
 reflection, that this defence can avail nothing. 
 If Spain had failed to perform her treaties with 
 the United States, it was a matter to be adjusted 
 by the two Governments, and not by a Com- 
 mander-in-chief, at th'e head of his army. 
 Spain might give reasons for the failure satis- 
 factory to this Government, and had a right to 
 an opportunity to do so. But the conclusive 
 view of this point is this : If the territory of 
 Spain was violated or attacked, to compel her 
 to perform her treaty stipulation, or to punish 
 her for not doing so, or because she had not 
 done so, the act connected with the object was 
 undoubtedly an act of war ; it placed us in a 
 state of war, and changed our relations with 
 Spain. 
 
 The United States are at war with certain 
 tribes of Indians inhabiting the Spanish territo- 
 ry. I do not inquire, as some gentlemen have 
 done, into the origin of this war, or decide who 
 was the immediate aggressor. The command- 
 ing General, whose conduct we are now investi- 
 gating, has nothing to do with this question. 
 
 It is his duty to fight the battles of his country, 
 and carry on the war according to the laws of 
 his country. Those who send him into the field 
 must answer for the war. I may say, however, 
 that I presume the origin of this war is the 
 same with all our Indian wars. It lies deep 
 beyond the power of eradication, in the mighty 
 wrongs we have heaped upon the miserable na- 
 tions of these lands. I cannot refuse them my 
 heartfelt sympathy. Eeflect upon what they 
 were, and look at them as they are. Great na- 
 tions dwindled down into wandering tribes, and 
 powerful kings degraded to beggarly chiefs. 
 Once the sole possessors of immeasurable wilds, 
 it could not have entered into their imagination 
 that there was a force on earth to disturb their 
 possessions and overthrow their power. It en- 
 tered not into their imagination, that from be- 
 yond that great water, which to them was an 
 impassable limit, there would come a race of 
 beings to despoil them of their inheritance and 
 sweep them from the earth. Three hundred 
 years have rolled into the bosom of eternity 
 since the white man put his foot on these silent 
 shores ; and every day, every hour, and every 
 moment, has beenr marked with some act of 
 cruelty and oppression. Imposing on the cre- 
 dulity or the ignorance of the aborigines, and 
 overawing their fears by the use of instruments 
 of death of inconceivable terror. The strangers 
 gradually established themselves, increasing the 
 work of destruction with the increase of their 
 strength. The tide of civilization, for so we 
 call it, fed from its inexhaustible sources in Eu- 
 rope, as well as by its own means of augmenta- 
 tion, swells rapidly and presses on the savage. 
 He retreats from forest to forest, from mountain 
 to mountain, hoping, at every remove, he has 
 left enough for his invaders, and may enjoy in 
 peace his new abode. But in vain ; it is only 
 in the grave, the last retreat of man, that he 
 will find repose. He recedes before the swell- 
 ing waters ; the cry of his complaint becomes 
 more distant and feeble, and soon will be heard 
 no more. I hear, sir, of beneficent plans for 
 civilizing the Indians, and securing their pos- 
 sessions to them. The great men who make 
 these efforts will have the approbation of God 
 and their own conscience ; but this will be all 
 their success. I consider the fate of the Indian 
 as inevitably fixed. He must perish. The de- 
 cree of extermination has long since gone forth ; 
 and the execution of it is in rapid progress. 
 Avarice, sir, has counted their acres, and power 
 their force ; and avarice and power march on 
 together to their destruction. You talk of the 
 scalping-knife; what is it to the liquid poison 
 you pour down the throats of these wretched 
 beings? You declaim against the murderous 
 tomahawk; what is it, in comparison with your 
 arms, your discipline, your numbers ? The con- 
 test is in vain ; and equally vain are the efforts of 
 a handful of benevolent men against such a com- 
 bination of force, stimulated by avarice and the 
 temptations of wealth. When, in the docu- 
 ments on your table, I see that, in this tri-
 
 292 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 The. Seminole War. 
 
 [JASDARY, 1819. 
 
 umphant march of General Jackson, he meets, 
 from time to time, (the only enemy he saw,) 
 groups of old men and women, and children, 
 gathering on the edge of a morass, their villages 
 destroyed, their corn and provisions carried ofl^ 
 houseless in the depth of winter, looking for 
 death alternately to famine and the sword, my 
 heart sickens at a scene so charged with wretch- 
 edness. To rouse us from a sympathy so deep, 
 so irresistible, we are told of the scalping-knife 
 and the tomahawk ; of our slaughtered women 
 and children. We speak of these things as if 
 women and children were unknown to the In- 
 dians as if they have no such beings amongst 
 them ; no such near and dear relations ; as if 
 they belong only to us. It is not so. The poor 
 Indian mother, crouching in her miserable wig- 
 wam, or resting under the broad canopy of 
 heaven, presses her naked infant to her bosom 
 with as true and fond emotion as the fairest in 
 our land ; and her heart is torn with as keen 
 anguish if it perish in her sight. 
 
 In the fall of 1817, hostilities had broken out 
 between the United States and the Seminole 
 Indians, residing in Florida, and assumed ap- 
 pearances of danger and ferocity, requiring im- 
 mediate and effectual suppression. On the 30th 
 of November of that year, a boat, commanded 
 by Lieutenant Scott, containing forty men, some 
 women, and I believe some children, when as- 
 cending the Appalachicola Kiver, was fired 
 upon by a party of ambuscaded Indians, and 
 the whole party killed, wounded, or taken pris- 
 oners. Previous to this occurrence, other mur- 
 ders and robberies had been perpetrated. It is 
 said by General Gaines, in one of his talks, that 
 the murderers and robbers had been demanded 
 of the Indians, and refused ; and that a council 
 had been held by them at Mickasuky, at which 
 war with the United States was determined 
 upon. On the 15th December, 1817, our trans- 
 ports, passing up the river to reach our forts, 
 were attacked from both shores, and placed in 
 imminent danger. On the 9th of January, 1818, 
 bodies of Indians, in the whole from eight to 
 twelve hundred, were collecting on the Appa- 
 lachicola, for the purpose of cutting off our sup- 
 plies. From these facts it is obvious that war 
 existed with as much formality and more ac- 
 tivity than is usual with Indian hostilities. 
 Such was the state of things in December, 1817, 
 and the beginning of '18. In order to show 
 that our Government was truly desirous to re- 
 spect, even to an imaginary line, the sovereign- 
 ty and neutrality of Spain, and ceased to do so 
 only when circumstances made it necessary, and 
 of course justifiable, it may be proper to look 
 to the orders issued by the War Department on 
 the 30th of October, 1817. In a letter of that 
 date to General Gaines, he is told that the 
 President approves of the march of the troops 
 from Fort Montgomery to Fort Scott ; that he 
 flatters himself the appearance of this force will 
 restrain the Indians, and induce them to make 
 reparation for the murders they had committed. 
 Should they, however, refuse to make repara- 
 
 tion, " it is the wish of the President," says the 
 Secretary, "that you should not, on that ac- 
 count, pass the line and make an attack upon 
 them within the limits of Florida, until you 
 shall have received further instructions from 
 this department." We see in these orders a 
 scrupulous attention to the neutral rights of 
 Spain, and a very discriminating observance of 
 the laws of nations. The two objects to be at- 
 tained, were the restraint of the hostilities and 
 depredations of the Indians, and to induce them 
 to make reparation for those committed. For 
 the attainment of them the President relies on 
 the appearance of the force of our troops ; but, 
 should he be disappointed in this hope, he di- 
 rects that the line shall not be passed, because 
 reparation is refused, without further orders 
 from the department. Now, whether we might 
 pass the line for the purpose of restraining hos- 
 tilities, would depend upon the nature and ne- 
 cessity of the case ; but it is most clear that we 
 have no such right merely to obtain reparation 
 for past injuries, or to chastise the enemy for 
 refusing it. The line is, therefore, accurately 
 drawn by the President, according to the rules 
 of national law. He forbids the passage pe- 
 remptorily for a cause not justified by that law ; 
 and, as to the other object, directs that he shall 
 be consulted before so important a step is taken. 
 On the 26th December, when the order issued 
 to General Jackson, to take command of the 
 army, our situation was no longer so secure as 
 in October preceding. The enemy had greatly 
 increased in number ; they had taken positions 
 fatal to our garrisons, by cutting off all supplies 
 from them ; they had destroyed a considerable 
 party of men going to those forts ; they had at- 
 tacked our transports, and manifested a deter- 
 mination to press the war with all their power 
 and all their cruelty. The change of circum- 
 stances required a corresponding change in the 
 measures of defence. On the 9th of December, 
 a letter is addressed from the Executive to Gen- 
 eral Gaines, for his government. Fowltown 
 had now been attacked and destroyed by Gen- 
 eral Gaines. The President again expresses the 
 hope that this correction will induce the Indians 
 to abstain from further" depredations, and sue 
 for peace. He refers the General to the letters 
 of 30th October and 2d December, as manifest- 
 ing his views, and directs that he should con- 
 form to them. At the same time he says, 
 " Should the Indians assemble in force on the 
 Spanish side of the line, and persevere in com- 
 mitting hostilities within the limits of the United 
 States, you will, in that event, exercise a sound 
 discretion as to the propriety of crossing the 
 line, for the purpose of attacking them and 
 breaking up their towns." This order, if care- 
 fully attended to, will evince the same desire in 
 our" Executive, not to tread on Spanish ground, 
 but under circumstances justified by law. It is 
 not to be done because the Indians assemble in 
 force on the Spanish side,* unless, in addition to 
 this, they persevere in committing hostilities 
 within the limits of the United States. That
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 293 
 
 JASUABY, 1819.] 
 
 The Seminole War. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 is, if the Spanish side of the line is used as a 
 position from which they make their attacks, 
 and a refuge in which they shelter themselves 
 from our attacks, from pursuit and defeat, then 
 you, exercising a sound discretion, may pass the 
 line. Under such circumstances, it, in fact, be- 
 comes a necessary measure of preservation, and 
 may, indeed, be considered rather as a defensive 
 than an offensive operation. So far it is clear, 
 to my understanding, that all the orders issued 
 from the War Department are strictly warrant- 
 ed by national law, and exhibit a proper and' 
 scrupulous regard for the rights of Spain. I 
 find, however, in a letter to General Games, of 
 the 16th December, that which, in my opinion, 
 cannot be thus justified ; and I am at a loss to 
 discover why the department abandoned the 
 sure ground on Avhich it stood for that which 
 seems to me to be absolutely indefensible. In 
 this letter the General is instructed, " Should 
 the Seminole Indians still refuse to make repa- 
 ration for their outrages and depredations on 
 the citizens of the United States, it is the wish 
 of the President that you consider yourself at 
 liberty to march across the Florida line, and to 
 attack them within its limits, should it be found 
 necessary, unless they should shelter themselves 
 under a Spanish fort. In the last event you 
 will immediately notify this department." I 
 have already shown, and it is unquestionable, 
 that the necessity which justifies the violent in- 
 vasion of a neutral country, must be to prevent, 
 to avoid, to be relieved from, an injury or dan- 
 ger of high moment, and not to revenge a 
 wrong, however atrocious, or obtain redress for 
 depredations, however destructive. This dis- 
 tinction, so obvious and so just, has been care- 
 fully marked by the President in all his pre- 
 vious orders. Why it was disregarded in this 
 letter I cannot say. On or about the llth of 
 March, 1818, General Jackson crossed the river, 
 passed down on the east side, and arrived on 
 the 16th at Fort Gadsden, which is within the 
 Spanish line of Florida. Let us then shortly 
 sum up the circumstances by which he must de- 
 fend this measure, and compare them with the 
 reasons Spain may justly urge against it; and, 
 by a fair comparison between them, we shall 
 be able to decide whether, by the law of na- 
 tions, we stand justified or condemned for this 
 intrusion upon neutral territory. We defend 
 on these uncontradicted facts, that our enemy, 
 in very considerable force, had assembled on or 
 near the line separating the two countries, part 
 of which line was a navigable river, the free 
 passage of which was essential to our safety, as, 
 without it, neither supplies, nor provisions, nor 
 munitions of war, nor reinforcements of men, 
 could be transported to our garrisons within our 
 own territory, beset by the Indians, and in dan- 
 ger of falling into their hands, if deprived of 
 tl.i- u-sistance. We defend on the obvious fa- 
 cility with which the enemy might make his 
 destructive incursions into our country, and the 
 impossibility of restraining him, if he is to find 
 a shelter from pursuit and punishment the mo- 
 
 ment he repasses the line. Wo defend, in the 
 third place, on the interminable nature of a war 
 thus carried on with such so. enemy ; the enor- 
 mous expense to the United States in this pro- 
 tracted hostility ; the daily loss of valuable lives 
 by disease and the sword ; and the infinite loss 
 and inconvenience of keeping our militia in the 
 field, from their homes and business, when the 
 means of terminating the conflict were so di- 
 rectly in their view and so entirely in their 
 power. Such is the necessity under which we 
 claim the right to enter the Spanish territory, 
 without thereby changing our pacific relations 
 with that power. What can Spain oppose to 
 this to warrant her in refusing this passage to 
 pur troops, or in complaining of it as a hostile 
 invasion of her rights? Positively nothing. 
 No injury^ no inconvenience did result, or could 
 have resulted, to her from the act. Look at the 
 situation of the country we entered ; it was not 
 a populous city, whose peace might be endan- 
 gered and disturbed by the presence of an army; 
 it was not through flourishing villages and cul- 
 tivated farms we passed, where the property of 
 the inhabitants might be pillaged or destroyed 
 by the disorders of a large military force ; but a 
 mere waste and wilderness, on which the foot 
 of civilized man had scarcely trod, in which the 
 interest of the Spanish monarchy is but nomi- 
 nal, and of the existence of which the greater 
 part of the Spanish people are utterly ignorant. 
 Above all, and which is perhaps the first con- 
 sideration hi these cases, the permission of this 
 passage, nor the taking of it, would not expose 
 Spain to any danger from our enemy, or expose 
 her to the danger of being brought into the war 
 on account of it. I leave the crossing of the 
 Spanish line on this justification, being well 
 satisfied it is entirely consistent with the most 
 rigid observance of neutral rights, as recognized 
 and guarded by the laws of nations. I agree 
 that permission should have been asked, if cir- 
 cumstances would have allowed ; but the same 
 necessity which justifies the measure, in this 
 instance justifies the adoption of it without such 
 request. 
 
 The occupation of St. Marks by the American 
 troops followed the entrance into Florida, and 
 is the next proceeding to be considered. It is 
 admitted by our Government that stronger rea- 
 sons must be found for taking possession of this 
 fortress than for the mere entrance upon Span- 
 ish territory ; that is, the necessity must be more 
 urgent and powerful ; still, however, it is but a 
 stronger case under the same principle. The 
 seizure of a post or fortress belonging to a neu- 
 tral power is so high and hazardous an inter- 
 ference with the rights of property as well as 
 sovereignty, that it calls for a corresponding 
 justification. This is found in what Vattel calls 
 extreme necessity ; it must be indispensable for 
 preservation from immediate destruction ; this 
 again is but the dictate of the common sense of 
 mankind. The right of an individual in his 
 house, is as perfect and inviolable as that of a 
 nation irf its forts ; a man's house is eniphati-
 
 294 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 The. Seminole War. 
 
 [JANUARY, 1819. 
 
 cally called his castle, and as such protected by 
 the law. But assuredly it would be no illegal 
 violation of this sanctuary, if, pursued by an as- 
 sassin, I should take refuge in my neighbor's 
 dwelling ; and forcibly too, if, under such cir- 
 cumstances, he would refuse or prevent me. 
 The necessity here required must be immediate 
 and extreme. It is not enough that the position 
 taken will be a convenient means of annoyance 
 to the enemy; a prevention of future danger; 
 or an effective instrument for offensive or de- 
 fensive operations in the war. No prospective 
 advantage or danger will satisfy the law. Self- 
 preservation ; a deliverance from immediate, 
 direct, and extreme peril, must be the end to be 
 obtained by means so extreme. This is the 
 principle ; how does it apply to the occupation 
 of St. Marks ? Before I examine the facts in re- 
 lation to this transaction, I beg leave to dispose 
 of a justification set up for General Jackson, 
 which I hold to be altogether untenable. It is 
 said that Spain had by her treaty stipulated to 
 restrain the Indians within her territory from 
 hostile incursions into the United States ; and 
 that, not having done this, whether from ina- 
 bility or design, the right devolves upon us to 
 enter the Spanish territory and do that for our- 
 selves which she was bound, but has failed to do 
 for us ; and to take her forts in execution of this 
 design. To this, I answer briefly, that, what- 
 ever cause of complaint this omission may 
 have given to the United States against Spain ; 
 and whatever cause of war it might have afford- 
 ed, if the complaint was not attended to and a 
 satisfactory explanation given, yet it can give 
 no authority to a military commander to com- 
 mit an act of hostility, and involve his country 
 in a war without its concurrence. It is for a 
 higher and a safer power in our Government to 
 judge when treaties have been broken, and what 
 measures of redress should be resorted to against 
 the delinquent. To invade the country of 
 another, because a treaty has not been ob- 
 served, is to punish for the delinquency ; and, 
 among nations, punishment can be inflicted 
 only by war. Such an attempt cannot be made 
 consistent with neutral relations ; and we must 
 always keep in mind, that, whatever the Gene- 
 ral has done, which is not consistent with these 
 relations, which he had no right to change, he 
 has done without authority. I may, however, 
 use this failure on their part in support of the 
 plea of necessity. It may be considered, in a 
 degree, as both the cause and the evidence of 
 the necessity. It is the cause, inasmuch as if 
 Spain had performed her treaty stipulation and 
 restrained her Indians, we should have no de- 
 sire or necessity of entering her territory to 
 prevent their hostile attacks upon us. It is the 
 evidence, inasmuch as if the Indian force was 
 really so formidable as to overpower the force 
 of Spain, so that she was unable to restrain it 
 on performance of her stipulation, it is not for 
 her to say that the danger to us from this force 
 was so inconsiderable and trifling as not to justi- 
 fy any strong measures on our, part* to guard 
 
 against it. I come now to turn your attention 
 to the facts and allegations relied upon for the 
 capture of St. Marks. In General Jackson's 
 letter of the 8th April, 1818, he tells us he left 
 Fort Gadsden on the 26th March ; that on the 
 1st April he was joined by Mclntosh ; and on 
 the same day discovered a small party of In- 
 dians, which he dispersed; he continued the 
 pursuit of them througli the Mickasukey vil- 
 lage, where he burnt three hundred houses. He 
 then says, " as I had reason to believe a portion 
 of the hostile Indians had fled to St. Marks, I 
 directed my march to that fortress." He after- 
 wards found the Indians and negroes had de- 
 manded the surrender of that fort ; and that the 
 Spanish garrison was too weak to defend it ; 
 and adds, that there were circumstances re- 
 ported, producing a strong conviction on his 
 mind, that, if not instigated by the Spanish au- 
 thority, the Indians had received the means of 
 carrying on the war from that quarter; and 
 that St. Marks was necessary as a depot to in- 
 sure success to his operations. These considera- 
 tions determined General Jackson to occupy the 
 fort. We here see several reasons urged in 
 justification of this measure, some of which are 
 good and some bad. While, therefore, I admit 
 the justification, I desire to state the ground on 
 which I rest it, lest I might be supposed to 
 adopt all the reasons given for it. In this case 
 the principle on which we approve or disap- 
 prove is every thing ; as it is the principle, as- 
 sumed and sanctioned by the House, which will 
 govern future cases. 
 
 Three grounds are taken by the General: 1st, 
 that the Spanish authorities in this quarter had 
 instigated and supplied the enemy. If this fact 
 were made out even stronger than it is by the 
 evidence, I should not hold it to be a justifica- 
 tion for the measure taken by the army, and, 
 for the reason so often mentioned, that a cap- 
 ture on account would be a hostile capture ; an 
 act of war against Spain ; would be inconsistent 
 with our neutral relations with that power. It 
 was, doubtless, a just cause of the most serious 
 and determined complaint by our Government 
 against Spain ; it would be a just cause of war 
 if Spain refused all reasonable satisfaction for the 
 outrage : but both the cause and the expediency 
 of such a war was to be decided, not by a mili- 
 tary commander of our army, but by the Repre- 
 sentatives of the people, with whom alone this 
 high and vital power is intrusted. Still less, if 
 possible, is the General justified by the second 
 consideration suggested by him in his defence ; 
 that St. Marks was a necessary depot to insure 
 success in his operations against our enemy. I 
 will not abuse the patience of the committee by 
 showing them that by no known law of nations, 
 by no principle of common justice or common 
 sense, can I take forcible possession of the prop- 
 erty of another ; can I violate his most sacred 
 and essential rights, merely for my convenience, 
 or to insure success in a contest to which he is 
 not a party, and in which he has no concern. 
 Such a doctrine is monstrous, and subversive
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 295 
 
 JANUARY, 1819.] 
 
 The Seminole War. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 of the very foundations of public and private 
 rights. What, then, remains for his justifica- 
 tion ? It is this that a surrender of this for- 
 tress had been demanded by our enemy ; that 
 the neutral power was confessedly too weak to 
 resist the demand or prevent the execution of 
 the menace with which it was accompanied, of 
 taking forcible possession if refused. For the 
 proof of this fact, I look not to dubious circum- 
 stances, or witnesses of doubtful credit. We 
 have it in the unequivocal declarations of the 
 Governor of Pensacola and the commandant of 
 St. Marks. We have these declarations proved, 
 not only by unexceptionable witnesses, but un- 
 der the hand of the commandant in his letter 
 of the Yth of April. When these officers of 
 the Spanish authority were charged with giving 
 aid and countenance and protection to our ene- 
 my, in violation both of the general and the 
 treaty duties of Spain, they defend or excuse 
 themselves by displaying the force and ferocity 
 of the Indians ; by their menaces to take pos- 
 session of the fort, and the inability to prevent 
 it. If these assertions are to make the apology, 
 they must be taken to be true, and, if true, they 
 may be used by both parties, they may serve to 
 justify such proceedings on our part as are 
 fairly justified by them. This, then, being the 
 case, what is the principle of national law that 
 should govern it ? I hold it to be entirely clear, 
 that, when a fort, or any other means of war- 
 fare, will, with reasonable certainty, fall into 
 the hands of one of the belligerents, and be by 
 him used against the other, the party thus en- 
 dangered may prevent the evil, on the rights of 
 self-defence, by taking even forcibly, the instru- 
 ment from the neutral; and that this is, in 
 point of law, no hostile attack upon the neu- 
 tral, nor right to be considered by him as an 
 act of war, or a breach of his neutral relation. 
 If arms, artillery, munitions of war, belonging 
 to a neutral, were about to be taken by our 
 enemy, can anybody doubt we might prevent 
 this evil (if the neutral could not) by seizing 
 them ourselves ; making afterwards proper sat- 
 isfaction to the neutral. I know, sir, that I 
 here come directly upon a transaction which 
 made much clamor in the world, particularly in 
 this part of it, when it occurred I mean the 
 seizure of the Danish fleet, lying at Copenhagen, 
 by the British. Taking the state of the fact to 
 be as I have represented, I cannot doubt of the 
 justification of the act. It is the common sense 
 of mankind. Let me put a familiar case. Two 
 men are engaged in one of these avenues in mu- 
 tual strife ; it is the contest of death. One of 
 them perceives a stranger passing by who has 
 no concern whatever in the quarrel ; who is a 
 neutral. But, this stranger lias in his hand a 
 drawn sword, which the combatant certainly 
 knows will be taken and used against him by 
 his antagonist, unless he prevents it by seizing 
 the sword himself. He knows the neutral can- 
 not prevent it, if he will. Will any man say, 
 that, in this situation, lie would not be justified 
 in disregarding, for a moment, and in a point 
 
 comparatively insignificant, the rights of the 
 stranger, and taking from him the weapon which 
 he cannot retain, and which in the hands of his 
 adversary might be fatal to him ? I agree, sir, 
 that the belligerent using this violence takes a 
 high responsibility upon himself, and is bound 
 to make out his justification in the manner I 
 have stated, with great certainty and by un- 
 equivocal evidence. On what principle but 
 this can our Government justify itself for taking 
 and still holding Amelia Island? It had fallen 
 into the possession, not, indeed, of a regular 
 force, and civilized enemy, but of a gang of 
 brigands, pirates, and fugitives from justice. 
 From its local situation our country was ex- 
 ceedingly exposed to the lawless depredations 
 of these robbers. Spain, the rightful owner of 
 the soil, was unable to break up the nest and 
 expel the murderers from it, or prevent the in- 
 juries which they were able to inflict upon us 
 by the use of the Spanish territory. Assured- 
 ly, then, the most obvious principles of self-de- 
 fence authorized us to deprive the enemy of 
 this means of annoying us ; to take from them, 
 not from Spain, a position of which she has 
 been unjustly deprived, and which was so dan- 
 gerous to us. It was no violation of the neu- 
 tral rights of Spain ; there was nothing in it of 
 which she could reasonably complain. The oc- 
 cupation of St. Marks by General Jackson 
 stands on the same principles; the admission 
 and declarations of the Spanish authorities com- 
 manding in the fort. One part of this transac- 
 tion I confess, is not sufficiently explained. It 
 appears that the commandant and garrison 
 were transported to Pensacola; but it does not 
 clearly appear whether this was done by the 
 orders of the General, or in compliance with 
 their own wishes. It needs not a word to sat- 
 isfy the committee, that, when a belligerent 
 does find himself under a necessity to appropri- 
 ate to himself the rights and property of another, 
 he must do it with all possible respect to those 
 rights, and with as little inconvenience and in- 
 jury as practicable to the neutral. He may not, 
 therefore, in a case like the present, expel the 
 neutral from his possession; he should hold out 
 a joint occupation of the place, and hold it as 
 inoffensively as the nature of his situation will 
 allow. Upon this point, I do not find sufficient 
 light in the testimony to justify or condemn the 
 General. I shall trouble the committee no 
 longer with the seizure of St. Marks, having ex- 
 plained the grounds on which alone it appears 
 to me it can be defended consistently with our 
 neutral relations with Spain. 
 
 I propose next to consider the case of Pensa- 
 cola. The capture of this place, with the fort 
 of Barancas, must be tried and tested by the 
 principles I have already submitted to the com- 
 mittee. It must be defended either by show- 
 ing it was necessary to preserve our army from 
 some immediate, unjust, and extreme peril, or 
 that there was such reasonable certainty as ex- 
 isted in the case of St. Marks, that, if not occu- 
 pied by our troops, it would fall into the hands
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 The Seminole War. 
 
 [JANUARY, 1819. 
 
 of our enemy, and by them be used as a means 
 of annoyance against us. This brings us to a 
 question of fact to be decided by the evidence. 
 On the 7th of April General Jackson took pos- 
 session of St. Marks. On the 20th of April he 
 writes that the destruction of Bowlegstown, 
 with the possession of St. Marks, will end the 
 Indian war for the present ; and, should it be 
 renewed, the position taken will enable a small 
 party to put it down. He states he is informed 
 a few Red Sticks at Pensacola point were fed 
 and supplied by the Governor of Pensacola; 
 that he will reconnoitre there, and then return 
 home for his health. On the 26th of April, he 
 writes that he will proceed directly to Nash- 
 ville. " My presence in this country can be no 
 longer necessary." He expressly declares, that 
 the Indians are scattered; cut off; and that 
 "they no longer have the power, if they had 
 the will, of again annoying our frontier." In 
 another letter, written on the 5th of May, he 
 says, the resistance of the enemy had been 
 feeble ; that it had been a war of movements 
 and partial rencontres ; that the Red Sticks had 
 been severely convinced; and the Seminoles 
 were too weak in numbers to believe they could 
 maintain a war against the United States. In 
 this same letter of the 5th of May, he gives the 
 first intimation of an intention to occupy Pen- 
 sacola. It has been stated, he says, the Indians 
 have free access into Pensacola ; are kept ad- 
 vised of our movements ; supplied with muni- 
 tions of war, and are collecting in that city to 
 the amount of four or five hundred ; that in- 
 roads from thence are made into Alabama, and 
 eighteen settlers had been killed. If this is 
 correct, says the General, Pensacola must be 
 occupied by the American troops ; the Govern- 
 or treated according to his deserts, or as policy 
 may dictate. The General then gives his " con- 
 firmed opinion " that, as long as Spain has not 
 the power or the will to enforce the treaties by 
 which she is bound to restrain the Indians, our 
 frontier can have no security without occupy- 
 ing a cordon of posts along the seashore. Such 
 are the facts and reasons by which the General 
 defends the violent and hostile seizure of Pensa- 
 cola and Barancas, and his subsequent proceed- 
 ings respecting them. In these facts and rea- 
 sons we must find that necessity which alone, 
 by the law of nations, can justify measures so 
 extraordinary. It would be a waste of time to 
 make a particular analysis of the evidence to 
 show how utterly insufficient it is to the pur- 
 pose. 
 
 The war at an end; the enemy dispersed, 
 exterminated, and broken down ; having no 
 longer the power, if he should have the will, to 
 annoy us ; the commanding General returning 
 home, because his presence can no longer be ne- 
 cessary ; the position taken being fully adequate 
 to put down the war, should the foe have the 
 temerity to renew it; and yet, with all this 
 mass of facts testified by the General himself, 
 and this confidence of opinion expressed by 
 himself, we are to bo told of necessities ; of 
 
 dangers ; of inroads and murders, which shall 
 justify us in one of the most high-handed meas- 
 ures that one nation can take against another. 
 No, sir, these were not the motives ; it was not 
 because a few miserable, defeated, starving Red 
 Sticks were fed by the Governor of Pensacola ; 
 it could not be because the enemy was kept ad- 
 vised from them of the movements of our army, 
 after the war was over and all movement but 
 towards their homes had ceased ; it was not be- 
 cause the Indians had, as they always had, a free 
 access into Pensacola, that our General chose 
 to wrest by military force this place from the 
 hands of its owner, in violation of the laws of 
 civilized nations ; and, being an act of war, in 
 violation of the constitution of his country. It 
 is not because Spain is not in a condition to in- 
 sist upon her rights, or resent the violation of 
 them, that the act is the more justified. The 
 General did that which, in other circumstances, 
 would have, rightfully, on the part of the of- 
 fended nation, involved us in a war; and it 
 will hardly be said such a power, under our 
 constitution, is vested in any military com- 
 mander. But, sir, the true motive of this bold 
 step is exposed. The General has a confirmed 
 opinion that, unless Spain performs her treaty 
 with the United States, a cordon of posts along 
 the seashore will be necessary ; and he accord- 
 ingly proceeds, without further consultation 
 with his own Government, to occupy these posts. 
 Here, then, we have a military officer under- 
 taking to judge whether a treaty with a foreign 
 power has been broken, and without inquiring 
 what reason or excuse that power may have in 
 explanation ; without inquiring whether his 
 own Government has been reasonably satisfied 
 on the subject ; without examining what course 
 the policy and interests of his own country may 
 dictate in such a case, he proceeds to apply, of 
 his own will and authority, the remedy he 
 deems most proper ; that is, to wage immediate 
 war on the other party ; he takes into his hands 
 the highest power the people can exercise them- 
 selves or grant to others the power of putting 
 : nation in jeopardy ; of expending its blood 
 and treasure, and involving it hi the countless 
 calamities of war. The people of the United 
 States have intrusted this power only to their 
 immediate representatives, and General Jack- 
 son has walked over our heads, and the heads 
 of the people, in assuming it himself. This 
 must not be. 
 
 Mr. ASTDERSOST, of Kentucky, said that he con- 
 curred with those gentlemen who considered the 
 questions involved in the resolutions as intrins- 
 ically of the first magnitude, and fully meriting 
 the free discussion which they had received ; 
 but, he said, it was true that the House of 
 Representatives could give importance to any 
 question. Such was- the character and station 
 which this House, under the constitution, must 
 always hold before the people, that every sub- 
 ject which excites interest and feeling here, 
 will command the attention of the nation. In 
 giving his opinions on the questions, he should
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 297 
 
 JANUARY, 1819.] 
 
 The Seminole War. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 only be anxious to give expression to those 
 sentiments which he held, without stopping j 
 moment to inquire whether they are consistem 
 with those of gentlemen who voted with him 
 In examining the military transactions which 
 gave rise to the debate, he acknowledged that 
 he had felt an anxiety to find that the Ameri- 
 can officer was in the right ; but the first con- 
 , sideration with him was, that in giving his 
 opinions and his vote, he himself should be ex- 
 actly right. On great political questions, it has 
 been sometimes thought admissible to act from 
 partisan feelings, to express only those opin- 
 ions which are sanctioned by party, and would 
 conduce to success in the great end desired 
 but, in a case where the character of a high 
 officer was involved, where our conduct should 
 partake of judicial sacredness, it would disgrace 
 a statesman to withhold any opinion because it 
 differed from that of those with whom he voted. 
 The situation of Arbuthnot is different from 
 that of Ambrister in one point ; he was not found 
 hi the ranks of the enemy, but hi a neutral fort. 
 Most of the gentlemen who have supported the 
 resolutions, admit that he had been previously an 
 associate in the war, but contend that, as at the 
 time of his capture he was a non-combatant, the 
 analogy between his case and that of the English- 
 man is destroyed. The reason of the case certain- 
 ly will not bear them out, and they have not pro- 
 duced any authority on the subject. It cannot 
 be contended that if the General of the enemy 
 was taken in a farm-house, either on his route 
 from one wing of the army, to the other, or en 
 a journey to his family, that he would not be a 
 prisoner of war, although he might be entirely 
 alone, and even destitute of arms. If Tecum- 
 seh, in the latter part of the war, had been 
 captured in Canada, engaged in the work of a 
 country laborer, would that fact alone have de- 
 prived him of his war character, and released 
 him from its penalties ? The true distinction is 
 this : when an officer has resigned, or a soldier 
 has been discharged, or either has hi so effect- 
 ual a way seceded, as to be no longer a mem- 
 ber of the enemy's armament, then the military 
 character ceases, and not before. No tempora- 
 ry absence will produce the end contended for ; 
 it must be an absence attended with circum- 
 stances clearly showing a permanent secession. 
 Frequently the most effectual aid is given, by a 
 partisan, who is absent, and who is physically 
 a non-couibatant, by advice and other modes 
 of co-operation. In this case, where the pre- 
 vious association must be conceded, there are 
 no circumstances which indicate a separation 
 from the enemy. As far as any evidence arises 
 from his situation in the fort, to which the 
 enemy had constant access, it is altogether 
 
 r'ust him. There is a fact connected with 
 subject, which deserves consideration. 
 Among civilized nations, only a small portion of 
 the community is attached to the army, and of 
 course the rules of war apply only to the-.- \\\m 
 constitute it; the peasantry of the country is 
 not subject to any of the penalties of the sol- 
 
 dier ; bat among the Indians, there is no such 
 distinction ; among them none exists, except 
 that which is produced by age and sex. Every 
 man is a warrior. Every one, whom you take, 
 is a prisoner, whether he be hi arms o'r at rest. 
 There is no military enrolment among them ; if 
 he belongs to the nation, he belongs to the 
 army. This is certainly true, and is founded 
 on habits invariably preserved by the Indians. 
 Among us, and all European nations, that por- 
 tion of the community engaged in husbandry, 
 or in raising food for the army, is secured from 
 the rules of war; but among the Indians, all 
 the men fight, and the food is raised by the 
 women, and, of course, this security from war 
 is confined to them. If an Indian chief, found 
 in the situation of Arbuthnot, would have been 
 a prisoner of war, surely he was. 
 
 In a war with the Indians, who receive no 
 heralds, and respect no flags, and with whom 
 the massacre of prisoners is not an exception 
 from their usual conduct, but the general prac- 
 tice itself, it cannot be required of General 
 Jackson that he should have been guilty of the 
 folly of sending to the Indians any individual 
 of his army to demand satisfaction for that 
 which was the common custom of the nation. 
 The idea expressed hi this resolution is contain- 
 ed in one passed hi relation to the execution of 
 Colonel Hayne, an American officer, although 
 it is not conveyed hi language so distinct: 
 Resolved, That the conduct of Major General 
 Greene, in taking necessary measures of retalia- 
 tion, be, and hereby is, approved." These res- 
 olutions clearly convey the opinion of the Old 
 Congress, that the commanding officers of 
 separate armies possessed this contested power 
 by virtue of their commissions. Circumstances 
 may be easily supposed, in which the utility of 
 retaliation would be entirely lost, if this power 
 must hi every case be granted by the Legisla- 
 ture ; hi every war, which is to be concluded 
 n a single campaign, (and this may be the char- 
 acter of many of the Indian wars,) if the officer 
 did not possess it until he could refer the case 
 X) Congress, and procure the authority, the 
 :ime would have passed at which it could avail 
 ihn ; the effect he would desire to produce, on 
 the conduct of the enemy, would be lost, and 
 ;he reference useless. This would always be 
 the case where the seat of war was at a great 
 distance from head-quarters. This view of the 
 subject is strongly supported by the situation 
 of an officer in a besieged town. Here all com- 
 munication with his superiors is cut off, and if 
 we deny to him this power of coercing his 
 enemy to humanity, his situation is miserable 
 ndeed; his countrymen have failed to give 
 lim authority, and his enemies have deprived 
 lim of the means of acquiring it. If this 
 sower was lodged in the President, then there 
 ?an be no difficulty, as General Jackson has 
 eceived the subsequent sanction of his supe- 
 ior. But there is a letter of instruction, under 
 vhicli General Jackson might, it' he were dis- 
 >osed, cover almost any thing, certainly every
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 The Seminole War. 
 
 [JANUARY, 1819. 
 
 thing which lie did. In the letter of the 16th 
 January, from the War Department, there are 
 these remarkable and extraordinary words : 
 " The honor of the United States requires that 
 the war with the Seminoles should be termi- 
 nated speedily, and with exemplary punish- 
 ment for hostilities so unprovoked." It is very 
 difficult to ascertain the precise instructions 
 which the Secretary meant that these words 
 should convey. They cannot mean that the 
 American officer should march rapidly, fight 
 gallantly, and slay all who resisted in battle ; 
 all this required no order. It is certain that 
 no authority has been exercised, which these 
 words are not broad enough to convey. Mr. A. 
 said he did not contend that the Secretary 
 thought of such a case as had occurred, or that 
 General Jackson wished to deduce his justifica- 
 tion from it, but he would most confidently as- 
 sert, that, if the officer were in the course of a 
 trial driven to extremity, these words give him 
 an ample patent. 
 
 Mr. A. said, that it was now manifest to the 
 committee that he derived no part of General 
 Jackson's authority from the sentence of the 
 court-martial ; his power was possessed with- 
 out their interference, and might be exercised 
 in direct opposition to it. It may then be de- 
 manded, why was it convened ? This still pro- 
 duces no difficulty. It might be convenient to 
 the General to have its opinion and advice ; or 
 to have its aid in ascertaining the facts. But 
 you might go still farther, Mr. Chairman, and 
 admit, that to convene the court was useless, 
 and that General Jackson's conduct to it was 
 indecorous and insulting, and still the question 
 before us is not affected ; his lawful authority 
 was still the same. Any individual in private 
 life may ask, and then reject, the advice of his 
 friends ; this indeed is very rude, but his right 
 is undisputed. The commander of an army 
 frequently convenes his officers to hear their 
 opinions on the propriety of fighting or retreat- 
 ing, but no one ever doubted his authority to 
 reject their advice. The order for convening 
 the officers in this case, and the circumstances 
 of their having proceeded under all the forms 
 of a court, cannot change their character. If 
 the General possesses the power without them, 
 their sentence can be no more than advice. 
 
 It is evident, said Mr. A., from the reasons 
 which I have assigned, that my ground of jus- 
 tification does not cover Pensacola. As the 
 occupation of both posts is presented in the 
 resolution for censure, he could not, in any 
 event, vote for the general resolution ; but he 
 would not rest his vote on that ground ; he 
 would as promptly oppose the one as the other. 
 Before he could give his assent to this proposi- 
 tion, it must be established that every difference 
 of opinion authorized a vote of disapprobation. 
 Before he proceeded to examine the case, he 
 would make a reply to an observation which 
 had been repeatedly made in the debate. It 
 had been said that the passage of these resolu- 
 tions would convey no censure directly on the 
 
 officer ; that his name is not mentioned. Gen- 
 tlemen say that the first and third resolutions 
 are merely preambles, or recitals of the mis- 
 chief, which shows the necessity of adopting 
 the others, and founding a law on them. But, 
 Mr. Chairman, every vote which passes this 
 House receives a part of its character from the 
 debate which precedes it ; and, after the man- 
 ner of this debate, and the spirit which has 
 marked it, it is in vain to say that the passage 
 of these resolutions would not convey the 
 highest censure. 
 
 SATTTBDAY, January 30. 
 Seminole War. 
 
 The House then proceeded to the order of the 
 day, and again took up, in Committee of the 
 Whole, the report of the Military Committee, 
 on the subject of the Seminole war. 
 
 Mr. LOWKDES, of South Carolina, said, that 
 before he entered into the consideration of the 
 arguments on which he supposed that the de- 
 termination of the resolutions before the com- 
 mittee should principally depend, he would ad- 
 vert, for a moment, to some observations made 
 by the Speaker, in relation to the treaty of Fort 
 Jackson. His absence from this country at the 
 period of the treaty, and for some time after it, 
 sufficiently accounted for his information being 
 incorrect upon this topic. He had said that it 
 would have been worthy the generosity of the 
 Government to have given some consideration 
 to the Indians, for the cessions of land which it 
 obtained. The records of the country would 
 show that this was the course actually pursued. 
 After the ratification of the treaty of Fort Jack- 
 son, the journal of the commissioners who made 
 't, was laid before the House of Representatives. 
 It contained a declaration of the chiefs who 
 signed the treaty, that they were not satisfied 
 with its terms, although they would not with- 
 hold the signature which was insisted on. The 
 same paper furnished the proof that the ces- 
 sions in the treaty were not made with the free 
 consent of the chiefs, and an exposition of the 
 terms on which that consent would have been 
 given. The House of Representatives, he be- 
 ieved, by a unanimous vote, passed a bill, 
 which gave to the Indians the terms, with 
 which, at the conferences at Fort Jackson, they 
 had declared that they would be fully satisfied. 
 This bill had become a law, and, if the condi- 
 tions of the treaty had been such as it was harsh 
 to exact, the Government, which gave a sum 
 exceeding one hundred thousand dollars, as an 
 equivalent for a cession which, by treaty, was 
 ;o have been made without any equivalent, had 
 pursued precisely the conduct which the Speaker 
 aad declared he could have wished. 
 
 Mr. L. would not say that the act was liberal 
 and magnanimous. Such praise should be re- 
 served for greater occasions. But it AVOS just. 
 Nor had he ever heard, nor did he believe, that 
 the conduct of the United States, after the 
 treaty of Fort Jackson, had given ground of
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 299 
 
 JANUARY, 1819.] 
 
 The Seminole War. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 complaint to the Creek nation, inhabiting with- 
 in their boundaries. Fugitives, indeed, from 
 the nation, unwilling or afraid to trust them- 
 selves among their countrymen, had sought 
 refuge in Florida, but their flight did not divest 
 the nation of the rights of negotiation and gov- 
 ernment. Nor did they pretend it. They sought 
 only lor personal safety, and, at the date of the 
 Tre'aty of Ghent, there was no war between the 
 United States and any part of the Creek nation. 
 
 Mr. L. said that he considered himself fortu- 
 nate in having an opportunity of addressing 
 the Chair, immediately after the gentleman from 
 Kentucky, (Mr. AXDEBSON,) who had just taken 
 his seat. He did not concur, in general, in the 
 conclusions which that gentleman had formed, 
 but he should gladly follow his example, in ab- 
 staining from the discussions of questions which 
 were not necessary to the decision of the resolu- 
 tions before the committee. And upon questions 
 of this sort more than half of the debate ap- 
 peared to him to have turned. 
 
 There was no resolution before the commit- 
 tee declaring that the President was not au- 
 thorized to direct the march of our troops into 
 those parts of the Seminole country which lay 
 beyond the boundary of the United States. He 
 should not discuss the question. He unequivo- 
 cally admitted the right. 
 
 There was no resolution before the commit- 
 tee declaring that the Government of the United 
 State-.* was not authorized, by the unfriendly 
 conduct of Spain, to occupy Florida, or to resort 
 to general hostilities. He would not discuss 
 this question. He agreed with every member 
 who had spoken, that Congress had the right 
 to declare war against Spain, if it thought it 
 expedient so to do. 
 
 But had General Jackson the right to take 
 possession of St. Marks and Pensacola? Had 
 the President of the United States the right ? 
 The rights of his subordinate officer were not 
 greater than his own. 
 
 Gentlemen must recollect the deliberations 
 upon this subject during the last session ; the 
 notice of a proposal by a member from Georgia 
 for the seizure of Florida the decision of the 
 Committee of Foreign Kelations against the 
 expediency of seizing it the acquiescence of 
 the House in the opinion of their committee. If 
 any man had suggested, during the last session, 
 that Congress, by avoiding the determination 
 of the question of occupying Florida, would 
 have left it open to the decision of the President, 
 or the General, the suggestion would have been 
 heard with utter incredulity. If, Congress 
 could have believed that by their omission to 
 act, the power of changing the pacific relations 
 of the country would have been devolved upon 
 any executive officer, ho did not doubt that 
 they would have directed, explicitly, what 
 those relations should be. But who could have 
 foreseen that the very circumstances which in 
 March last were insufficient to give the sanction, 
 even of political expediency, to the occupation 
 of Florida, were soon after to be the principal 
 
 constituents of a military necessity, which would 
 justify a General in taking what the Congress 
 of the United States had determined not to take ? 
 
 The power of declaring war is given only to 
 Congress. To employ the army of the nation 
 for the purpose of taking possession by force of 
 the territory, the towns, and even the forts of 
 a foreign State, seems to fulfil every condition 
 which can be necessary to constitute an act of 
 war. If such an act be done by an officer who 
 has authority to do it, it is war. It was war, 
 then, if General Jackson was authorized by his 
 office, or by the legal orders of the President, to 
 take possession of Pensacola ; and to say that 
 he was authorized by neither, is at once to ad- 
 mit the truth of the position taken in the resolu- 
 tion. A necessity, indeed, which would make 
 the act involuntary, would change its character 
 of hostility ; but he must reserve this topic of 
 necessity for another part of his argument. It 
 was not alone, however, the power of declaring 
 war which was given to Congress ; the power 
 of employing force against the property or pos- 
 sessions of a foreign nation, under circumstan- 
 ces which do not amount to war, is also confided 
 to the same authority. 
 
 The framers of the constitution did not re- 
 pose that happy confidence in Executive or mili- 
 tary officers which might have induced them to 
 give to Congress only the right of proclaiming 
 a solemn and general war, and to leave to the 
 Executive or the military the right of engaging 
 in partial hostilities. If the people of Pen- 
 sacola, encouraged by the local government, 
 had employed their ships in directly plundering 
 our property, the principles of national law 
 would justify the United States in giving to 
 their citizens the indemnity which the capture of 
 Spanish ships would afford. But by whom must 
 this capture be authorized ; by whom must letters 
 of marque be issued in other words, by whom 
 must the employment of force against the prop- 
 erty of a foreign nation, under circumstances 
 which do not amount to war, be directed ? 
 By the Congress of the United States, And is 
 there, then, plausibility in the argument which 
 supposes that the President or the General may 
 take, by force, the acknowledged territory of a 
 foreign power, or even besiege and assault his 
 forts and this, under a constitution which, by 
 the plainest words, reserves to the Legislature 
 the exclusive power of authorizing the capture 
 even of a schooner on the high seas ? 
 
 Mr. L. considered it clear that the President 
 had no right to authorize the capture of St. 
 Marks and Pensacola. And the documents 
 upon the table sufficiently proved that such 
 was the view he had taken of his own powers. 
 To have retained Pensacola, even until the 
 meeting of Congress, would have been, he says, 
 to have changed the relations between the two 
 countries. To such a change (he adds) the 
 power of the Executive is incompetent. To 
 have- retained Pensacola for a month or two, 
 against the will of Spain, would have been war ; 
 the order for its restoration was therefore given,
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 The Seminde War. 
 
 [JANUARY, 1819. 
 
 promptly, and without the slightest intimation 
 of any change in the condition of the Indian 
 enemy, or of our own army, which would make 
 its retention less necessary or less justifiable 
 than its original capture. Are we, then, to be- 
 lieve that, to have retained possession of Pensa- 
 cola for a few months, against the will of Spain, 
 would have been war, and that to have taken it 
 by force, to have entered it by military capitu- 
 lation, was not an act of war; that it did not 
 even imply any change in the state of our foreign 
 relations, to which the power of the Executive 
 was incompetent ? 
 
 Mr. L. had referred to the President's convic- 
 tion of a want of authority on his part, to re- 
 tain or to take Pensacola, with no view of sub- 
 stituting authority for argument: but by an in- 
 genious construction of vague and general 
 phrases, an attempt had been made to show 
 that powers sufficiently large had been given 
 to General Jackson to authorize the occupation 
 of Pensacola. He did not wish to engage in 
 this verbal criticism. A sufficient proof that 
 the President did not design to give any power 
 for occupying Pensacola, was found in this, that 
 he did not consider himself authorized to give 
 any. Argument, however, upon this subject, 
 was as unnecessary as criticism. The gentle- 
 man from New York (Mr. STOKES) had proved, 
 by the extracts which he had read from the 
 President's message and from Mr. Adams's let- 
 ter, that the occupation of St. Marks and Pen- 
 sacola was without the authority of the Govern- 
 ment, and on the responsibility of the command- 
 ing General. 
 
 The President, then, had no right to give an 
 order for the occupation of the places in ques- 
 tion, and he had given none. But he had given 
 orders, the fair and obvious import of which 
 forbade the occupation of St. Marks and Pensa- 
 cola. If the Indians took shelter under a Span- 
 ish fort, the General was not to attack them, 
 but to notify the Department of the fact. Now, 
 he would ask the committee for a moment to 
 suppose that the Indians, beaten and pursued 
 through their swamps, had . actually taken re- 
 fuge under the guns of Pensacola. What would 
 have been the situation of General Jackson? 
 What his powers and duties ? The very exi- 
 gency foreseen, and provided for by the instruc- 
 tions of the War Department, would have 
 occurred. He could not have attacked the 
 Indians or the fort, because it sheltered them ; 
 could he have attacked both for other reasons ? 
 What would have been his letter of justification 
 to the Secretary of War if he had done so ? Sir, 
 the very contingency has occurred which your 
 letter has anticipated. The Indians have taken 
 shelter under a Spanish fort. Not authorized 
 on this account to have attacked them, I should 
 have merely notified the Department of the 
 fact. But other circumstances justified a dif- 
 ferent conduct. I found not merely that the 
 Indians had taken shelter under a Spanish fort, 
 but that when there the Spaniards gave them 
 aid and comfort, and access and information, 
 
 and ammunition and provision. On these 
 grounds they became associates in the war. 
 Must not the answer of the Executive Govern- 
 ment to a letter of this sort have been that, in 
 ordering no attack to be made upon Indians 
 sheltered under a Spanish fort, the Preskli-nt 
 had ordered that upon no evidence of associa- 
 tion or connection between Indians and Span- 
 iards, should the General undertake to attack 
 the fort of a nation with which we were at 
 peace ; that the President well understood that 
 Indians do not move with magazines and pro- 
 visions, and all the equipage of war ; that when 
 he anticipated the event of their taking shelter 
 under a Spanish fort, all those acts of communi- 
 cation, aid, and supply, were supplied, without 
 which their shelter would have been decoy and 
 destruction ? If all the circumstances on which 
 General Jackson rests his defence for occupying 
 Pensacola, had been enforced by the much 
 stronger circumstance of an embodied Indian 
 force lying at the time under its walls, he would 
 have disobeyed his instructions in attacking 
 either the Indians or the fort. Does it come to 
 this, that General Jackson was authorized to 
 attack the fort because the Indians had not 
 taken shelter under it ? 
 
 But what occasion, it has been said, is there 
 to do any thing on the subject ? None ; if Gen- 
 eral Jackson did not exceed the powers with 
 which he was intrusted ; but if he exerted one 
 of the highest prerogatives of government which 
 is confined to no less authority than the entire 
 Legislature of the country, are we willing to 
 
 and when we do not to let anybody else as- 
 sume them ? The character of General Jackson 
 is said to be implicated in the vote which is 
 proposed. The opinion of the world and of 
 posterity will not be affected by that vote. 
 There is nothing in the fact or the resolution to 
 impeach his military glory or his patriotism. 
 But the character of the country does not de- 
 pend alone upon its military exploits. Its civil 
 institutions, its liberty and laws, are elements 
 of the national reputation quite as valuable. 
 To suppress our disapprobation, if it were merit- 
 ed, would not raise the character of General 
 Jackson, but would impair our own. 
 
 He could, indeed, suppose cases where power 
 not given by the constitution might be assumed 
 by an Executive officer rightly and necessarily ; 
 but he could suppose none in which this as- 
 sumption should be passed over in silent acqui- 
 escence. Indemnity might be extended to the 
 officer and justification to the act, but the abso- 
 lute necessity, which could alone furnish that 
 justification, should be recorded by the vigi- 
 lant guardians of the constitution. 
 
 He should therefore vote without hesitation 
 for the resolution disapproving the occupation 
 of St. Marks and Pensacola. But upon the 
 subjects of the other resolutions, his views dif- 
 fered from those of the gentlemen with whom 
 he fully concurred in that of which he had been 
 speaking hitherto.
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 301 
 
 FEBRUARY, 1819.] 
 
 The Seminole War. 
 
 [H. OP R. 
 
 As to the condemnation of Ambrister, he be- 
 lieved, that the power of military execution 
 was inseparably connected with that of direct- 
 ing the military force of the State against an 
 enemy. That enemy must be attacked. Who 
 has the power of receiving their capitulation 
 or surrender? of admitting them into the peace 
 of the country ? Not only the usages of war, 
 but the principles of humanity and virtue, re- 
 quire that the unresisting enemy should be 
 spared in general ; but this obligation of mercy 
 is not universal. It is not held to extend to 
 those who have broken their parole ; nor, by a 
 much stronger reason, to those who make of 
 war an indiscriminate massacre. The right of 
 military execution was, indeed, at least as easily 
 to be 'deduced from first principles, as that of 
 execution for civil crimes. In neither case was 
 wanton severity to be justified. The Execu- 
 tive Magistrate must decide whether mercy can 
 be safely extended to the obdurate offender 
 against municipal law, and the commanding 
 General, whether quarter can be prudently 
 given to the* savage, who himself does not give 
 it. He did not mean, however, to engage in 
 the argument upon this topic, which had been 
 very fully discussed, but merely to state the 
 opinion that, in ordering the execution of Am- 
 brister, against the advice of a council which 
 he had summoned, General Jackson had not 
 exceeded his military authority, although he 
 had indeed assumed a high responsibility. 
 
 The case of Arbuthnot appeared to him dif- 
 ferent in its principles. He did not see how 
 the right of military execution could be applied 
 to any man, who was found under the protec- 
 tion of a nation with which we were at peace. 
 He supposed it restricted to enemies taken in 
 war, and limited both in time and place. 
 Whether our occupation of St. Marks were 
 friendly or hostile, he did not understand how 
 its inhabitants, whether combatants or not, 
 had become subject to military execution. Nor, 
 though it were true, that an atrocious crime 
 would otherwise have gone unpunished, did he 
 admit that a military tribunal should be called 
 in whenever it may be feared that justice would 
 otherwise be disappointed of its victim. Mr. 
 L. said that he had been struck with the indif- 
 ference which had been displayed throughout 
 the argument to what he deemed most impor- 
 tant principles of national law ; that the juris- 
 diction of crimes shall be confined to the nation 
 in which they are committed, and that the 
 Government which is injured must obtain its 
 redress from the nation which permits them to 
 pass unpunished. He knew no State more in- 
 terested in the maintenance of these principles 
 than the United States. They were, indeed, 
 necessary to the independence of all nations. 
 
 Mr. L. said that he should not vote for either 
 of the bills which it was proposed to bring in. 
 For the bill which required the sanction of the 
 President, in time of Indian war, to tin 
 tion of a captive, he objected, because, if this 
 power should be lodged in an executive officer 
 
 at all, in what officer it should be lodged must 
 depend upon considerations only of expediency ; 
 and it was necessary to its prompt and useful 
 exercise, that the decision of the General should 
 not wait upon that of the President. 
 
 Where the troops of the United States can- 
 not be marched beyond our boundary without 
 committing an act of war against a nation with 
 which we are at peace, he believed that the 
 constitution now prohibits their march, unless 
 by the authority of Congress. Mr. L. had no 
 faith in the benefits of the supplementary law 
 which was proposed. But there might be many 
 cases in which troops might be properly march- 
 ed beyond the United States without com- 
 mencing war; either where war had been 
 made against us by another nation, or where a 
 territory, in our neighborhood, was abandoned 
 by its Government. He could not willingly 
 add to the evils of an act which he deeply re- 
 gretted, by making it the occasion of an im- 
 provident law. 
 
 MONDAY, February 1. 
 Seminole War. 
 
 The House then again resolved itself into a 
 Committee of the Whole on this subject, Mr. 
 BASSETT in the Chair. 
 
 Mr. H. NELSON resumed the remarks which 
 he commenced on Saturday, and spoke about 
 two hours -in opposition to the resolutions of 
 censure. 
 
 Mr. TYLER, of Virginia, said that he owed an 
 apology to the committee for rising at so late 
 a period of the debate to address it. He pro- 
 posed to present a very brief sketch of the 
 views he had taken on this interesting subject. 
 At the onset, I close in, Mr. Chairman, with 
 the position laid down by the gentleman who 
 has just addressed you, (Mr. NELSON,) and say, 
 that, however great may have been the ser- 
 vices of General Jackson, I cannot consent to 
 weigh those services against the constitution of 
 the land. Other gentlemen will, no doubt, 
 yield me the correctness of this position. Your 
 liberties cannot be preserved by the fame of 
 any man. The triumph of the hero may swell 
 the pride of your country elevate you in the 
 estimation of foreign nations give to you a 
 character for chivalry and valor ; but recollect, 
 I beseech you, that the sheet anchor of our 
 safety is to be found in the constitution of our 
 country. Say that you ornament these walls 
 with the trophies of victory that the flags of 
 conquered nations wave over your head, what 
 avails these symbols of your glory if your con- 
 stitution be destroyed? To this pillar then 
 will I cling. Measures not men and I beg 
 gentlemen to recollect it, has ever been our 
 favorite motto. Shall we abandon it now? 
 Why do gentlemen point to the services of the 
 hero in former wars ? For his conduct there 
 lie ha> received a nation's plaudits, and won 
 our gratitude. We come to other acts. If our
 
 302 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 or R.] 
 
 The Seminole War. 
 
 [FEBRUARY, 1819. 
 
 motto be just, we must look alone to the ac, 
 not the actor. It is only then that we shall 
 judge correctly. A Eepublic, sir, should sub- 
 stitute the Koman Manlius, and disapprove the 
 conduct of her dearest son, if that son has erred. 
 From what quarter do you expect your liber- 
 ties to be successfully invaded? Not from the 
 man whom you despise ; against him you are 
 always prepared to act his example will not 
 be dangerous. But, sir, you have more to fear 
 from a nation's favorite ; from him whose path 
 has been a path of glory ; who has won your 
 gratitude and confidence against his errors 
 you have to guard, lest they should grow into 
 precedents and become in the end the law of 
 the land. It is the precedent growing out of 
 the proceeding in this case that I wish to guard 
 against. It is this consideration, and this only, 
 which will induce me to disapprove the conduct 
 of General Jackson. 
 
 Our sympathies have been appealed to in his 
 behalf. There exists no cause for the appeal. 
 Are we about, by this vote, to wither the lau- 
 rels which bloom on his brow to deprive him 
 of character, of standing-? No, sir, we arraign 
 not his motives. On all hands it is conceded 
 to his supporters that his motives were correct. 
 Did we insist that he had intendedly violated the 
 constitution and the law, then should we make 
 a charge, which, if supported, would properly 
 degrade him in the estimation of all good men. 
 But we make no such charge we disapprove 
 only his acts. Is this a vote of censure of the 
 odious character which it has been represented 
 to be ? Censure implies bad motives and bad 
 acts. Say, if you please, that I have shot my 
 arrow over the house and wounded my brother. 
 He complains of my act, not my intentions, 
 because he is aware they were innocent ; but, 
 although he neither upbraids nor censures me, 
 the wound still festers in his side. Is there not 
 even a wide distinction between a vote of cen- 
 sure, in the obvious acceptation of the term, 
 and a vote of disapproval? Is there any thing 
 more common than for an officer ordering a 
 court-martial to disapprove the sentence of the 
 court, and direct it to reconsider its opinion 
 and yet, was ever such disapproval esteemed a 
 censure on the court ? An inferior court gives 
 an erroneous opinion ; an appeal is taken to a 
 superior tribunal; the opinion of the inferior 
 court is reversed was such reversal ever con- 
 strued to imply a censure on the judge ? You 
 differ from me in opinion. You disapprove my 
 premises and the deductions therefrom. Sir, 
 was it ever heard of before, that this difference 
 of opinion required us to regard each other as 
 such objects of censure, as to interrupt our har- 
 mony or mutual respect and confidence? We 
 do nothing here but combat the opinions and 
 actions of the General, and if gentlemen will 
 have it so, of the Executive. Shall we be de- 
 nied the liberty of boldly and manfully express- 
 ing this difference of sentiment? Sir, I pro- 
 test against this slavery of the mind. The body 
 may be enchained and bowed to earth, but that 
 
 ethereal essence resists your power aud scoffs 
 all efforts to enthral it. 
 
 What are the points of difference arising out 
 of this case ? Gentlemen justify the capture of 
 St. Marks on the plea of necessity ; we contend 
 that no such necessity existed ; and believing 
 so, we disapprove the capture. We agree, in 
 our premises, that the General would only have 
 been authorized to seize a neutral post, in order 
 either to save his army, or to guard the post 
 against the imminent hazard of falling into the 
 hands of his enemy. We call upon gentlemen 
 for the proof of the existence of such necessity, 
 or of such danger. The letter of the Governor 
 of Pensacola, informing General Jackson that 
 the garrison of St. Marks was too weak to de- 
 fend itself against a hostile attack, and' that 
 the enemy had made demonstrations of an in- 
 tention to seize it, will not justify him in having 
 taken possession at the time he did. Before he 
 approached, the danger had retired; no force 
 was before it, nor within a great distance of it ; 
 nor had he any enemy in his rear, and his army 
 was easily thrown between the fort and the 
 foe. Sir, every document on your table goes 
 to prove that the Indians were defeated, their 
 forces broken, and that they had sought shelter 
 and protection from the ruin and destruction 
 which pursued them, in their swninps and 
 hiding places. An attack on St. Marks was, 
 therefore, rendered improbable. But admit, 
 for the sake of argument, that this was not the 
 case ; nay, Mr. Chairman, to give to our oppo- 
 nents the strongest of all possible cases, let us 
 imagine the Indians in possession of the fort 
 would your army have been in danger ? Can 
 any gentleman believe it? Sir, did you ever 
 hear of an Indian using cannon in action ? 
 Their situation would, indeed, have been ludi- 
 crous. I submit it, in the spirit of candor, to 
 gentlemen to say, if the General could more ar- 
 dently have wished for any event, than that 
 the enemy should have concentrated the whole 
 of his forces at St. Marks, with the settled de- 
 termination of holding the post. He would 
 have been saved the fatigue of marching fur- 
 ther; one action would have terminated the 
 sufferings of his army; the defence would have 
 been weak and unavailing, and a new spark of 
 glory would have illumined the crest of the 
 hero. 
 
 The remarks which I have made relative to 
 the seizure of St. Marks, are now strongly ap- 
 plicable to that of Pensacola. It is in vain you 
 tell me that the Governor was destitute of 
 principle had violated his neutrality had giv- 
 en shelter to a poor, miserable, broken, and de- 
 feated foe a foe, who, like the hunted beast of 
 the forest, had held you but a moment at bay, 
 and was then flying to his secret places, far 
 from the haunts of civilized man, to hide him- 
 self from the desolating vengeance which pur- 
 sued him. Sir, I carry you back to my first 
 position. Congress, and not the General, was 
 alone authorized to make war upon him. Will 
 it be said, that necessity, which justifies all
 
 
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 303 
 
 FEBRUARY, 1819.] 
 
 The Seminole War. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 things, authorized its capture ? Where is it to 
 be found? Indians retreated to the town 
 were in possession of it, if gentlemen will ask 
 the admission. We require that the General 
 shall look to his orders. It is the very case 
 they contemplate he must report to the Exec- 
 utive. But a threat is made you are braved 
 to your teeth. The gauntlet of defiance is 
 thrown you are threatened with an attack 
 let it come on. The storm has no terror for 
 the brave, nor can the frown of the Spaniard 
 shake the soul of the hero. But there was no 
 danger to be apprehended. The Governor had 
 no force with which to make the attack. My 
 honorable friend from Virginia, (Mr. BABBOUR,) 
 in graduating the necessity of. this case, states, 
 that if the attack had been made, Jackson 
 would have been justified in seizing Pensacola. 
 True, his right to seize might have existed, but 
 he could have held it only for a moment. The 
 assailant vanquished, the General would have 
 been compelled to have returned to him his 
 armor. 
 
 As to the remaining points of inquiry, I shall 
 be very brief. Sir, my only object is to present 
 you what I esteem the strong points of these 
 questions. I do not wish, even if I had the 
 power, to perplex you with subtle and ingenious 
 reasoning. My object is to meet the questions 
 fairly to encounter the arguments of honorable 
 gentlemen with such force as I can, and to con- 
 tribute, as far as my humble talents will per- 
 mit me, in elucidating this interesting subject. 
 If, Mr. Chairman, the capture of St. Marks was 
 unauthorized, the execution of Arbuthnot must 
 of necessity have been so. Spain was a neutral 
 in the war. Her flag, therefore, for he was in 
 St. Marks, protected Arbuthnot from your 
 power. This is the principle for which we have 
 never ceased to contend. The same principle 
 prevails on the land and on the ocean. If this 
 man had been on board a Spanish vessel, ac- 
 cording to this rule, one of your naval officers 
 would have had no authority to have dragged 
 him from on board that vessel and punished 
 him with death. 
 
 The execution of Ambrister and the two In- 
 dian chiefs I consider equally indefensible. Al- 
 though the reasoning applicable to the case of 
 Arbuthnot is not applicable to that of Ambris- 
 ter, yet all the reasons which go to show the 
 impropriety of the execution of the latter, apply 
 also to the former. I shall not stop to inquire 
 whether the court-martial was properly organ- 
 ized, or proceeded with due solemnity and form. 
 This has already been sufficiently canvassed, 
 and in my estimation constitutes only a second- 
 ary branch of inquiry. I reason from great 
 principles recognized by the law of nations. 
 That law recognizes but one reason cogent 
 enough to authorize a General to put to death his 
 prisoners. And that is, " where the safety of 
 his men requires it." Was that safety impli- 
 cated by suffering a wretch to live ? Was the 
 existence of his men or his army endangered in 
 the life of a miserable vampire who had crawled 
 
 from the sinks of European corruption, and had 
 visited this western shore, either to exist in the 
 commission of crime himself, or on the enormi- 
 ties of others ? Or did the continuance of the 
 lives of his Indian captives threaten discomfi- 
 ture and overthrow ? It cannot be pretended. 
 The first was too insignificant to have excited 
 such fears the power of the last was broken, 
 and all their efforts defeated. The rifle and 
 tomahawk had been struck from their hands, 
 and they were prisoners, defenceless and dis- 
 armed. Sir, would it not have better comported 
 with your national character, if, instead of exe- 
 cuting these captives, the General had said to 
 them, " go, I give you your liberty : go to your 
 few surviving warriors, and tell them that that 
 nation against whose defenceless frontiers you 
 have raised the murderous scalping-knife, with 
 whom you have ever been at war, whose blood 
 you have delighted to drink that nation, so 
 abused, so insulted, has no law to punish you : 
 it restores you to your native forests, and has 
 only to ask that you will abandon your enmities, 
 and instruct your warriors how to respect her 
 rights." I cannot but think that this would 
 better have accorded with the principles of hu- 
 manity and the laws of nations. 
 
 TTTESDAY, February 2. 
 The Seminole War. 
 
 The House then again went into Committee 
 of the Whole, Mr. SMITH of Maryland in the 
 Chair, on this subject 
 
 Mr. POINDEXTEB spoke near three hours in 
 support of his opinions, and in reply to gentle- 
 men on the other side of the question. His 
 speech follows, entire. 
 
 Mr. POINDEXTEB addressed the Chair as fol- 
 lows: 
 
 I rise, Mr. Chairman, under the influence of 
 peculiar sensibility, to offer my sentiments on 
 the subject before tie committee. We are call- 
 ed upon to disrobe a veteran soldier of the well- 
 earned laurels which encircle his brow, to tar- 
 nish his fame by severe reproaches, and hand 
 down his name to posterity as the violator of 
 the sacred instrument which constitutes the 
 charter of our liberties, and of the benevolent 
 dictates of humanity, by which this nation has 
 ever been characterized and distinguished. 
 Were the sacrifice of this highly meritorious 
 citizen the only evil with which the proposed 
 resolutions are fraught, I should derive some 
 consolation from the reflection, that there is a 
 redeeming spirit in the intelligence and patriot- 
 ism of the great body of the people, capable of 
 shielding him against the deleterious conse- 
 quences meditated by the propositions on your 
 table. But there is another, and more serious 
 aspect, in which the adoption of these resolutions 
 must be viewed ; the direct and infallible tend- 
 ency which they involve, of enfeebling the 
 arm of this Government, in our pending nego- 
 tiation with Spain ; of putting ourselves in the
 
 304 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 The Seminole War. 
 
 [FEBRUARY, 1819. 
 
 wrong, and the Spanish Monarch in the right, 
 on the interesting and delicate points which 
 have so long agitated and endangered the peace 
 of the two countries. I wish not to be under- 
 stood as attributing to honorable gentlemen, 
 who advocate the measure, such motives ; they 
 are, doubtless, actuated alone by a sense of duty. 
 I speak of the effects which our proceedings are 
 calculated to produce, without intending to 
 cast the slightest imputation on those who en- 
 tertain different opinions. Sir, do we not know 
 with what delight and satisfaction the Minister 
 of Spain looks on the efforts which are made 
 on this floor to inculpate the Executive of the 
 United States, for having committed against his 
 immaculate master an act of hostility, in the 
 entrance into Florida, and the temporary occu- 
 pation of St. Marks and Pensacola ? With what 
 avidity and pleasure he peruses the able and 
 eloquent arguments delivered in the popular 
 branch of the Government, in support of the 
 weighty allegations which he has already ex- 
 hibited of the hostile and unwarrantable con- 
 duct of the commander of our army, during the 
 late campaign against the Seminole Indians? 
 And, sir, whatever may be the purity of inten- 
 tion, which I shall not presume to question, on 
 the part of gentlemen who censure the course 
 pursued by the commanding General, this de- 
 bate will afford a valuable fund, on which Spain 
 will not fail to draw, on all future occasions, to 
 show that the pacific relations which she has 
 endeavored to maintain, have been violated, 
 without an adequate cause, by the United States. 
 Shall we put it in her power to make this de- 
 claration to the civilized world, and establish 
 the fact by a reference to the Journal of the 
 House of .Representatives ? I hope and believe 
 we shall not. Sir, the nature of our free in- 
 stitutions imperiously requires that, on all ques- 
 tions touching controversies with foreign powers, 
 every Department of this Government should 
 act in concert, and present to the opposite party 
 one undivided, impenetrable front. The observ- 
 ance of this rule accords with every dictate of 
 patriotism ; and is the basis on which alone we 
 can preserve a proper respect for our rights 
 among the great family of nations. Internal 
 divisions are often fatal to the liberties of the 
 people ; they never fail to inflict a deep wound 
 on the national character ; the lustre and purity 
 of which it is our primary duty to preserve 
 unsullied, to the latest posterity. Can it be 
 necessary to call to the recollection of the com- 
 mittee the peculiar and delicate posture of our 
 relations with Spam ? A protracted and diffi- 
 cult negotiation, on the subject of boundary and 
 spoliations, is still progressing between the 
 Secretary of State and their accredited Minister, 
 at this place ; the result is yet extremely doubt- 
 ful; it may, and I trust will, eventuate in a 
 treaty satisfactory to the parties, on all the 
 points in contest; but, if Spain should con- 
 tinue to reject the moderate and reasonable de- 
 mands of this Government, the indisputable 
 rights of this nation must and will be asserted 
 
 and vindicated by a solemn appeal to anus. I 
 ask if, iii such a crisis, it is cither wise or pru- 
 dent to pronounce, in the face of the world, 
 that we have been the aggressors, and that war 
 in its most offensive and exceptionable sense has 
 been already commenced by General Jackson, 
 under the sanction of the President of the Unit- 
 ed States ? I hazard nothing in affirming that 
 such a departure from the established usages of 
 nations is without a parallel in the history of 
 any country, ancient or modern. Under what- 
 ever circumstances danger may threaten us from 
 abroad, it is from this House that the energies 
 of the people are to be aroused and put in mo- 
 tion ; it is our province to sound the alarm, and 
 give the impulse which stimulates every portion 
 of the Union to a simultaneous and manly exer- 
 tion of its physical strength, to avenge the in- 
 sulted honor and violated interests of our coun- 
 try. We are the legitimate organ of public 
 sentiment ; and it is incumbent on us to animate 
 and cherish a spirit of resistance to foreign en- 
 croachments among our constituents, by urging 
 the justice of our cause, and the necessity of 
 their vigorous co-operation in support of the 
 constituted authorities, who are responsible to 
 them for the faithful execution of the high and 
 important duties with which they are intrusted. 
 These are the means by which we shall perpet- 
 uate our Republican'form of Government, and 
 transmit its blessings' to future generations. But 
 we-are required on the present occasion to for- 
 get the wrongs of which we have so long and 
 so justly complained ; to abandon, for a while, 
 the lofty attitude of patriotism, and to tell the 
 American people, in anticipation of a rupture 
 with Spain, that it is a war of aggression on the 
 part of their chief Executive Magistrate, com- 
 menced in Florida without proper authority ; 
 that the Spanish Government can consider it 
 in no other light than premeditated, offensive 
 war, made on them with a view of extending 
 the territorial limits of the United States. The 
 expression of these opinions, by this body, must 
 cast a shade over the American name, which 
 no lapse of time can obliterate ; and, while we 
 nerve the arm of the enemy, we shall approach 
 the contest with an open denunciation against 
 the President, who is charged with its prosecu- 
 tion to a speedy and favorable termination. He 
 is denied the cheering consolation of Union, in 
 the Government over which he has been called 
 to preside, at a period of national peril, when 
 every man ought to be invited to rally around 
 the standard of his country. Sir, how is this 
 most novel and extraordinary aberration from 
 the legislative functions of the House attempted 
 to be explained and justified ? By gloomy pic- 
 tures of a violated constitution ; pathetic appeals 
 to humanity, in favor of a barbarous and unre- 
 lenting foe ; and lamentations over the blighted 
 honor and magnanimity of the nation. I, too, 
 am a conservator of the constitution ; I venerate 
 that stupendous fabric of human wisdom ; I love 
 my country, and will endeavor to rescue it from 
 the odious imputations which have been so
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 305 
 
 FEBRUARY, 1819.] 
 
 The Seminole War 
 
 [H. OF R 
 
 freely cast on it in the progress of this discus- 
 sion. I admonish gentlemen, who manifest such 
 ardent zeal to fortify the powers of this House 
 against military usurpations, that they do not 
 suffer that zeal to precipitate them into an error 
 equally repugnant to a sound construction of 
 the constitution. The report of the Committee 
 on Military Affairs, taken in connection with 
 the amendments proposed hy the honorable 
 member from Georgia, (Mr. COBB,) may be 
 classed under two general divisions. 1st. Res- 
 olutions of censure, on the conduct of General 
 Jackson, in Florida, for a violation of the orders 
 of the President, and of the constitution; and 
 for the unlawful execution of the incendiaries, 
 Arbuthnot and Ambrister. 2d. Instructions to 
 the committee to prepare and report two several 
 bills, the object of which is to divest this nation 
 of some of the most essential attributes of 
 sovereignty. I shall pass over the latter branch 
 of this subject without observation ; believing, 
 as I do, notwithstanding the high respect which 
 I entertain for the mover, that it is not seriously 
 the intention of honorable gentlemen, by an act 
 of legislation, to abrogate the rights of this 
 nation, founded on the universal law of nature 
 and of nations. Self-denial, though sometimes 
 an amiable quality in an individual member of 
 society, when applied to the whole community, 
 renders it obnoxious to insult and oppression, 
 and is a voluntary degradation, below the rank 
 of other sovereignties, to which no American 
 ought ever to submit. Neutral rights, and the 
 usages of war, are already well established and 
 understood by all civilized powers; and it is 
 not to be presumed that the interpolations which 
 are proposed would be reciprocated, and consti- 
 tute the basis of new principles of public law ; 
 we may prostrate our own dignity, and paralyze 
 the energies of our country, but we shall find 
 no nation so pusillanimous as to follow our disin- 
 terested example. 
 
 Considering, therefore, these propositions as 
 merely nominal, intended only to enlarge the 
 group, and give diversity to the picture, I shall 
 leave them without further animadversion, and 
 proceed to investigate the resolutions levelled at 
 the fame, the honor, and reputation, of General 
 Andrew Jackson; and, through him, at the 
 President, under whose orders he acted, and by 
 whom he has been sustained and vindicated. 
 Sir, I hold it to be the indispensable duty of 
 every tribunal, whether legislative or judicial, 
 to examine with caution and circumspection 
 into its jurisdiction and powers, on every ques- 
 tion brought before it for adjudication ; and this 
 rule ought more particularly to be observed in 
 cases involving personal rights and interests, 
 where the party to be affected by the decision 
 is not permitted to answer in his own defence. 
 I ask, then, sir, has the House of Representatives, 
 as a distinct and separate brancli of Congress, 
 the constitutional power to institute an inquiry 
 into the conduct of a military officer, and to 
 sentence him to be cashiered, suspended, or 
 censured ? I demand a satisfactory and explicit 
 VOL. VI 20 
 
 response to this interrogatory, founded on a re- 
 ference to the constitution itself, and not on the 
 undefined notions of expediency, in which gen- 
 tlemen may indulge ; and if it be not given, as. 
 I am very sure it cannot, we shall become the 
 violators of that fair fabric of liberty, and erect 
 a precedent more dangerous in its tendency, 
 than the multiplied infractions which have been 
 so vehemently alleged against General Jackson, 
 admitting them all the force and latitude which 
 the most enthusiastic censor could desire. Sir, 
 it is high time to bring back this debate to first 
 principles, and to test our jurisdiction over this 
 case, by a recurrence to the structure of the 
 Government of which we are a component part. 
 Let us pluck the beam from our own eyes, be- 
 fore we seek to expel the mote which gentle- 
 men seem to have discovered in the vision of 
 General Jackson. The sages and patriots who 
 established the foundation of this Republic have, 
 with a wisdom and forecast bordering on inspi- 
 ration, carefully marked and distributed the 
 powers delegated in the constitution to the 
 Federal Government among the several depart- 
 ments, Legislative, Executive, and Judiciary. 
 No principle is better settled, or more generally 
 conceded, than that the powers properly belong- 
 ing to one of these departments ought not to be 
 directly administered by either of the others. 
 The violation of this maxim leads, by inevitable 
 results, to the downfall of our Republican in- 
 stitutions, and the consolidation of all power in 
 that branch which shall possess the strongest 
 influence over the public mind. Upon the in- 
 dependent exercise of the powers confided to 
 each department, uncontrolled, directly or in- 
 directly, by the encroachments of either, de- 
 pends the security of life, liberty, and property, 
 and the stability of that constitution which is 
 the pride of our country and the admiration of 
 mankind. The honorable gentleman from 
 Georgia has adverted to the opinions of the 
 immortal author of the letters of Publius, the 
 late Chief Magistrate of the United States ; and 
 the honorable Speaker has also invited our 
 attention to that great constitutional lawyer. 
 They triumphantly ask, what he would say on 
 the present question, were he a member of this 
 House ? I will not follow the example of these 
 gentlemen, by substituting declamation for 
 historical truth, or vague surmises, and assumed 
 premises, for record evidence ; but, while I ac- 
 cord to the distinguished statesman and patriot, 
 whose exertions so eminently contributed to 
 the establishment of this Government, and 
 whose exposition of its fundamental principles 
 cannot be too highly appreciated, all the merit 
 of a useful life, devoted to the public service, 
 guided by wisdom, virtue, and integrity; I 
 appeal with pleasure and confidence to his able 
 pen in support of the position which I have ad- 
 vanced, and which I deem an important point 
 in the case under consideration. In the view 
 taken by Mr. Madison, of the " meaning of the 
 mixim which requires a separation of the de- 
 partments of power," he repels the arguments
 
 306 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 The Seminole War. 
 
 [FEBRUARY, 1819. 
 
 of the opponents to the adoption of the consti- 
 tution, founded on the apprehension of Execu- 
 tive supremacy over the Legislative and Judi- 
 ciary, which, it was contended, would ultimate- 
 ly render that branch the sole depository of 
 power, and subject the people of this country 
 to the despotic will of a single individual. Com- 
 paring the powers delegated to the Executive, 
 with those granted to the Legislature, and the 
 probable danger of an assumption by either of 
 the functions appertaining to the other, he says : 
 
 " In a Government where numerous and extensive 
 prerogatives are placed in the hands of a hereditary 
 monarch, the Executive department is very justly 
 regarded as the source of danger, and watched with 
 all the jealousy which a zeal for liberty ought to in- 
 spire. In a democracy, where a multitude of people 
 exercise in person the legislative functions, and are 
 continually exposed, by their incapacity for regular 
 deliberation and concerted measures, to the ambitious 
 intrigues of their Executive Magistrates, tyranny 
 may well be apprehended, on some favorable emer- 
 gency, to start up in the game quarter. But, in a rep- 
 resentative Republic, where the Executive Magis- 
 tracy is carefully limited, both in the extent and du- 
 ration of its power, and where the legislative power 
 is exercised by an assembly, which is inspired, by a 
 supposed influence over the people, with an intrepid 
 confidence in its own strength ; which is sufficiently 
 .numerous to feel all the passions which actuate a 
 multitude, yet not so numerous as to be incapable of 
 pursuing the objects of its passions, by means which 
 reason prescribes ; it is against the enterprising am- 
 bition of this department that the people ought to in- 
 dulge all their jealousy, and exhaust all their precau- 
 tions. The legislative department derives a superi- 
 ority in our Government from other circumstances. 
 Its constitutional powers being at once more exten- 
 sive, and less susceptible of precise limits, it can, 
 with the greater facility, mask, under complicated 
 and indirect measures, the encroachments which it 
 makes on the co-ordinate departments." 
 
 The correctness of the reasoning and predic- 
 tions of this great and good man, who is called 
 by the honorable Speaker the father of the con- 
 stitution, has been often demonstrated in the 
 practical operations of this body, and never 
 more forcibly than on the present occasion. 
 Scarcely a session of Congress passes without 
 some effort to enlarge the scope of our powers 
 by construction or analogy ; and unless these 
 systematic advances in this House to crush the 
 co-ordinate departments, by an unlimited exer- 
 cise of authority over all subjects involving the 
 general welfare, be resisted with firmness and 
 perseverance, they will, at no distant period, 
 eventuate in the destruction of those salutary 
 checks and balances so essential to the duration 
 of our happy form of Government, and to the 
 security of civil and political liberty. I depre- 
 cate every measure calculated to establish a 
 precedent, which, in its effects, may lead to 
 such dangerous consequences. An enlightened 
 statesman has said that the concentrating all 
 the powers of Government in the legislative 
 body is of the very essence of despotism; and 
 it is no alleviation that these powers will be ex- 
 
 ercised by a plurality of hands, and not by a 
 single one. " An elective despotism was not 
 the Government we fought for ; but one which 
 should not only be founded on free principles, 
 but in which the powers of Government should 
 be so divided and balanced among the several 
 bodies of magistracy, as that no one could tran- 
 scend their legal limits without being effectually 
 checked and restrained by the others." 
 
 Sir, whenever these principles shall cease to 
 be respected by the councils of this country, I 
 shall consider the grand experiment which we 
 have made in the administration of a govern- 
 ment of limited powers, founded on a written 
 instrument, in which they are specified and de- 
 fined, as altogether abortive, and as affording 
 strong proof of the regal maxim, that man is 
 incapable of self-government. If honorable 
 gentlemen mean any thing by the reverence 
 which they profess to feel for the constitution, 
 I conjure them to look to its provisions, and 
 forbear to adopt a measure in direct violation 
 both of its letter and spirit. By article 2d, 
 section 2, it is provided that " the President 
 shall be Commander-in-chief of the Army and 
 Navy of the United States, and of the militia of 
 the several States, when called into actual ser- 
 vice;" and by the 8th section of the 1st article, 
 Congress is vested with power to " make rules 
 for the government and regulation of the land 
 and naval forces." Congress has long since ful- 
 filled this duty ; rules and articles of war have 
 been sanctioned, and have continued to govern 
 the army from its organization up to the pres- 
 ent time ; in these the great principles of sub- 
 ordination and responsibility are graduated and 
 established, from the Commander-in-chief down 
 to the most petty officer and common soldier. 
 The President is placed by his country at the 
 head of its physical force, u to execute the laws 
 of the Union, suppress insurrection, and repel 
 invasion ;" he is the ultimate tribunal to decide 
 all questions touching the operations of the 
 army, and the conduct of the officers who com- 
 pose it. If there be any power, clearly and ex- 
 clusively belonging to the Executive, it is that 
 which appertains to the government of the 
 Army and Navy of the United States. Our 
 whole system of laws recognizes it ; and until 
 this extraordinary attempt to erect the House 
 of Representatives into a court-martial, with a 
 view to cast an indelible stain on the character 
 of General Jackson, without a fair and impar- 
 tial trial, in which he might confront his accu- 
 sers and be heard in his defence, no instance 
 can be shown, since the foundation of the Gov- 
 ernment, where the President has been inter 
 rupted in the full exercise of his legitimate au- 
 thority over the military officers under his com- 
 mand. The abuse of this power, or the im- 
 proper direction and application of the public 
 forces, by the Chief Magistrate, or by any sub- 
 ordinate officer, with his privity and assent, in 
 a manner, or for the accomplishment of objects 
 dangerous to the liberties of the people, or sub- 
 versive of the laws and constitution of the
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 307 
 
 FEBRUARY, 1819.] 
 
 The Seminole War. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 Union, will find a ready and suitable corrective 
 in this House, by an application of its power to 
 originate impeachment against the President, 
 Vice President, and all civil officers, for treason, 
 bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. 
 In this sense only can we be regarded as the 
 grand inquest of the nation, and not to the un- 
 limited extent for which gentlemen have con- 
 tended. The power to impeach the President 
 is expressly delegated ; all other civil officers 
 are liable to the same scrutiny, and the total 
 omission, in the article of the military depart- 
 ment, is, to my mind, conclusive evidence that 
 they were never intended to be subject to the 
 control of Congress, except in the usual course 
 of legislation, under the power to raise and 
 support armies. And this opinion is strengthen- 
 ed by the clause of the constitution to which I 
 have referred, directing Congress to provide for 
 the government and regulation of the land and 
 naval forces. The principle of official responsi- 
 bility is to be found in every page of the con- 
 stitution ; not a vague, uncertain responsibility, 
 but that which is unequivocal, certain, and 
 definite. We are answerable, at stated periods, 
 to the people by whom we have respectively 
 been chosen. The President is accountable to 
 the nation at large at the expiration of his term 
 of service ; and, in the mean time, we hold a 
 salutary check over his ambition, if he evince 
 such a disposition, by means of impeachment. 
 In like manner the whole civil department may 
 be punished for a wanton prostitution of their 
 official functions. The military and naval offi- 
 cers who command our army and navy are re- 
 sponsible directly to the Executive, who is their 
 chief, and, through him, indirectly, to the Rep- 
 resentatives of the people. Every link in the 
 chain is essential to the beauty and symmetry 
 of the whole; and, if preserved unbroken, 
 affords the most ample security against any usur- 
 pation of power withont a prompt and efficient 
 remedy to detect and restrain it. It is now pro- 
 posed to make this House the focus of every 
 power granted to the Federal Government ; to 
 mount the ramparts which separate the depart- 
 ments, and compel every man who holds a com- 
 mission to bow with submission to the gigantic 
 strength of this numerous assembly. Those 
 whom we cannot impeach we will censure, and 
 record their names as fit objects for the scorn 
 and detestation of posterity. Already we hold 
 the purse and the sword of the nation. All 
 legislation, must receive our concurrence, in 
 connection with the President and Senate, 
 before it has the force and effect of law. The 
 treaty-making power may be controlled by 
 us where an appropriation is required to fulfil 
 the contract the judiciary is at our feet, both 
 in respect to the extent of its jurisdiction and 
 the liability of its members to the summary 
 process of impeachment the President and 
 heads of department, foreign ministers, and the 
 whole catalogue of civil officers, stand in awe 
 of our frowns, and may be crushed by the 
 weight of our authority. I ask, then, sir, if 
 
 the officers of the army and navy are rendered 
 subservient to us as a censorial, inquisitorial 
 body, whether it will not amount to the " very 
 definition of despotism." Yes, sir, we shall, if 
 these resolutions pass, bear testimony of the 
 soundness of the political axiom, that it is 
 " against this department that the people ought 
 to indulge all their jealousy, and exhaust all 
 their precautions." But the constitution, in 
 this respect, has received a construction almost 
 contemporaneously with its adoption. As early 
 as the year 1792, a resolution was submitted, 
 by a distinguished member from Virginia, in 
 the House of Representatives, requesting the 
 President to institute an inquiry into the causes 
 of the defeat of the army under the command 
 of Major General St. Clair. The agitation pro- 
 duced by that momentous disaster seemed to 
 demand an investigation of the conduct of the 
 commanding General. A great public calamity 
 is always calculated to awaken feelings which, 
 for a moment, usurp the empire of reason, and 
 lead to excesses which sober reflection would 
 condemn. It was not, therefore, wonderful, 
 that a man of the soundest intellect, and most 
 enlightened understanding, should have felt it 
 his duty to call the attention of the President to 
 a subject so deeply interesting to the country, 
 
 signal and unfortunate defeat. The proposition 
 was fully discussed, and finally rejected by a 
 large majority, on the ground that it was an un- 
 warrantable interference with the constitutional 
 functions of the Chief Magistrate. The sub- 
 stance of the debate may be found in the news- 
 papers of that day ; and among those who ob- 
 jected to the measure are the names of Madison, 
 Ames, Baldwin, and many others who partici- 
 pated in the formation of the constitution, and 
 who were, consequently, better qualified to give 
 to it a sound interpretation. A committee was 
 subsequently appointed to inquire into the ex- 
 penditure of the public money in that campaign, 
 and other subjects of a general nature, connect- 
 ed with the legislative duties of Congress. 
 Again : in the year 1810, a committee was 
 raised to inquire into the conduct of General 
 James Wilkinson, in relation to a variety of 
 charges which had been publicly made against 
 him ; they were authorized to send for persons 
 and papers. The General was notified of their 
 sittings, allowed to attend in person before 
 them, to cross-examine the witnesses, to con- 
 front his accusers, to exhibit evidence in his 
 defence, and make such explanations as he 
 might think necessary to a vindication of his 
 conduct. The committee, after a very laborious 
 investigation, simply reported the facts to the 
 House, who resolved that the same be trans- 
 mitted to the President of the United States. 
 No opinion was expressed or intimated, as to 
 the guilt or innocence of the General ; no re- 
 quest was made of the President to institute a 
 court-martial, but he was left to the exercise of 
 his own discretion, unbiassed by the slightest 
 indication of the impression which the develop-
 
 308 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R] 
 
 The Seminole War. 
 
 [FEBRUARY, 1819. 
 
 ment had made on the House of Representa- 
 tives. The result, we all know, was, that a 
 general court-martial was immediately convened, 
 and General Wilkinson was honorably acquit- 
 ted: both principle and precedent, therefore, 
 combine in recommending a rejection of these 
 resolutions, which claim for this House a power, 
 not merely to request another department to 
 perform a particular duty, but assume the right 
 to adjudicate the case, and sentence an officer to 
 irretrievable infamy, without a hearing, and 
 without appeal, save only to his God and the 
 purity of his own conscience. 
 
 Permit me, sir, to present to the view of the 
 committee some of the unavoidable conse- 
 quences which will flow from this premature and 
 unauthorized proceeding. We announce to the 
 President, and to the nation, that General 
 Jackson, in the prosecution of the Seminole war, 
 has violated his orders and broken the consti- 
 tution of his country, and that, in the trial and 
 execution of Arbuthnot and Arabrister, he has 
 been guilty of the horrid crime of official mur- 
 der. We, on the part of the whole people, be- 
 come the informers, and thereby impose on the 
 President, as commander-in-chief of the army, 
 the indispensable obligation to adopt one of two 
 alternatives either to dismiss from the service 
 that officer, under our denunciations, or to as- 
 semble a regular court-martial to investigate 
 these charges, according to the forms prescribed 
 in the laws enacted for the government of the 
 army of the United States. The latter course, 
 being the one best adapted to the attainment of 
 justice, would, in all probability, be pursued. 
 He details a court-martial, composed of high- 
 minded military men ; charges and specifications 
 are exhibited; and the General, for the first 
 time, is allowed to answer to them guilty or 
 not guilty. He is put on his trial, and at the 
 very threshold he is informed that he has 
 already been found guilty by the highest tribunal 
 in the Union the Representatives of the Amer- 
 ican people. He, nevertheless, proceeds in 
 his defence, and is ultimately convicted, and 
 cashiered. Would not history record such a 
 conviction as the result of our prejudication of 
 the case ? Would not the whole world attri- 
 bute the downfall of this man to the monstrous 
 persecution and flagrant injustice of that un- 
 grateful country which he had so nobly de- 
 fended ? Yes, sir, to the latest posterity we 
 should be regarded as having passed an exparte 
 decree of condemnation, which the court-martial 
 were bound to register, to secure themselves 
 from similar animadversion. But let us suppose 
 that, unawed by the imposing dictum which we 
 shall have pronounced, the court-martial acquit 
 the General of the several charges and specifi- 
 cations on which he has been arrested. We 
 should then have the military of the country 
 arrayed against this body: we, acting under the 
 solemn obligation of our oaths, declare, that 
 General Jackson has been guilty of high crimes 
 and misdemeanors ; we are enabled to tear from 
 him his epaulettes ; and, when tried by his peers, 
 
 our opinions are scouted, and he is maintained 
 in the high rank from which we would have 
 degraded him. In such a controvery the only 
 arbiter is force. Sir, take either horn of the di- 
 lemma, and we have abundant reason to shun 
 the consequences which must follow the adop- 
 tion of the proposed resolutions. 
 
 Our total inability to enforce the will of the 
 majority, demonstrates most clearly the absence 
 of the right to express that will ; for, whatever 
 any branch of the Government can constitution- 
 ally decide, the means necessary to carry its de- 
 cision into execution can never be withheld or 
 questioned. Sir, I have been not a little amused 
 at the evasive contortions of honorable gentle- 
 men, who, to avoid the perplexing difficulties by 
 which they are enveloped, gravely affirm, that 
 neither the report of the Military Committee, 
 nor the resolutions respecting the seizure of the 
 posts of St. Marks and Pensacola, and fortress 
 of Barancas, contain a censure of General Jack- 
 son ; that they are harmless, inoffensive expres- 
 sions of opinion, upon the passing events relating 
 to the state of the Union. I put it to those 
 gentlemen for the argument has been resorted 
 to by all who have spoken whether, if I were 
 to address either of them in conversation, and 
 say, in the language of the propositions before 
 the committee, "Sir, you have violated the 
 Constitution of the United States, and of course 
 you are perjured. You have sentenced to death, 
 and executed two of your fellow-men, without 
 a fair trial, and contrary to all law, human and 
 divine ; consequently, your hands are stained 
 with their blood ;" would they calmly reply, 
 that my expressions conveyed no censure on 
 them, and were not repugnant to their feelings 
 or character, nor inconsistent with contempo- 
 raneous assurances of my high respect and con- 
 sideration ? Common sense revolts at conclu- 
 sions so ridiculous, drawn from such premises. 
 Add to this the express charge of a violation of 
 orders, which the President, it seems, is not 
 competent to determine for himself, and I may 
 venture to defy any gentleman to cover a mili- 
 tary officer with more odious epithets, or more 
 vindictive censure. No man, however elevated 
 his station, can withstand the overwhelming 
 force of such an assault on his reputation, com- 
 ing from this august body, after mature and 
 solemn deliberation. The exalted mind of 
 General Jackson would prefer even death to 
 this fatal blow, aimed at that which is more 
 dear to him than life his well-earned fame and 
 irreproachable honor. Sir, the immortal Wash- 
 ington was charged with a violation of the 
 constitution, in drawing money from the Treas- 
 ury to pay the militia who served in the cam- 
 paign against the insurgents in 1Y94, without an 
 appropriation made bylaw: but at that day 
 the secret of our power to censure had not been 
 discovered, and the transaction passed without 
 animadversion. It has remained for us to put 
 in motion this new engine of inquisitorial crimi- 
 nation, and to wield it against a man whose 
 arm was never extended but in defending the
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 309 
 
 FEBRUABY, 1819.] 
 
 The Seminole War. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 liberty and safety of his country against the 
 complicated enemies by whom it has been as- 
 sailed, and whose pure and unblemished patriot- 
 ism, combined with his invincible valor, forti- 
 tude, and perseverance, have shed over his brow 
 a resplendent ray of glory which neither clouds 
 nor tempests can obscure, so long as virtue shall 
 predominate over the envious and malignant 
 passions of the human heart. Yes, sir, we are 
 importuned to execrate the bloody deeds of the 
 Seminole war, to chant requiems over the 
 tombs of Arbuthnot and Ambrister, and to 
 mourn over the wreck of our fallen constitu- 
 tion ; and, in an instant, as if by enchantment, 
 the horrid picture vanishes from our affrighted 
 imaginations, and eludes even the grasp of keen- 
 eyed malice ; and we hear the moral integrity 
 and innocence of all these transactions an- 
 nounced from the same lips which utter their 
 condemnation. The motives and intentions of 
 General Jackson are eulogized and applauded by 
 his most inveterate accusers. All the errors 
 ascribed to him, and for which honorable gen- 
 tlemen are prepared to immolate his character, 
 and render his name, hitherto so dear to his 
 countrymen, odious and detestable, are attrib- 
 uted to the impetuous ardor of his zeal to pro- 
 mote the general good, and give peace and 
 security to our defenceless frontier. 
 
 lie fills a space in the public eye, and com- 
 mands a portion of the affection and confidence 
 of his fellow-citizens, too copious and extensive 
 to be tolerated by the sharp-sighted politician, 
 whose splendid eloquence fades and evaporates 
 before the sunshine of renown, lighted up by 
 the unparalleled achievements of the conqueror 
 of the veterans of Wellington. These modern 
 casuists endeavor to magnify an unintentional 
 violation of the constitution into a crime of the 
 blackest enormity, which can neither be ex- 
 tenuated nor forgiven. Are they willing to 
 make this system of political ethics applicable to 
 themselves, and to have their names specified 
 on the Journal as culprits at the bar of an 
 offended people, stamped with infamy and 
 disgrace, if at any time they have, with the best 
 intentions, given a vote, which, on a review of 
 the subject, was found to conflict with some 
 provision of the constitution ? What member 
 of this House can say, with certainty, that he 
 has, on all occasions, construed the constitution 
 correctly ? And who among us would be satis- 
 fied to. stake all his hopes and prospects on the 
 issue of an investigation, which, disregarding 
 all respect for the purity of the motive, should 
 seek only to discover an inadvertent error, re- 
 sulting from a defect of judgment in the attain- 
 ment of objects identified with the best interests 
 of the nation ? Sir, if I mistake not, the hon- 
 orable Speaker, and several other gentlemen, 
 who have manifested great solicitude, and dis- 
 played a torrent of eloquence to urge the expe- 
 diency of passing the proposed censure on the 
 conduct of General Jackson, and who unhesitat- 
 ingly admit the innocence of his intentions, wi mid 
 be placed in an unpleasant situation by the ope- 
 
 ration of the rule which they are anxious to 
 prescribe in this case. A few short years past, 
 these honorable gentlemen were the champions 
 who resisted the renewal of the charter of the 
 old Bank of the United States. At that day 
 they held the original act of incorporation to 
 be a usurpation of power, not delegated to Con- 
 gress by the constitution, and to their exertions 
 we were indebted for the downfall of that in- 
 stitution. The same distinguished members, at 
 a subsequent period, acting under the high ob- 
 ligations of duty, and the solemnity of their 
 oaths to support the Constitution of the United 
 States, aided and assisted in establishing the 
 mammoth bank, which now threatens to sweep 
 with the besom of destruction every other 
 moneyed institution in the nation into the gulf 
 of ruin and bankruptcy. It will not be pre- 
 tended that both these opposite opinions were 
 correct ; and yet I should be very sorry either 
 to impugn the motives which actuated those 
 gentlemen in the instances referred to, or to 
 pass a censure on their conduct for an uninten- 
 tional violation of the constitution, calculated 
 to withdraw from them the confidence of their 
 constituents. There was a time, Mr. Chairman, 
 when the Republican phalanx in every quarter 
 of the Union regarded the specification of 
 powers in the constitution as the limitation of 
 the grant, within which every department ought 
 to be strictly confined. But at this day we are 
 told, that this literal construction of the instru- 
 ment is too narrow for the expanded views of an 
 American statesman mere " water gruel," in- 
 sipid to the palate, and requiring the addition of 
 a little fuel to give it energy and action to con- 
 duct this nation to the high destinies which 
 await it No power can be called for by an 
 existing exigency, or a favorite system of policy, 
 which, according to the doctrines now advanced, 
 may not be found necessary and proper to carry 
 into effect some one of the specified powers in 
 the constitution. The flexible character of 
 man, and the frailty of human nature, afford 
 an ample apology for these oscillations, and 
 wretched indeed would be our situation if crime 
 consisted in error, unaccompanied by the pre- 
 existing will to perpetuate it. No man who 
 respects his feelings or his character would ac- 
 cept a public trust on such conditions. As well 
 might we censure the Supreme Court for having 
 given a decision which we deemed contrary to 
 the constitution, and where no corruption could 
 be alleged against the judges who pronounced 
 it ; which is an essential ingredient to constitute 
 an offence for which a judicial officer is liable to 
 impeachment. In such a case our censure 
 might be retorted by an attachment for con- 
 tempt, and the honorable Speaker, representing 
 the majesty of the House, would be compelled 
 to answer the charge by purgation, or otherwise, 
 as the wisdom of the House should direct. I 
 mention this to show the absurdity and ineffi- 
 ciency of every attempt to transcend the powers 
 secured to us by the constitution. Sir, I am 
 sick to loathing of this incongruous, novel, and
 
 310 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 The Seminole War. 
 
 [FEBRUARY, 1819. 
 
 impotent effort to wound the sensibility of a 
 hero, who has sacrificed whatever of health or 
 fortune he possessed, and staked his life in com- 
 mon with the soldier by whose side he fought, that 
 our exposed and unprotected frontier might once 
 more repose in peace and tranquillity, undisturb- 
 ed by the midnight yell of the merciless savage. 
 
 The hero of New Orleans wanted not a petty 
 Indian war to satiate his ambition, or add fresh 
 laurels to the wreath already bequeathed to him 
 by his country. It was a war of hardships, fa- 
 tigues, and privations, in which for himself he 
 had nothing to hope but the consolation of hav- 
 ing accomplished the object for which he took 
 the field, and of receiving the approbation of the 
 President, to whom alone he was responsible for 
 all the incidents of the campaign in which he par- 
 ticipated. Of this reward, so well merited, and 
 so freely bestowed, we now seek to rob him, by 
 fulminating resolutions and vindictive eloquence, 
 against what honorable gentlemen are pleased 
 to call a patriotic unintentional violation of the 
 constitution. 
 
 I aver, without the fear of contradiction, that 
 the United States have, on all occasions, without 
 a single exception to the contrary, acted on the 
 defensive in the commencement of every war 
 with our Indian neighbors ; that they have 
 never turned a deaf ear to the voice of concil- 
 iation ; and we have abundant evidence that 
 the late Seminole war was of a character simi- 
 lar, in all respects, to those which preceded it. 
 The finger of British intrigue, and of Spanish 
 duplicity and connivance, are visible from the 
 very inception of these hostilities to their final 
 termination. I will not detain the committee 
 by entering into a methodical and critical ex- 
 amination of the documents, in the hands of 
 every gentleman ; showing the means employ- 
 ed to excite this war, the preparations made 
 for its prosecution, and the guarantee of ulti- 
 mate aid from the British Government to re- 
 cover the lands for which the outlawed Creeks 
 contended. They are voluminous and multi- 
 farious ; many of them official, and all leading 
 to the unavoidable conclusion, that nothing 
 short of a restoration of these lands, upon the 
 most humiliating terms, could avert the im- 
 pending blow. I will endeavor to present a 
 summary of the prominent occurrences, on 
 which I may safely rest the vindication of this 
 Government against the charge of aggression. 
 The occupation of a strong military post on the 
 Appalachicola, the asylum of fugitive slaves, 
 of vagabonds, and banditti, of hostile Indians, 
 and of all who would enlist under the English 
 jack, or the bloody flag, is the first certain in- 
 dication of the approaching rupture. It was 
 the nucleus from which all the subsequent pro- 
 ceedings generated and matured. The Gov- 
 ernment of Spain tacitly acquiesced in this 
 open violation of its neutral territory. Not 
 even the redoubtable Don Jose Mazoff was 
 heard to complain, except for the seduction and 
 employment of negroes belonging to Spanish 
 subjects, in this tri-colored collection of out- 
 
 laws and murderers. The demands made on 
 the United States, as the sole condition on 
 which peace could be preserved, and the objects 
 contemplated in the erection of this Negro fort, 
 are specifically announced by that prince of 
 scoundrels, Colonel Edward Nicholls, in his 
 several letters to Colonel Hawkins, then the 
 Creek agent. This fellow sometimes styles 
 hi'mself "commander of the British forces in 
 the Floridas," and at others " commander of 
 His Britannic Majesty's forces in the Creek 
 nation." And on one of his communications 
 is endorsed "on His Britannic Majesty's ser- 
 vice ! " What forces had Great Britain in the 
 Floridas, or in the Creek nation? At peace 
 with Spain and the United States, by what au- 
 thority could that Government station a mili- 
 tary force within the territories of either? 
 These extraordinary transactions, it is true, 
 have been verbally disavowed, but they have 
 never been explained in the manner called for 
 by their mischievous tendency, and necessary 
 to exempt the British Ministry from the well- 
 grounded suspicion of a participation in them. 
 On the 28th of April, 1815, Nicholls informed 
 Colonel Hawkins that the chiefs had come to a 
 determination " not to permit the least inter- 
 course between their people and those of the 
 United States. They have, in consequence, 
 (said he,) ordered them to cease all communi- 
 cation, either directly or indirectly, with the 
 territory or citizens of the United States." 
 They further warned the citizens of the United 
 States from entering the territory or communi- 
 cating, directly or indirectly, with the Creek 
 people ; and they describe their territory to be 
 as it stood in the year 1811. They add their 
 adhesion to the Treaty of Ghent, as an inde- 
 pendent ally of His Britannic Majesty. If a 
 doubt exists as to the intent and meaning of 
 this insolent letter, which was itself sufficient 
 cause for hostile operations on our part, it is 
 fully removed by a subsequent letter from the 
 same individual, "commanding His Britannic 
 Majesty's forces in the Creek nation," dated at 
 the British post on the Appalachicola River, 
 May 12th, 1815. He says, "I have ordered 
 them (the Indians) to stand on the defensive, 
 and have sent them a large supply of arms and 
 ammunition, and told them to put to death, 
 without mercy, any one molesting them." 
 Again: "They have given their consent to 
 await your answer before they take revenge ; 
 but, sir, they are impatient for it, and well 
 armed, as the whole nation now is, and stored 
 with ammunition and provisions, having a 
 stronghold to retire upon in case of a superior 
 force appearing." He likewise threatens the 
 " good and innocent citizens on the frontier," 
 and admonishes our agent " that they do not 
 find that our citizens are evacuating their lands 
 according to the ninth article of the Treaty of 
 Ghent." After this undisguised exposition of 
 their sine qua non, their means of annoyance, 
 their security from attack by a superior force in 
 the "stronghold," which the sagacity of their
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 311 
 
 FEBRUARY, 1819.J 
 
 TkeSeminole War. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 leader had provided, and their impudent threat 
 of war and vengeance against, " the good and 
 innocent citizens on the frontier," what man, 
 whose mind is free from the despotic sway of 
 prejudice, can hesitate as to the settled deter- 
 mination of these Indians, to commence hos- 
 tilities on the United States, whenever they 
 should be ordered to strike by their good friend 
 Colonel Nicholls ? To ascertain with certainty 
 how tar they might depend on British protec- 
 tion, Nicholls and Hillishajo proceeded to 
 London, with the famous address of all the 
 chiefs to their good father, King George. This 
 paper, of which Colonel Nicholls is both the 
 hero and the author, breathes the same spirit 
 of enmity to this country, which runs through 
 the whole of his letters and correspondence. 
 In order to recommend themselves to the favor 
 of the king, they assure him that they " have 
 fought and bled for him against the Americans ; 
 that they will truly keep the talks which his 
 chief has given them, if he will be graciously 
 pleased to continue his protection ; that they 
 are determined to cease having any communi- 
 cation with the Americans, and warn them to 
 keep out of their nation." These talks, which 
 they gave a pledge truly to keep, were to " put 
 to death, without mercy, every American who 
 should be found on the lands ceded by the 
 Treaty of Fort Jackson." The deputation was 
 received with every mark of politeness and at- 
 tention. Hillishajo was honored by the Prince 
 Kegent with the rank of Brigadier General in 
 His Majesty's service, and presented with a 
 splendid suit of British uniform, together with 
 a rifle, tomahawk, and scalping-knife, of British 
 manufacture, with the royal arms engraven 
 upon each of them. These circumstances at- 
 tracted the attention of Mr. Adams, our Minis- 
 ter there, and several notes were addressed by 
 him to Earl Bathurst and Lord Castlereagh, on 
 the subject of the unwarrantable proceedings of 
 Nicholls, in Florida, and of the address before 
 noticed, which was called a treaty oifensive and 
 defensive. To these notes, no written reply 
 was furnished; they carefully avoided a cor- 
 respondence, in writing, relative to these trans- 
 actions; and Lord Bathurst, when pressed by 
 our Minister in a conversation, observed, "to 
 tell you the truth, Colonel Nicholls is, I believe, 
 a man of activity and spirit, but a very wild 
 fellow." He sent him word that he had no 
 authority to make a treaty offensive and defen- 
 sive with these Indians, and that the Govern- 
 ment would not make any such treaty. He 
 declined seeing him on that project, but express- 
 ed his intention of having an interview with 
 him on the affairs of Florida, generally. This 
 guarded course of conduct, combined with sub- 
 sequent events, go far to strengthen the belief 
 that the proceedings of Nicholls on all the 
 other points were not disapproved, although 
 they could not receive the open approbation 
 of the British Cabinet. That war was to be 
 made on the United States by the Indians in 
 Florida, and their white and black allies, is a 
 
 fact established by such a crowd of testimony, 
 that it would be difficult to select that which 
 would be deemed most conclusive and satisfac- 
 tory. I will select only one deposition, which 
 is so well supported, and affords such precise 
 information, that I beg leave to read it to the 
 committee : 
 
 " The deposition of Samuel Jervais. 
 
 " Samuel Jervais being duly sworn, states, that he 
 has been a sergeant of marines in the British service 
 for thirteen years past ; that, about a month ago, he 
 left Appalachicola, where he had been stationed for 
 several months ; that the English Colonel, Nicholls, 
 had promised the hostile Indians, at that place, a 
 supply of arms and ammunition, a large quantity of 
 which had been delivered to them a few days before 
 his departure, and after the news of a peace between 
 England and the United States being confirmed, had 
 reached Appalachicola ; that, among the articles de- 
 livered, were, of cannon four 12-pounders, one howit- 
 zer, and two cohorns, about three thousand stand of 
 small arms, and near three thousand barrels of pow- 
 der and ball ; that the British left with the Indians 
 between three and four hundred negroes, taken from 
 the United States, principally from Louisiana ; that 
 the arms and ammunition were for the use of the 
 Indians and negroes, for the purposes, as it was un- 
 derstood, of war with the United States; that the 
 Indians were assured by the British commander that, 
 according to the Treaty of Ghent, all the lands ceded 
 by the Creeks in treaty with General Jackson, were 
 to be restored ; otherwise the Indians must fight for 
 those lands, and that the British would, in a short 
 time, assist them. 
 
 his 
 
 "SAML. K JERVAIS. 
 mark. 
 
 " Sworn and subscribed to before me, this 9th May, 
 1815, at the town of Mobile. 
 
 " L. JUDSON, J. P." 
 
 The evidence of this man is substantially sus- 
 tained by Lieutenant Loomis, who so gallantly 
 commanded the expedition which blew up the 
 Negro Fort, and with it all the miserable miscre- 
 ants who had sought refuge within its walls. 
 Besides the letter of Lieutenant Loomis to Com- 
 modore Patterson, I am authorized by a naval 
 officer of high respectability, to state that, at 
 the time this fort was destroyed, there were in 
 it eight hundred barrels of powder; three thou- 
 sand stand of British muskets, packed in cases ; 
 equipments complete for five hundred dragoons ; 
 pistols, cutlasses, and carbines; four twenty- 
 four pounders, taken from the British Frigate 
 Cydnus, with the name of that ship on them ; 
 one field-piece, mounted; and two five-and-a- 
 half inch brass howitzers. Such were the pre- 
 parations made for the war, which was sus- 
 pended only for the arrival of the red chief 
 Hillishajo, and his companion Colonel Nich- 
 olls. The destruction of this " stronghold," on 
 which the Indians might retire in case of dis 
 comfiture, and of the arms and ammunition 
 which had been deposited there, induced Nich 
 oils to procrastinate his return to Florida, and 
 to appoint as his successor in the good work 
 which he had begun, Alexander Arbuthnot, of
 
 312 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OP THE 
 
 H. OP R] 
 
 The Scminole War. 
 
 [FEBRUARY, 1819. 
 
 the island of New Providence. This man made 
 his appearance in Florida, in the character of 
 an English trader, in the year 1817, and simul- 
 taneously the war-whoop resounded through 
 the forests, and the blood of our citizens began 
 to flow on the borders of Georgia and the Ala- 
 bama territory. I shall presently take a closer 
 view of the means resorted to by this infernal 
 missionary to kindle the flame of war and ven- 
 geance among the deluded Seminoles and Bed 
 Sticks. It is enough on this part of the argu- 
 ment to show that they were successful, and 
 that actual violence was committed on the 
 "good and peaceable inhabitants of the fron- 
 tier," in conformity with the menace of his 
 predecessor, Nicholls; and that the United 
 States were compelled to take up arms and 
 chastise the savages, in their own defence, after 
 repeated efforts to bring them to a sense of 
 justice and of their own interests, by friendly 
 talks and pacific remonstrances. 
 
 Need I ransack the documents on our files, 
 to collect the evidence of the murders and rob- 
 beries which preceded the determination of this 
 Government to commence offensive operations 
 against the Indians in Florida? They must be 
 fresh in the recollection of every gentleman. 
 They have been so often repeated by my hon- 
 orable friends, that I will forbear the painful 
 task of recounting them. The cruel massacre 
 of aged mothers and helpless infancy were 
 spread along the whole line of our Southern 
 frontier in that quarter. The threatened war 
 soon ripened into full maturity. The murders 
 committed on our unoffending citizens were 
 openly avowed, and justified under the hollow 
 and unfounded pretence of retaliation for simi- 
 lar outrages alleged to have been practised by 
 the Georgians on their people. As early as the 
 5th of February, 1817, the Governor of Georgia 
 made a solemn appeal to the General Govern- 
 ment, for the protection of the exposed settle- 
 ments within the limits of the State over which 
 he presided. He details circumstances calcu- 
 lated to leave no doubt of the hostile spirit of 
 the savages, and of the active preparations 
 which were making by "Woodbine and Nicholls 
 to carry their hellish designs into execution. 
 Scenes of cruelty, at the recital of which 
 humanity shudders, followed in succession; 
 and still the Executive paused, and demanded 
 the punishment only of the offenders. On the 
 24th of February, 1817, fifteen Indian warriors 
 entered the peaceful dwelling of the unfortu- 
 nate Garret, a citizen of Wayne county, in 
 Georgia ; finding in it only Mrs. Garret and her 
 two infant children, the eldest of whom was 
 three years old, and the other in its mother's 
 arms, on whom she had bestowed her tender 
 smiles and caresses for the short period of two 
 months. The helpless condition of this family, 
 their natural protector being absent, innocent 
 and unoffending, alike incapable of inflicting or 
 repelling injury and insult, surrounded by a 
 band of armed ruffians, exhibited a picture of 
 human misery and heart-rending distress, 
 
 which might well have tamed the ferocity of 
 the most bloody monster who ever trod the 
 face of the habitable globe. But their cries 
 and entreaties were unavailing : the unhappy 
 mother was twice shot through the body, stab- 
 bed, and scalped ; her two babes murdered ; 
 her house robbed of all the valuables which it 
 contained ; and, to complete the melancholy 
 catastrophe, the lighted torch was applied to 
 the building, where once they enjoyed the 
 sweets of domestic comforts, qnd where now 
 their mangled and lifeless forms lay prostrate, 
 covered with the warm blood yet streaming 
 from their hearts; and the flames which as- 
 cended to heaven, wafted their spirits into the 
 presence of a just God, while, amidst the de- 
 vouring element, their ashes mingled in one 
 common grave ! The mind which can contem- 
 plate with calm composure deeds of cruelty and 
 barbarity like these, must be destitute of that 
 refined sensibility which ennobles and dignifies 
 our nature in all the social relations of life. 
 
 This act alone, independent of the black list 
 which both preceeded and followed it, was 
 open, unqualified war on the United States, un- 
 less the criminal perpetrators of these crimes, 
 whose enormity resembles more the tales of 
 fiction and romance, than the narrative of real 
 unsophisticated truths, should receive the 
 prompt and condign punishment which they 
 so justly merited. General Gaines, in obe- 
 dience to instructions, demanded the murder- 
 ers, and admonished the chiefs and warriors of 
 the consequences which would result from a 
 refusal to comply with. his demand. It was not 
 only refused, but fresh outrages of a similar 
 character were repeated, until the seizure and 
 indiscriminate massacre of a boat's crew, under 
 the command of Lieutenant Scott, put an end 
 to all hope of conciliation, and the Secretary of 
 War, by the direction of the President, ordered 
 the commanding General to cross the Florida 
 line, and terminate speedily this war, "with 
 exemplary punishment for hostilities so unpro- 
 voked." The honor of the United States re- 
 quired that every drop of innocent blood which 
 had been so wantonly shed, should be washed 
 out by the most ample atonement; and, to 
 effect this object, General Jackson was directed 
 to assume the immediate command of the 
 forces in that quarter of the southern divi- 
 sion. 
 
 I trust, sir, I have said enough to satisfy the 
 committee, that, on our part, the war was 
 strictly defensive, entered into reluctantly, after 
 every reasonable expedient to avoid it had been 
 resorted to in vain. 
 
 Yes, sir, the territory of Florida is emphati- 
 cally a country " open to all comers." The 
 British found a hearty welcome there during 
 the late war. The outlawed Creeks received 
 the right hand of fellowship from Governor 
 Mazot, and his retinue of official dignitaries; 
 fugitive negroes and banditti are welcome 
 guests, when associated in arms against the 
 United States; and I am persuaded the devil
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 313 
 
 FEBRUARY, 1819.] 
 
 The Seminole War. 
 
 [H. OP R 
 
 himself would have received holy orders, had 
 he made his appearance at Pensacola in the 
 character of a foe to this country. We alone 
 were excluded from the high privilege of meet- 
 ing our enemies on that soil which was prosti- 
 tuted to every purpose which could in any man- 
 ner subserve their views, and contribute to our 
 annoy auce. The fortress of Barancas was peace- 
 ably put into the possession of a British and In- 
 dian force, in our recent conflict with Great 
 Britain. The negro fort was erected on the 
 Appal achicola, with the avowed intention of 
 war with the United States. The vilest reptiles 
 in creation were collected to carry the nefarious 
 projects of the incendiary Nicholls into execu- 
 tion, and not a murmur was heard, either from 
 Pizarro or Mazot, or the Governor General of 
 Havana. But the moment we send a force to 
 suppress these hostile combinations, Spanish 
 sensibility breaks through the cloud by which it 
 had been concealed. Protests and manifestoes 
 proclaim to the world the wrongs committed by 
 this Government, in the violation of the ter- 
 ritorial sovereignty of the adored Ferdinand. 
 With a full knowledge of this fraudulent neu- 
 trality on the part of Spain, and of our rights 
 as a nation, to the means of self-preservation, 
 the President would have been unmindful of 
 the high trust and confidence reposed in him, 
 had lie not ordered the army into Florida, to 
 terminate the war, with "exemplary punish- 
 ment for hostilities so unprovoked." The 
 occupation of the posts of St. Marks and Pen- 
 sacola, and the fortress of Barancas, was a ne- 
 cessary means of accomplishing the end for 
 which General Jackson entered the Spanish ter- 
 ritory. They rest on the same general prin- 
 ciples, and, if a distinction is taken which would 
 justify the one and condemn the other, it must 
 be founded on a diversity of facts, in reference 
 to the facilities and privileges granted by the 
 authorities of Spain, to the other belligerent. 
 For there is a universal rule, to which there 
 is an exception, that whatever a neutral power 
 grants or refuses to one of the parties at war, 
 she must in like manner grant or refuse to the 
 other ; and, if she departs from this strict line 
 of impartiality, by favoring either to the injury 
 of the other, the injured nation may do herself 
 justice, and take ly force what is unjustly denied 
 to her. 
 
 Such is the law by which the conduct of all 
 civilized nations is regulated and governed. It 
 remains only for me to glance at the most prom- 
 inent points in the evidence to show its ap- 
 Elication, and thereby rescue General Jackson 
 om the imputation of having snatched from 
 Congress the power delegated in the constitu- 
 tion to u declare war." I ask then, sir, did the 
 Governors of St. Marks and Pensacola allow 
 the Indians and negroes free access into their 
 fortifications, and supply them with arms and 
 ammunition to carry on the war in which they 
 were engaged with the United States. To es- 
 tablish these facts, with regard to the former, 
 I am perplexed with the difficulty of selecting 
 
 that part of the testimony which might be 
 deemed least susceptible of doubt or equivoca- 
 tion. The whole volume is full of details show- 
 ing the abominable duplicity and perfidy of the 
 treacherous Luengo. St. Marks was the coun- 
 cil-house of the Indians, in which all their plans 
 of operation were discussed, in concert with the 
 commandant and his friend, Arbuthnot, be- 
 tween whom there existed the most perfect 
 cordiality. St. Marks was, in all respects, sub- 
 stituted for the negro fort, which had been 
 destroyed by the gunboats under the command 
 of Lieutenant Loomis. To that place they re- 
 treated, immediately after this disaster befell 
 them, and ever since they have made it the 
 depot of plundered property, known to be so by 
 Luengo himself, who even made contracts with 
 the depredators for the beef, cattle, and other 
 property which they might capture from the 
 people of Georgia. Having been charged, by 
 General Jackson, with conduct so contrary to 
 the pacific relations existing between Spain 
 and the United States, Luengo, in his defence, 
 written at Pensacola, on the 18th of May, 1818, 
 more than one month after the occupation of 
 the post by the American troops, when all his 
 powers of prevarication were taxed to excul- 
 pate himself from these charges, in reply to the 
 information which had been communicated to 
 the commanding. General, that he had supplied 
 the Indians and negroes with munitions of war, 
 states: "I thought that I had convinced him 
 of the contrary in my answer, in which I rep- 
 resented to him, that no one could better re- 
 move from his mind any unfavorable impression 
 on this point than Mr. William Hambly, who, 
 during his stay here, repeatedly interpreted to 
 me the anxiety of the chiefs to obtain such sup- 
 plies, and that he could also inform him that I 
 uniformly counselled them to avoid the destruc- 
 tion which has overtaken them, and which I 
 foresaw from the first." Now, sir, what is the 
 evidence of Mr. Hambly, whose credibility is 
 admitted by the Spanish commandant, and 
 whose situation enabled him to give a full and 
 precise statement of facts ? The letter address- 
 ed by him, together with Edward Doyle, to 
 General Jackson, exposes the transactions of 
 St. Marks in so clear a light, that I beg leave to 
 read it to the committee : 
 
 " William Hambly and E. Doyle to General Jackson. 
 
 FORT GADSDEN, May 2, 1818. 
 " SIR : We beg leave to submit to yon the follow- 
 ing facts. On the 13th December, 1817, we were 
 violently torn from our settlement, on the Appala- 
 chicola River, by a number of Indians, headed by 
 Chenubby, a chief of the Fowl-Town tribe, carried to 
 Mickasuky, and delivered to Kenagee, King of the 
 Mickasukians. Kenagee carried us to the Negro 
 Towns, on the Suwanee, and thence to the Spanish 
 fort St. Murks ; to the commandant of which he de- 
 livered us as prisoners of war, captured under the or- 
 ders of a Mr. Arbnthnot, reported to us as a British 
 agent. At St. Marks we were treated as prisoners, 
 and not permitted to wander beyond the walls of the 4 
 garrison. While at that post, the ingress and egress
 
 314 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 The Seminole War. 
 
 [FEBRUARY, 1819. 
 
 of Indians hostile to the United States was unrestrain- 
 ed ; and several councils were held ; at one of which 
 Kenagee, king of the Mickasukians ; Francis or 1 Ii His 
 Hajo; Hemathlemico, the chief of the Autosses; and 
 the chief of Kolemies, all of the old lied Stick -party; 
 and Jack Mealy, chief of the Ochewas, were present. 
 When it was reported that these chiefs, and their 
 warriors, were entering Fort St. Marks for the pur- 
 pose of holding a council, Hambly represented to the 
 commandant the impropriety of permitting such pro- 
 ceedings within the walls of a Spanish fortress, the 
 officer of which was hound to preserve and enforce 
 the treaties existing between the King of Spain and 
 the United States ; he replied to Hambly with some 
 degree of warmth, observing that it was not in his 
 power to prevent it. On the Indians coming into the 
 fort, at their request we were confined. The council 
 was held in the commandant's quarters. He, the 
 commandant, was present, but strictly forbade the in- 
 trusion of any of the officers of the garrison. The 
 Indians were in the habit of driving to Fort St. 
 Marks, and disposing of cattle to the commandant 
 and other Spanish officers. While at that post, three 
 or four droves were brought in, acknowledged by the 
 Indians to have been stolen from the citizens of the 
 United States, and purchased by the Spanish officers. 
 Wo were present at most of these contracts, and 
 Hambly often referred to as an interpreter between 
 the purchaser and seller. Chenubby, a Fowl-Town 
 Indian, once applied to Hambly to mention to the 
 commandant that he was about visiting the frontiers 
 of Georgia, on a plundering expedition, and wished 
 to know whether he would purchase the cattle brought 
 in. A contract was entered into, and Chenubby, 
 some time after, brought in, and disposed of, eleven 
 head of cattle to the Spanish commandant of Fort St. 
 Marks. These same cattle were those purchased by 
 you, from the commandant, as his private property. 
 "WILLIAM HAMBLY, 
 "EDWARD DOYLE." 
 
 In support of the statement made by these 
 men, I might refer to many others in the vol- 
 ume of documents which have been printed, 
 on this subject. I will, however, dispense with 
 a detailed view of them, and barely add an 
 extract from a letter of Lieutenant Gadsden, 
 whose reputation as a soldier and man of honor 
 and veracity, places him above the reach of 
 suspicion. 
 
 " J. Gadsden to General Jackson. 
 
 " FORT GADSDEN, May 3, 1818. 
 " SIR : In conversation with the commandant of 
 Fort St. Marks, on the subject of having that work 
 occupied by an American garrison, I had occasion to 
 notice the aid and comfort that the hostile party of 
 Indians had received, as reported, from him; that 
 they had free access within the walls of his fort, and 
 that it was well known no small supplies of ammu- 
 nition had been received from that quarter. In re- 
 ply, he stated that his conduct had been governed by 
 policy; the defenceless state of his work, and the 
 weakness of his garrison, compelled him to conciliate 
 the friendship of the Indians, to supply their wants, 
 and to grant what he had not the power to deny, and 
 to throw open, with apparent willingness, the gates of 
 his fortress, lest they should be forced by violence ; 
 that he had been repeatedly threatened by Indians 
 
 and negroes, and that his security depended upon ex- 
 hibiting an external friendship. Respectfully, yours, 
 &c. 
 
 "JAMES GADSDEN, Aide-de-camp." 
 
 From the testimony of these respectable wit- 
 nesses, and many others to whom I think it un- 
 necessary to refer, it is evident that the enemy 
 had the unlimited use of this fort for all the pur- 
 poses of war ; that their stolen property was 
 received, and contracted for by the command- 
 ant, knowing it to be such ; and that they were 
 supplied with arms and ammunition, and every 
 other material, to enable them to continue their 
 aggressions on the unprotected inhabitants of 
 Georgia and the Alabama Territory. The only 
 apology offered by the commandant for his un- 
 friendly and unwarrantable conduct was, that 
 he had been repeatedly threatened by the In- 
 dians and negroes, and that his security depend- 
 ed upon exhibiting an external friendship. It 
 is immaterial whether we take the facts or the 
 excuse, for either, unconnected with the other, 
 will amount to a justification of General Jack- 
 son in taking forcible possession of that post. 
 " To conduct prisoners, or convey stores, to a 
 place of safety, are acts of war, consequently 
 not to be done in a neutral country, and who- 
 ever would permit them would depart from the 
 line of neutrality by favoring one of the parties." 
 Again, " necessity may even authorize the tem- 
 porary seizure of a neutral town, and putting a 
 garrison therein with a view to cover ourselves 
 from the enemy, or to prevent the execution of 
 his designs against that town. "Vattel, 342-'4. 
 The truth is, that our enemy was denied noth- 
 ing which he asked, and we were refused the 
 humble privilege of putting the place in a state 
 of defence against an enemy who ought to have 
 been considered common to Spain and the United 
 States. In such a case, to have hesitated would 
 have been pusillanimous and disgraceful in the 
 commanding General. Passing from St. Marks 
 to Pensacola, there is no substantial change 
 either of principle or fact. General Jackson, it 
 is true, at the date of his letter to the Secretary 
 of War, from St. Marks, thought the war at an 
 end. His health having been much impaired 
 by the hardships and fatigues of the service in 
 which he was engaged, he had determined to 
 return to Nashville; but subsequent informa- 
 tion, of which we have the most authentic 
 proof, satisfied him that he had not yet effected 
 the object of the campaign, The Indians, de- 
 prived of their accustomed resort at St. Marks, 
 flew to Pensacola, where they had always been 
 received with open arms by the Governor. Ex- 
 peditions were fitted out, and massacres com- 
 mitted, by parties of hostile Indians, going di- 
 rectly from that place to the Escainbia and 
 Alabama. 
 
 I will not detain the committee by a reference 
 to the correspondence and depositions at large, 
 furnishing, as they do, indubitable evidence of 
 the hostile disposition of the Governor of Pen- 
 sacola, and of the aid given by him to the sav-
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 315 
 
 FEBRUARY, 1819.] 
 
 The Seminole War. 
 
 [H. OF K. 
 
 ages, for the express purpose of committing mur- 
 ders on the people of the United States. Thirty 
 or forty witnesses, many of them subjects of 
 His Catholic Majesty in Florida, and long resi- 
 dent there, testify to these facts. Provisions, 
 arms, and munitions of war, were regularly 
 issued to the Creeks and Seminoles, from the 
 King's storehouse, during both wars in which 
 we have been engaged with these tribes of In- 
 dians. Numerous bodies, of from two to five 
 hundred Indians, driven from other parts of 
 Florida, were seen in and near to Pensacola, 
 but a few days after the approach of our army ; 
 they were armed and equipped for war by Gov- 
 ernor Mazot. The leaden aprons were taken 
 from the ordnance at the Barancas, and run into 
 bullets, to obtain the necessary supply of that 
 article. The massacre of Stokes's family, of 
 travellers from Georgia to the Alabama, and of 
 our frontier settlers in that quarter, may all be 
 attributed to the free admission of the hostile 
 Indians into Pensacola, and the assistance af- 
 forded them by the Spanish Governor. General 
 Jackson was well informed of these circumstan- 
 ces, and saw in them certain indications that all 
 his previous operations were worse than useless, 
 if he returned without leaving an American 
 garrison at Pensacola. He accordingly moved 
 towards that town, after having discharged the 
 Georgia militia, whose services were no longer 
 necessary. He made Governor Mazot distinctly 
 acquainted with his views, and the basis on 
 which his conduct was founded ; that he entered 
 the territory of his Catholic Majesty, not as the 
 enemy but as the friend of Spain, to inflict 
 merited punishment on the common disturber 
 of the peace of both countries ; that he meant 
 nothing more than to place an American force 
 in Peusacola and the Barancas, which should be 
 sufficient to guarantee the security of the United 
 States from a protracted savage war. He never 
 intimated an intention of disturbing either the 
 civil or military authorities of Spain. In return, 
 Governor Mazot protested against the entrance 
 of the American commander into his territory, 
 for any purpose ; ordered him, in the name of 
 the King, to depart forthwith, and threatened 
 to repel force by force, if he persisted in his in- 
 tentions. The well-known valor and intrepidity 
 of General Jackson took fire at his insulting 
 menace ; he would have preferred an honorable 
 grave, under the walls of the Spanish fort, to a 
 cowardly, disgraceful retrograde, under the gas- 
 conading threat of this impotent instrument of 
 a monarch, whose very name excites the smile 
 of contempt throughout the civilized world. 
 He moved directly to the town of Pensacola, 
 and mark, I beseech you, sir, the conduct of 
 Governor Mazot. The Indian warriors who 
 were with him, and their families, were shipped 
 in public vessels across the bay to the Island of 
 Santa liosa. He retired before the American 
 army, who really intended to do him no vio- 
 lence, into the fortress of San Carlos de Baran- 
 cas, where he permitted himself to tremble and 
 equivocate for a day or two, and then, by his 
 
 own request, the fort was delivered into tho 
 hands of General Jackson, and the Spanish 
 troops, with this magnanimous Governor at 
 their head, were transported to the Island of 
 Cuba. We are told by honorable gentlemen, 
 that this last measure gave to the transaction 
 all the pomp and circumstance of war. That 
 the Spanish troops were made prisoners of war, 
 and forced to quit the country in which they 
 were stationed under the protection of their 
 sovereign. There would indeed be some plausi- 
 bility in the conclusion, if the premises assumed 
 were not destitute of foundation. Every pro- 
 posal relating to the surrender of the fort came 
 from Governor Mazot ; it was by his own de- 
 sire that vessels were provided for the trans- 
 portation of the garrison, and the officers at- 
 tached to the civil administration, and of the 
 Alabama Chief Hopayhoal, and family, to the 
 Havana. It was his own puerile resistance 
 
 lation. General Jackson never contemplated 
 an act of hostility against Spain ; his sole object 
 was to give peace and security to his own 
 country, and to guard against the renewal of 
 hostilities by prohibiting the customary supplies 
 which the Seminoles and Eed Sticks received 
 from this faithless, unprincipled Governor. 
 
 Mr. P. continued. Sir, said he, I have been 
 mortified and disgusted at the sickly agonies 
 and sympathetic effusions which have been so 
 often repeated by honorable members on the 
 subject of the trial and execution of the instiga- 
 tors of the Seminole war, Arbuthnot and Am- 
 brister. Inflated appeals to our humanity and 
 magnanimity have rung through this hall to ex- 
 cite our commiseration for these guilty men. 
 They have failed to reach either my judgment or 
 the feelings of my heart My sympathies, 
 thank God, are reserved for the bleeding and 
 suffering citizens of my own country ; and ob- 
 jects of that description, in abundance, are ex- 
 hibited to our view in the narrative of events 
 connected with the short but bloody career of 
 these foreign incendiaries in Florida. The pun- 
 ishment inflicted on them was more than mer- 
 ited by the enormity of their crimes ; the ex- 
 ample, I trust, will be a salutary warning to 
 British agents on the whole extent of our In- 
 dian frontier; and, if future outrages of the 
 same kind should be practised, we owe it to the 
 safety and honor of our country to retaliate on 
 the offenders with the utmost rigor and severity, 
 until the subjects of foreign nations shall be 
 taught to dread our vengeance, if they do not 
 respect our rights. Sir, it is not my intention 
 to enter into a detailed argument on the vari- 
 ous technical objections which have been re- 
 sorted to by gentlemen skilled in the nicety of 
 special pleading, to show that a count or an in- 
 uendo is wanting in the declaration, or that 
 judgment has not been pronounced according to 
 the forms in such case made and provided. 
 Such trash may serve to supply the vacuum of 
 empty declamation, but I can never consent to 
 convert this great political theatre into a court
 
 316 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 The Seminole War. 
 
 [FEBRUARY, 1819. 
 
 of errors and appeals, sitting to scan the record 
 and regulate the proceedings of inferior tribu- 
 nals. My views are directed to measures in re- 
 ference to their operation on the general wel- 
 fare of my country, and, whenever that effect 
 is produced, I would not retrace the step, un- 
 less the honor of the nation imperiously de- 
 manded the sacrifice. The proceedings of the 
 special court convened by General Jackson on 
 this occasion, have been fully and ably defended 
 by honorable gentlemen whose profound knowl- 
 edge of military science and the practical usages 
 of war gives to their opinions and arguments 
 the weight of authority, and supersedes the ne- 
 cessity of further investigation. If, indeed, er- 
 rors in point of form were committed by the 
 court, or if they misunderstood the powers 
 vested in them by the order of the commanding 
 General, it does not become the dignity of this 
 House to ascribe these irregularities to General 
 Jackson; it is to the general order we must 
 look for a definition of the duties which the 
 court were required to perform. They were 
 instructed to " record the documents and testi- 
 mony in the several cases, and their opinion as 
 to the guilt or innocence of the prisoners, and 
 what punishment, if any, should be inflicted." 
 Call it, therefore, a court-martial, or by what- 
 ever other name you please, these were the 
 powers conveyed to it, and no assumed title 
 could enlarge the grant or substantially change 
 its character. The opinion of the court was 
 given in the form of a sentence and carried into 
 execution, but the same result would have fol- 
 lowed if there had been no departure from the 
 literal import of the order. To cavil at such 
 petty inaccuracies, where substantial justice 
 has been done, is, I repeat it, unbecoming the 
 dignity of the House of Representatives. That 
 these perfidious miscreants met the fate which 
 their conduct merited cannot be seriously doubt- 
 ed by any one. On the principle of reprisals it 
 was lawful to execute them, and, as criminals of 
 the highest grade, whose guilty hands involved 
 a whole country in scenes of massacre and rob- 
 bery, they fell just victims to the offended laws 
 of nature and of nations. " Those who, with- 
 out authority from their sovereign, exercise 
 violence against an enemy and fall into that 
 enemy's hands, have no right to expect the 
 treatment due to prisoners of war ; the enemy 
 is justifiable in putting them to death as ban- 
 ditti." Again, " the violences committed by the 
 subjects of one nation against those of another, 
 without authority, are looked upon as robberies, 
 and the perpetrators are excluded from the 
 rights of lawful enemies ;" and, also, " whatso- 
 ever offends the State, injures its rights, disturbs 
 its tranquillity, or does it a prejudice, in any 
 manner whatever, declares himself its enemy, 
 and exposes himself to be justly punished for 
 it." (Vattel, 162.) Sir, can any gentleman 
 compare these principles of national law with 
 the evidence in the trials of Arbuthnot and 
 Ambrister, and seriously contend that they have 
 suffered unjustly, and contrary to law; that 
 
 they have been doomed to perish under the 
 rod of military despotism ? I frankly confess 
 it would require a stubborn determination to 
 persevere in error, which I do not possess, to 
 draw conclusions so inconsistent with such 
 premises. Some gentlemen have attempted to 
 make a distinction between the guilt of these 
 men. Ambrister, say they, was taken in arms ; 
 he commanded the negroes and Indians; led 
 them into battle ; was identified witli them, 
 and, therefore, deserved death. Arbuthnot, we 
 are told, was a mere merchant, a dealer in the 
 articles which the Indians were accustomed to 
 purchase. 
 
 I have, in the preceding part of my remarks, 
 had occasion to advert to the objects for which 
 this man entered Florida, and the part which he 
 took in exciting the Indians to war. If Nicholls 
 was an innocent dealer in " the articles which the 
 Indians were accustomed to purchase," so was 
 Arbuthnot ; their views were the same ; they 
 held the same language to the savages, and 
 each gave a pledge of British aid, in case war 
 should be waged for the recovery of the lands 
 ceded by the Treaty of Fort Jackson. He fre- 
 quently assured the chiefs that he had authority 
 to correspond with his Majesty's Minister at 
 Washington, with Governor Cameron, of New 
 Providence, and the Governor General of Ha- 
 vana, on the subject of necessary supplies for 
 carrying on the war ; and that he was in pos- 
 session of a letter from Earl Bathurst, which 
 informed him that Mr. Bagot was instructed on 
 that subject. On the back of a letter addressed 
 by him to that Minister, he states the aggregate 
 force embodied among the Indians and the posi- 
 tions at which they were posted, and requests 
 a supply of arms and ammunition, specified in 
 the following memorandum : 
 
 "A quantity of gunpowder, lead, muskets, and 
 flints, sufficient to arm 1,000 to 2,000 men. 
 
 Muskets, 1 ,000 ; more smaller pieces, if possible. 
 
 10,000 flints; a proportion for rifle, put up sepa- 
 rate. 
 
 50 casks gunpowder ; a proportion for rifle. 
 
 2,000 knives, six to nine inch blade, good quality. 
 
 1,000 tomahawks ; 100 IDS. vermilion. 
 
 2,000 Ibs. lead, independent of ball for musket." 
 
 This paper speaks for itself; it cannot be mis- 
 understood ; and shows, most clearly, the par- 
 ticipation of Arbuthnot in providing the means 
 necessary to the prosecution of the Seminole 
 war. He was the prime minister of the hostile 
 Indians ; had a full power of attorney to make 
 talks, and act for them in all cases whatsoever; 
 and if Ambrister, who was but a subordinate 
 agent, was justly sentenced to suffer death, 
 what excuse can be offered for the man who 
 put the whole machinery of war, massacre, and 
 robbery, in motion? Can it be said that he 
 had not disturbed the tranquillity of the United 
 States? I presume it cannot, and, of course, 
 according to the maxims of public law, to which 
 I have referred, he had "declared himself our 
 enemy, and exposed himself to be justly pun- 
 ished." It is unnecessary for me to enlarge the
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 317 
 
 FEBRUARY, 1819.] 
 
 The Seminole War. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 discussion on the right of the commanding Gen- 
 eral to retaliate on the enemy for the acts of 
 cruelty and barbarity which were practised in 
 the progress of this war. Honorable gentlemen, 
 who controvert the right, have shown no in- 
 stance iu which it was denied, either in Europe 
 or America ; and, in support of it, we have the 
 examples- of Washington and many other gen- 
 eral officers, who fought in the war of the Revo- 
 lution. Yes, sir, General Jackson had the right 
 to inflict punishment on these outlaws. I re- 
 joice that he exercised that right ; and, if we 
 do not paralyze and destroy the good effects of 
 the act, it will contribute, in no small degree, to 
 the future peace and security of our frontier. 
 But the honorable Speaker has said that we 
 have no right to practise retaliation on the In- 
 dians ; that we have foreborne to do so from 
 the earliest settlement of the country, and that 
 it has become the common law of the land, 
 which we are bound not to violate. Sir, from 
 what source does the gentleman derive the 
 principle that a right, inherent in the nature of 
 man, which he inhales with his first breath 
 which "grows with his growth and strengthens 
 with his strength" which has the fiat of God 
 for its sanction, and is incorporated in the code 
 of all the nations of the earth, becomes extinct 
 with regard to those who may forbear to exer- 
 cise it, from motives of policy or humanity, for 
 any number of years ? That a common law is 
 thereby entailed on the American people, to 
 the latest generations, by which they are re- 
 quired to bend beneath the tomahawk and 
 scalp ing-knife of the savage, and submit to 
 every cruelty and enormity, without the privi- 
 lege of retaliating on the enemy the wrongs and 
 injuries we have suffered by his wanton trans- 
 gression of the rules of civilized warfare ? We 
 have, it is true, tolerated much of the inhuman 
 conduct of the aborigines towards our frontier in- 
 habitants. We have endeavored to teach them, 
 by examples of humanity and magnanimity, the 
 blessings and advantages of civilization ; but in- 
 stances are not wanting of the most severe retali- 
 ation on these monsters for their deeds of barbar- 
 ity. If, however, there was not a solitary case 
 on record, of the exercise of the right, it remains 
 inviolate and inviolable. No community has 
 the power to relinquish it and bind posterity in 
 the chains of slavish non-resistance. The gen- 
 tleman's common law will not do for the free- 
 men of the United States ; it is unique and ab- 
 surd. Sir, if the committee will pardon the di- 
 gression, this novel idea of common law re- 
 minds me of an occurrence which is said to 
 have happened in the early period of the settle- 
 ment of the present polite and flourishing State 
 of Kentucky : A man, in personal combat, de- 
 prived his antagonist of the sight of an eye by 
 a practice familiar at that day, called gouging ; 
 the offender was prosecuted and indicted for 
 the outrage; he employed counsel to defend 
 him, to whom he confessed the fact. Well, 
 sir, said the lawyer, what shall I say in your 
 defence ? Why, sir, said he, tell them it is the 
 
 custom of the country ! And I presume if the 
 honorable Speaker had presided on the trial, he 
 would have said, "Gentlemen of the jury, it is 
 the common law of Kentucky, and you will 
 find a verdict for the defendant." But, sir, to 
 be serious, let me bring the case home to the 
 honorable Speaker himself. Suppose a band of 
 these barbarians, stimulated and excited by 
 some British incendiary, should, at the hour of 
 midnight, when all nature is wrapt in darkness 
 and repose, sound the infernal yell, and enter 
 the dwelling of that honorable gentleman, and 
 in his presence pierce to the heart the wife of 
 his bosom and the beloved and tender infant in 
 her arras objects so dear to a husband and 
 a father would he calmly fold his arms and 
 say, well, 'tis hard ! but it is the common law 
 of the country, and I must submit ! No, sir ; 
 his manly spirit would burn with indignant 
 rage, and never slumber till the hand of retribu- 
 tive justice had avenged his wrongs. 
 
 " Mercy to him who shows it, is the rule, 
 
 And righteous limitation of the act, 
 
 By which Heaven moves in pardoning guilty man ; 
 
 And he that shows none, being ripe in years, 
 
 And conscious of the outrage he commits, 
 
 Shall seek it, and not find it, in his turn." 
 
 I have no compassion for such monsters as Ar- 
 buthnot and Ambrister ; their own country is 
 ashamed to complain of their fate ; the British 
 Minister here has disavowed their conduct and 
 abandoned their cause; and we, sir, are the 
 residuary legatees of all the grief and sorrow- 
 felt on the face of the globe, for these two fallen 
 murderers and robbers ! For I call him a 
 murderer who incites to murder. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, I am not the eulogist of any 
 man ; I shall not attempt the panegyric of Gen- 
 eral Jackson ; but if a grateful country might 
 be allowed to speak of his merits 
 
 Louisiana would say, "You have defended 
 our capital against the veteran troops of the 
 enemy, by whom it would have been sacked, 
 and our dwellings enveloped in flames over the 
 heads of our beloved families." 
 
 Georgia : " You have given peace to our de- 
 fenceless frontier, and chastised our ferocious 
 savage foe, and the perfidious incendiaries and 
 felons by whom they were excited and coun- 
 selled to the perpetration of their cruel deeds. 
 You have opened additional territory to our 
 rich and growing population, which they may 
 now enjoy in peace and tranquillity." 
 
 Alabama and Mississippi : " You have pro- 
 tected us in the time of our infancy, and in the 
 moment of great national peril, against the in- 
 exorable Red Sticks and their allies ; you have 
 compelled them to relinquish the possession of 
 our lands, and ere long we shall strengthen into 
 full manhood, under the smiles of a beneficent 
 Providence." 
 
 The whole Western Country : "You have pre- 
 served the great emporium of our vast com- 
 merce from the grasp of a powerful enemy ; you 
 have maintained for our use the free navigation
 
 318 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 The Seminole War. 
 
 [FEBRUARY, 1819. 
 
 of the Mississippi, at the hazard of your life, 
 health, and fortune." 
 
 The Nation at large : " You have given glory 
 and renown to the arms of your country 
 throughout the civilized world, and have taught 
 the tyrants of the earth the salutary lesson, 
 that, in the defence of their soil and independ- 
 ence, freemen are invincible." 
 
 History will transmit these truths to genera- 
 tions yet unborn, and should the propositions 
 on your table be adopted, we, the Representa- 
 tives of the people, subjoin: "Yes, most noble 
 and valorous Captain, you have achieved all 
 this for your country ; we bow down under the 
 weight of the obligations which we owe you, 
 and as some small testimonial of your claim to 
 the confidence and consideration of your fellow- 
 citizens, we, in their name, present you the fol- 
 lowing resolutions : 
 
 " Resolved, That you, Major General Andrew 
 Jackson, have violated the constitution which 
 you have sworn to support, and disobeyed the 
 orders of your superior, the Commander-in- 
 chief of the Army and Navy of the United 
 States. 
 
 " Resolved, That you, Major General Andrew 
 Jackson, have violated the laws of your country 
 and the sacred principles of humanity, and 
 thereby prostrated the national character, in 
 the trial and execution of Alexander Arbuthnot 
 and Kobert C. Ambrister, for the trifling and 
 unimportant crime of exciting the savages to 
 murder the defenceless citizens of the United 
 States. 
 
 " Accept, we pray you, sir, of these resolves; 
 go down to your grave in sorrow, and congratu- 
 late yourself that you have not served this great 
 Republic in vain!" 
 
 Greece had her Miltiades, Eome her Bellisa- 
 rius, Carthage her Hannibal, and " may we, 
 Mr. Chairman, profit by the example!" Sir, if 
 honorable gentlemen are so extremely solicit- 
 ous to record their opinions of this distinguished 
 General, let us erect a tablet in the centre of 
 our Capitol square : let his bust designate the 
 purpose : thither let each man repair, and en- 
 grave the feelings of his heart. And, sir, what- 
 ever may be the opinions of others, for one I 
 should not hesitate to say, in. the language of 
 the sage of Monticello, " Honor and gratitude 
 to him who has filled the measure of his coun- 
 try" 1 s glory /'' 
 
 WEDNESDAY, February 3. 
 Seminole War. 
 
 The House then again resolved itself into a 
 Committee of the Whole, (Mr. SMITH, of Mary- 
 land, in the chair,) on the subject of the Semi- 
 nole war. 
 
 Mr. WALKEB, of Kentucky, rose and said: 
 Mr. Chairman, I do not rise to enter into a dis- 
 cussion upon a subject that has called forth the 
 wisdom, learning, and eloquence of this com- 
 mittee ; I only wish to express my reasons for 
 the vote which I am about to give upon this 
 
 question, and to show that I have no fears for 
 any future consequences which may arise from 
 that vote to my country. 
 
 If it were possible for me to be persuaded that 
 the friends to the mode of prosecuting and ter- 
 minating the Seminolian war were less solicitous 
 for the honor and dignity of our country, or less 
 anxious for its future prosperity and happiness, 
 than those gentlemen who disapprove of our 
 General's conduct in that war, from the solemn 
 dignity of the manner, from the deservedly high 
 standing of the man, and the immense im- 
 portance Mr. Speaker has attached to the mat- 
 ter, I might be persuaded that I was in error, 
 and might give a different vote on the subject ; 
 I might be convinced that I was as far beneath 
 him in common sense and mere love of country, 
 as he is above me in elevation of station, or La 
 the omnipotent powers of eloquence. But, sir, 
 there are some subjects on which good common 
 sense, years of experience and observation, may 
 shed as clear a light as all the pages of ancient 
 or modern history, and may so anchor the judg- 
 ment that learning, eloquence, and acknowledged 
 merit, all combined, cannot weigh the anchor, 
 or drag it from its moorings ; and this, sir, in 
 my poor opinion, is one of those deep-rooted 
 subjects. I Avill not attempt to speak of Gro- 
 tius, Puffendorff, Vattel, Martens, or any other 
 writers on the law of nations, or of our own 
 constitution, nor yet will I attempt to lead this 
 committee to believe that I have a correct 
 knowledge .of the ancient Republics of Greece 
 or Rome; but, from the little light I have re- 
 ceived upon the history of those republics, I will 
 endeavor to show that we have no cause of fear 
 from some future Philip, Ca?sar, Cromwell, or 
 Bonaparte ; we, to be sure, resemble them in 
 some leading characteristics, and in name, but 
 not in every thing ; they knew nothing of a fair 
 representative council, such as ours, which is 
 certainly the chain cable of our political ship ; a 
 fair representative Government they never had 
 an idea of, or if they had, like some of my un- 
 fortunate friends, too, in South America, they 
 were afraid to try the experiment.* Their 
 laws, I am told, were enacted by universal suf- 
 frage, or, more properly speaking, by that por- 
 tion of the people that casualty or design might 
 have convened at the time they were under 
 consideration; it is, therefore, reasonable to 
 suppose that the citizens who lived remote from 
 the metropolitan cities had but little share in 
 their legislation ; hence one great cause of their 
 decline. In populous countries and large cities, 
 where 'the greater portion of the people are 
 wretchedly poor, profoundly ignorant, and 
 darkly supers.titious, where the sum of their 
 knowledge was acquired from the mouths of 
 their public speakers, it is perfectly rational to 
 believe that an ingenious, eloquent orator, could 
 catch them by the ears, and a successful splen- 
 did hero could lead them to the sacrifice of ah 1 
 
 * Mr. Clay, upon this subject, took occasion to mei 
 s " poor friends in South America." 
 
 tis" poor friends in So
 
 DEBATES OP CONGRESS. 
 
 319 
 
 FEBRUARY, 1819.] 
 
 The Seminde War. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 that should be held most dear to man ; nor is 
 it matter of astonishment to the reflecting mind, 
 that our late republican sister, now poor bleed- 
 ing France, should have followed the fate of the 
 old republics; emerging, as she did, from the 
 darkness of chaos, suddenly into the bright 
 blaze of heaven-born liberty, her eyes were 
 dazzled with the brilliance, her brain was in- 
 toxicated with the multiplicity of novel ideas 
 that burst upon it, and before she could recover 
 her sober senses, before her legislators could 
 establish the plan for the permanent security of 
 her rights, the demon of discord erected his 
 crest and diffused his poison among her coun- 
 sellors, who had also to conquer the habits of 
 ages before her people were capable of enjoying 
 rational liberty ; the lands of the country, too, 
 from which true independence always sprouts, 
 were in the hands of the aristocratic few, to 
 whom the great body of the people had, for cen- 
 turies, been bound by the iron hand of necessity 
 or of power. Thus situated, it is not wonderful 
 that the successful hero, the ambitious, artful 
 statesman, should have prostrated all their 
 rights. Quite the reverse from this situation 
 was our happy Republic at the commencement 
 of her existence ; the soil of the country was 
 apportioned among her numerous hardy sons, 
 whose arms were able to defend it. Religious 
 and civil liberty was the contemplation of our 
 European fathers when they first came to Amer- 
 ica ; it was the darling theme of their sons un- 
 til the day they unfurled the banner, and pro- 
 claimed to the astonished world that they were 
 free. Free we are, and free we will be, until 
 land monopolies shall have swallowed up the 
 soil as the banks are about to swallow our port- 
 able treasure ; we must be ground down to ex- 
 treme poverty, ignorance, its concomitant, and 
 to cap the climax, superstition, too, must give 
 her detested aid, before we can lose our liber- 
 ties. In fact, Mr. Chairman, we must be re- 
 duced to the miserable, abject state of the 
 poor subjects of monarchs, before we can lose 
 our liberties. If ever our rights are lost, mon- 
 eyed aristocracies and land monopolies will be 
 the corner stones on which the edifice will be 
 erected that will sweep them all. My fears 
 from them are, in truth, much greater than from 
 the sound discretion in our commander in the 
 execution of an order given him by our beloved 
 Chief Magistrate, and which order, if not exe- 
 cuted in the manner it was, the objects of the 
 campaign would have been infallibly lost. Cer- 
 tainly, it was our President's intentions, when 
 he gave the orders, to put our women and chil- 
 dren at rest from the apprehension of being 
 scalped and burnt. If General Jackson had re- 
 turned from the Florida line, is there a woman 
 in Georgia, or a child in Alabama, that does not 
 know that Arbuthnot and Ambrister would 
 have excited their myrmidons to the repetition 
 of those deeds, at the thought of which the blood 
 curdles and runs cold with horror. Much has 
 been said, many dreadful apprehensions have 
 been suggested, from the consequence of our 
 
 full approbation of our General's conduct ; for 
 my poor part, I hope I shall never be afraid of 
 giving to merit its due meed. From my own 
 reading of our constitution, as well as th sound 
 arguments I have heard, I am most perfectly 
 convinced that the President's orders were 
 strictly constitutional, and that their execution 
 was perfectly reconcilable with the laws of na- 
 tions, as was shown by the gentleman from 
 Virginia, and by my friend and colleague,* and 
 produced the most desirable effects to our dis- 
 tressed frontier settlers. 
 
 If General Wayne, in 1794, had had force 
 sufficient when he defeated the Indians on the 
 Miami of the Lakes, and had have exercised his 
 sound discretion, as General Jackson has done, 
 our Owens and Daviess, our Allen and Simpson, 
 my friend Captain Lewis, and the gallant, gen- 
 erous Hart, might this day have been living 
 monuments of their country's genius, greatness, 
 and goodness, and thousands of our dear discon- 
 solate widowed sisters would now be pressing 
 their new-born babes to their breasts, and re- 
 ceiving the benign smiles of their affectionate 
 husbands, instead of making humble application 
 here, through their benevolent friend, my sol- 
 dier colleague, (Colonel JOHNSON,) for some 
 poor pittance wherewith to raise their father- 
 less children ; for we should have had no war ; 
 no soldiers would have fallen. Yes, sir, if 
 General Wayne had caught the British incen- 
 diaries that were with the Indian army, (which 
 he could have done with the assistance of can- 
 non,) and given them to the tree, demolished 
 Major Campbell's fort, and in the ruins buried 
 every British officer and soldier, he would have 
 done a praiseworthy deed, without an infraction 
 of the laws of nations ; t the blood-stained Brit- 
 ish lion would roar, but he would not fight ; the 
 conscious murderers of our wives and dear 
 smiling babes would have shrunk appalled when 
 they saw their husbands, sons, and brothers, 
 determined on just revenge. 
 
 No war would we have had ; our honest, 
 generous, and brave sailors would never have 
 been impressed and ignominiously whipped to 
 try to make them fight against their country's 
 friends; nor would our merchants have been 
 despoiled of their pelf; we would have had no 
 war, no apprehensions of the necessity of an 
 armed force to guard against the efforts of Brit- 
 ish intrigue, no blue lights or Hartford conven- 
 tions ; the table of your Committee of Claims 
 would never have groaned under the weight of 
 petitions for relief of officers from the pressure 
 of heavy judgments given against them, by 
 what is called courts of justice, too, for the 
 faithful execution of a legal military order ; and, 
 what is more to be deplored than all, the shame- 
 ful capitulation of Alexandria we never should 
 
 * Colonel Johnson, from Kentucky, by all beloved for his 
 Hiniane attention to our soldiers 1 claims and their widows' 
 applications for pensions. 
 
 t Colonel Johnson's construction of Vattel, upon the laws 
 f nations, is In perfect accordance with the laws of nature 
 and of nature ' God.
 
 320 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 The Seminole War. 
 
 [FEBRUARY. 1819. 
 
 have heard of, nor the conflagration of our Cap- 
 itol in this city, which hears the name of the 
 illustrious WASHINGTON. Oh, Genius of Histo- 
 ry, if from thy chaste page thou would'st wipe 
 those foul blots from our character, the laurels 
 of the late British war, like those of the Semi- 
 uole war, would forever hloom upon thy records 
 without an adverse shade I 
 
 Mr. Chairman, until I am convinced that 
 sound sense, some little reading, and close atten- 
 tion to the sound, learned, and eloquent argu- 
 ments I have heard, will not qualify me to give 
 a just opinion upon the subject, I shall be most 
 decidedly opposed to the resolutions under dis- 
 cussion, and make free to say that the Military 
 Committee has made a most unmilitary report. 
 
 Sir, until I am persuaded that I should be 
 reprehensible in hot pursuit to follow the mur- 
 derers of wife and children to the house of their 
 accessories, on whosesoever ground it might 
 stand, and drag them forth to instant punish- 
 ment, I shall continue to thank and praise the 
 man who has saved their lives or revenged their 
 deaths. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, I felicitate myself, I congratu- 
 late my country, that our people better under- 
 stand their rights than those of the old Repub- 
 lics, and have a more equal distribution of 
 property than they had; that this honorable 
 House is composed of, if not brighter, at least 
 stronger materials than the legislative councils 
 of Greece and Borne ; if it was not, this day we 
 might be led to record a vote at which the 
 crowned heads in Europe indeed might chuckle ; 
 more cause would they have to chuckle than 
 when they heard of Jackson's Creek treaty.* 
 Much greater cause would our friends in Eu- 
 rope have of woe and bitter lamentation, to 
 fold their desponding arms, and droop the 
 melancholy head, than when they heard of our 
 extinguishing the Indian title to a little slip of 
 land. 
 
 To see us sacrifice our General, who shame- 
 fully defeated old England's chosen glorious 
 bauds, would make the Prince Regent's Minis- 
 ters rejoice; to sacrifice our General would 
 quiet the manes of the execrable Ambrister, 
 and no doubt please Arbuthnot's honorable cor- 
 respondent in this city ;t to dismiss our Gen- 
 eral, who pursued the nurtured robbers of our 
 people and murderers of our innocent children 
 into Pensacola, would no doubt excite a grin 
 from His Catholic Majesty's Minister near this 
 metropolis. The sacrifice that we should make 
 to a mistaken idea of patriotism and humanity, 
 would be by him attributed to our fears of for- 
 eign force, for the poor soul knows nothing 
 about the milk of human kindness that so abun- 
 dantly Hows in every freeman's breast. De- 
 prived of our General, (for he thinks we have 
 got but one,) he will again renew the Spanish 
 
 * Mr. Clay said, the crowned heads of Europe chuckled 
 when they heard of Jackson's Treaty with the Creeks; and 
 our Mends folded their melancholy arms, hunc the dejected 
 bead, when they found that we ha'd acquired Indian land. 
 
 t The British Minister in "Washington. 
 
 claim to all the lands from the head to the 
 mouth of the Mississippi; and if we did not 
 forthwith surrender them, he would threaten 
 us with the vengeance dire of his potent royal 
 master. These, sir, will be the valuable results 
 of our agreement with the honorable committee 
 on military matters ; this sacrifice, the honora- 
 ble committee shows, will be made upon very 
 slight presumption, that the General had, in the 
 execution of a military order, a little exceeded 
 a strictly literal construction. I think it con- 
 ceded by all the honorable speakers upon this 
 question, that, in their various opinions of ne- 
 cessity consists alone their discordant opinions 
 upon this subject. Then, let us ask, who is the 
 better judge of an important military move- 
 ment? The gentleman at home, in peace and 
 safety, feasting on all the luxuries of every 
 clime, his children, like blessed seraphs, playing 
 about him, his wife, too, sweet, soft, intelligent, 
 all-accomplished, and beautiful too, as much as 
 his fond wishes could have, whose humane ear 
 was never pierced with the distant sound of the 
 dreadful savage yell; whose charitable heart 
 never had occasion to extend her munificent 
 hand to the relief of woes inflicted by a barba- 
 rian band of ruthless sons of the wood, or the 
 hardy weather-beaten General in the field, com- 
 bating all the difficulties necessarily accompany- 
 ing savage warfare ; is that all, sir ? No sub- 
 sisting himself and all his army on kind nature's 
 spontaneous gifts, an all-important object to his 
 country before his eye, which must be effected 
 by a given day, or himself and army starves. 
 Who is the best judge in such a case the brave, 
 aged, experienced General, at the head of the 
 army, or the young, sweet-smelling, powdered 
 beau of a drawing room ? No doubt here. Then 
 why not, in the name of propriety, leave to 
 your General's own discretion the exercise of 
 open orders, and not attempt to find fault where 
 we cannot, from our situations, form a correct 
 judgment of the necessities that lead to certain 
 acts? 
 
 A word to my dear, good old mother, Vir- 
 ginia, and then I am done. With heartfelt 
 pleasure did I see one of her favored sons, (Mr. 
 TYLER,) of the younger brood, exhibit upon this 
 occasion the true patriot soul ; from his firm, 
 expressive countenance, and bright, intelligent 
 eye, I read the triumph of his soul, I saw that 
 his devotion to his country had obtained a con- 
 quest over his filial affections. I thought I saw 
 his heart weep blood when his eye said, Behold, 
 my country, here is your Brutus ; like the elder 
 Brutus, I would condemn my own son for a 
 breach of public law like the younger, I would 
 stab my father to save my country. I envy 
 such feelings ; they are almost too exalted for 
 mortal man ; yet I am sure he had them. But 
 I implore my friend to recollect, that if there 
 had been a hook on which to hang a doubt of 
 the guilt of the son of the elder Brutus, that his 
 act would have been thought most horrid. That 
 if it was not well known that Gesar was indeed 
 ambitious, the younger Brutus would have com-
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 321 
 
 FEBRUAKY, 1819.] 
 
 The Seminole War. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 mitted a most detested crime. I hope his re- 
 flections on the subject will guard him against 
 passing sentence against his brother, without 
 the most incontestable proofs that his country 
 is thereby to be relieved from most imminent 
 danger. Let not this ardent zeal for the preser- 
 vation of our constitution impel him to leap 
 over its sacred walls, and horribly trespass upon 
 its most valuable provisions. Is not the securi- 
 ty of our reputation among the greatest objects 
 of the constitution ? If we condemn our Gen- 
 eral's conduct because, indeed, we cannot ex- 
 actly think like him, will we not severely tres- 
 pass on his feelings? You all do know what 
 Shakspeare says about the value of a good name : 
 " Eeputation dear, my lord, is the immediate 
 jewel of the soul," &c. Every member of this 
 House, every lady in the gallery, and gentleman 
 too, I hope, have read and highly approve his 
 sentiments. 
 
 If reputation be so dear to every one among 
 us, how high indeed must it be rated by him, 
 whose bread, whose meat, whose life itself, 
 hangs upon his fair won fame. I am happy, 
 sir, to tell my friend, the honorable member 
 from Philadelphia, that I shall never fear that 
 the keen prying sense of squint-eyed suspicion 
 will ever find a spider's egg among the leaves, 
 much less a serpent, entwined about the branch- 
 es of the full-grown wreath of laurels that 
 adorns my General's brow. No, sir ; Jackson's 
 laurels can never scatter the seed that may 
 hatch some future Tarqurn, to wound the tender 
 breast of some chaste Lucretia. 
 
 Seminole War. 
 
 The House then again resolved itself into a 
 Committee of the Whole, (Mr. SMITH, of Mary- 
 land, in the chair,) on the subject of the Semi- 
 nole war. 
 
 Mr. BALDWIN, of Penn., observed, that, in 
 entering into the investigation of this subject, 
 he should not inquire whether motives of feel- 
 ing and compassion should induce us to palliate 
 and excuse the conduct of General Jackson and 
 the President, and whether it were right or 
 wrong. If innocent blood had been shed, or the 
 laws and constitution of the country grossly vio- 
 lated, neither the exalted character nor eminent 
 services of the persons implicated ought to ex- 
 empt them from the censure of this House. 
 But, on a careful examination of all the evi- 
 dence and documents submitted to us, he was 
 fully of the opinion expressed by his friend from 
 Kentucky, the chairman of the Military Com- 
 mittee, (Mr. JOHNSOX,) that General Jackson, 
 in the wilds of Florida, better understood the 
 laws of nations, and the constitution of his 
 country, than gentlemen in this House, who 
 had been so long discussing the propriety of his 
 conduct. 
 
 To come to a correct conclusion on the trial 
 
 and execution of Arbuthnot and Auibrister, it 
 
 would be well to inquire who they were, and 
 
 then* business and employment in Florida. Ar- 
 
 VOL. VL 21 
 
 buthnot was the agent of Nicholls and Wood- 
 bine, to excite dissensions among the Indians, 
 to make them dissatisfied with the treaty of 
 Fort Jackson, induce them by force to reclaim 
 the lands ceded to us by that treaty, and the 
 British and Spanish Governments to become 
 parties. By a special power of attorney he be- 
 came the general agent of all the Indians hostile 
 to us, and was the instigator of all their inroads 
 upon our Southern border. He pretended to be 
 there for trade, but this was a mere pretence. 
 Examine his letter to Governor Cameron, " I 
 beg leave to represent to your excellency the 
 necessity of my again returning to the Indian 
 nation, with the deputies from the chiefs, and 
 as my trouble and expense can only be defray- 
 ed by permission to take goods to dispose 
 among them, I pray your excellency will be 
 pleased to grant such a letter or license as pre- 
 vents me being captured in case of meeting any 
 Spanish cruiser on the coast of Florida." He 
 was not the advocate for peaceful measures; 
 his letter to General Mitchell justifies the mur- 
 ders of the frontier inhabitants. Speaking of 
 the Indians, he says, " If, in the height of their 
 rage, they committed any excesses, you will 
 overlook them, as the just ebullitions of an in- 
 dignant spirit against an invading foe." To 
 further ascertain his true character, and that of 
 his agency and trade, I beg the committee to 
 examine his letter to Mr. Bagot The bill of 
 goods that this humane trader and innocent 
 and injured man ordered to be sent to him, was 
 " 2,000 knives, blades from six to nine inches in 
 length, of a good quality 1,000 tomahawks.' 
 This was Arbuthnot; and these facts appear 
 from letters hi his own handwriting. 
 
 Ambrister was a pretended patriot ; the agent 
 of McGregor and Woodbine. He came to Flori- 
 da to command the runaway negroes of Geor- 
 gia, slaves who had absconded from their mas- 
 ters, and were organized by him to return to 
 our country, and visit it with all the horrors of 
 a savage negro war. He came to Florida on 
 their business, and to see them righted. Ac- 
 cording to the testimony of John J. Arbuthnot, 
 " about the 3d of March the prisoner Ambrister 
 came with a body of negroes, partly armed, to 
 his father's store on Suwanee Kiver, and told 
 the witness that he had come to do justice to 
 the country, by taking the goods, and distribut- 
 ing them among the negroes and Indians, which 
 the witness saw the prisoner do ; and that the 
 prisoner said to him, that he had come to the 
 country on Woodbine's business, to see the ne- 
 groes righted. The witness has further known 
 the prisoner to give orders to the negroes; and 
 that, at his suggestion, a party was sent from 
 Suwanee to meet the Americans, to give them 
 battle." Peter B. Cook testified, that, " some 
 tune in March, the prisoner Ambrister took 
 Arbuthnot's schooner, and with an armed party 
 of negroes, twenty-four in number, set out to 
 take Arbuthnot's goods, &c. The prisoner was 
 sent by Woodbine to Tampa, to see about those 
 negroes he had left there." Ambrister, in a
 
 322 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 The Seminole War. 
 
 [FEBRUARY, 1819. 
 
 letter to Nicholls, says, " There is about three 
 hundred blacks at this place, a few of our Bluff 
 people, (alluding to the negro fort on Prospect 
 Bluff;) they beg me to say they depend on your 
 promises, and expect you all on the way out. 
 They have stuck to the cause, and will always 
 depend on the faith of you," &c. The prisoner, 
 Ambrister, according to the testimony of Jacob 
 Hannon, "took possession of the schooner 
 Chance, with an armed party of negroes, and 
 stated his intention of taking St. Marks. While 
 the prisoner was on board, he had complete 
 command of the negroes, who considered him 
 as their captain." 
 
 He boasts that three hundred negroes have 
 stuck to the cause the cause of Indians attack- 
 ing the defenceless inhabitants of our frontiers ; 
 negroes fighting against their masters ; and all 
 joining in horrid butchery and murder ; Am- 
 brister leading them in the field, Arbuthnot 
 their agent, adviser, commissary, quarter-mas- 
 ter, store-keeper secure in a Spanish post, con- 
 certing all their plans, and directing all their 
 operations. 
 
 Gentlemen may differ as to the manner in 
 which we consider Indians, whether as a nation, 
 or as occupants of the soil, with a qualified 
 right of ownership ; but, as to negroes, there 
 can be but one opinion. In Georgia they are 
 slaves, property not merely personal but politi- 
 cal, property of the highest description, which 
 we are bound by the constitution to protect, 
 and to restore to their owners. These negroes 
 could acquire no new right by absconding into 
 Florida, and, however numerous their assem- 
 blage may be, we cannot acknowledge them as 
 thus acquiring any national character. As be- 
 tween them and us they were still slaves ; and 
 their owners, the Georgia militia, who were 
 with General Jackson, had a right to consider 
 and treat them not as a nation entitled to the 
 protection of the rules of civilized warfare. 
 They were, in fact, suppressing an insurrection 
 of slaves, aided by an Indian force, all assem- 
 bled and armed for purposes hostile to the 
 country. One white man is found at their 
 head, fighting and leading them on ; another 
 exciting, and supplying them with the means 
 of destruction. These men cannot complain if 
 they are put on a footing with those with 
 whom they thus associate. They cannot ex- 
 pect to raise this compound mass to their own 
 level, but must be satisfied to sink to theirs. 
 Arbuthnot's own opinion of himself is entitled 
 to some weight. In his letter of 3d March, 
 1817, he says: "The Lower Creeks seem to 
 wish to live peaceably, and quietly, and in good 
 friendship with the others, but there are some 
 designing and ill-minded persons, self-interested, 
 who are endeavoring to create quarrels between 
 the Upper and Lower Creek Indians, contrary 
 to their interests, their happiness, and welfare. 
 Such people belong to no nation, and ought not 
 to be countenanced by any government." He 
 did excite this war, and thus, by his own ac- 
 count, belongs to no nation. What then is he, 
 
 but an outlaw and a pirate, placed beyond the 
 protection of civilized society? Thus we find 
 General Jackson and Arbuthnot agree as to 
 him, and, as to Ambrister, I will willingly leave 
 it to be decided whether he was less an outlaw 
 than the runaway brigands whom he com- 
 manded. 
 
 The greater part of the hostile Indians were 
 the Creeks, who had been outlawed by their 
 people. To call a gregarious collection of this 
 kind, composed of outlawed Indians and run- 
 away negroes a nation, and give them national 
 attributes, is idle. Neither mass was so by 
 themselves, and their union for a common ob- 
 ject could not change the character of the con- 
 stituent parts. A better or more appropriate 
 name could not be given to them as a mass, or 
 as individuals, than outlaws and pirates. They 
 were so in fact, and, whatever rights we had 
 against any, we had against all, whether black, 
 white, or red. 
 
 Arbuthnot was near the scene of operations, 
 aiding and abetting, an accessory before the 
 fact. An attempt is made to distinguish his 
 case from Ambrister's, because he was a non- 
 combatant. But to me it seems, that the man 
 who, as the agent, commissary, and quarter- 
 master, directed and planned the operations 
 of this assemblage, and directly supplied them 
 with the means, is as much a combatant as one 
 who actually bore arms in the field. Thus were 
 these men completely identified with the Indians 
 and negroes, and, being found in this situation 
 by General Jackson, he practised towards them 
 not the right of retaliation, which is punishing 
 the innocent for the guilty, but applied to them 
 what is admitted and conceded to be the estab- 
 lished law of nations ; to treat those with whom 
 we are at war as they treat us. Indians put 
 their prisoners to death, and in this war they 
 did not spare women and children ; the brains 
 of the latter were dashed out on the sides of 
 the boat, after the massacre of Lieutenant Scott 
 and party, and I think it can hardly be con- 
 tended that we were bound to extend to these 
 savages, to runaway slaves, or white incendia- 
 ries, the humane rules of modern civilized war- 
 fare. Their execution was only the exercise of 
 an acknowledged right in us. 
 
 In distinguishing between the moral depravity 
 of the ignorant Indian, who, in roasting his 
 prisoner and murdering the mother and the in- 
 fant, follows the customs of his fathers, and as 
 he thinks, the dictates of his religion ; and the 
 white man, who, forgetting the mild customs 
 of his nation, and deaf to the benignant dictates 
 of the Christian religion, instigates, aids, and 
 abets the Indian and negro to the horrid butch- 
 ery of innocence, I think all must agree that 
 the one who sins against light and knowledge is 
 infinitely more criminal. The guilt is in the 
 heart that plots and not the hand that executes, 
 as Avas most forcibly expressed by a gentleman 
 from Virginia. Not in the musket, but in him 
 
 who directs it. If , who was present and 
 
 assisted at the burning of the unfortunate Colo- 

 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 323 
 
 FEBRUARY, 1819.] 
 
 The Seminole War. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 nel Crawford, had been taken by our troops, 
 and executed ; if, on that day, so proud and 
 yet so fatal for Kentucky, when, after the battle 
 of the river Raisin, there was a barbarous mas- 
 sacre of her captive soldiers, it had been true, 
 as was alleged, that a British officer, high 
 in command, abetted and connived at the mur- 
 ders, and he had been taken and executed, 
 would his fate have been more lamented than 
 that of the poor savage, whom they encouraged ? 
 In executing Arbuthnot and Ambrister, it is 
 not charged against General Jackson that he 
 had shed innocent blood. The facts were admit- 
 ted ; their guilt was established ; one threw 
 himself on the mercy of the court, the other 
 rested his defence on the rules of evidence. 
 The charge is, that the guilty have not been 
 punished according to the forms of law, and 
 that the constitution and laws of the country 
 have been violated in their trial and execution. 
 I think that neither have any bearing on the 
 case of these men. They were found and ex- 
 ecuted out of the territorial limits of the United 
 States, where our laws or constitution have no 
 operation, except as between us and our citi- 
 zens, and where none other could claim their 
 benefit and protection. If the rights of an 
 American citizen had been violated by an 
 American officer, he must answer to our laws 
 for an abuse of an authority which he derived 
 under them. These men were not our citizens, 
 not bound by our laws ; they owed us no alle- 
 giance, and were entitled to no protection. 
 The General claimed no power to punish them 
 under our laws. He knew that legislation was 
 necessarily confined to the boundary of the 
 Sovereign ; that on the ocean, where each na- 
 tion has concurrent jurisdiction, or in the terri- 
 tory of any other where it is exclusive, our 
 laws could not give us any power over the 
 citizens of other Governments, or within their 
 boundaries. All that we could claim or exer- 
 cise, in either case, is by the laws and usages 
 of nations. Our legislation cannot extend or 
 annul this code. We may, indeed, prescribe 
 the mode in which our officers shall execute 
 the powers which the laws of nations give us 
 over the persons, territory, or property of 
 others, but cannot extend our jurisdiction over 
 either, or give it in cases where those laws are 
 silent. In advocating the resolution which re- 
 quires some legislative rule on this subject, 
 gentlemen seem to forget these principles we 
 have no power we should encroach on the 
 rights of other nations. As we cannot, there- 
 fore, give ourselves any new powers by any act 
 of legislation, I trust gentlemen will see the bad 
 policy and the injustice we should do ourselves 
 by adopting any rule not to be found in na- 
 tional law. If we take from our officers the 
 powers which that law gives them, we go to 
 war on unequal terms, with our hands tied, so 
 that we shall not be at liberty to treat our 
 enemy as they treat us. Our officers could 
 neither retaliate nor punish for the most atro- 
 cious outrages on humanity. Innocent blood 
 
 would forever flow. Indian wars would never 
 cease. Foreign emissaries would always hang 
 on our borders, and escape with impunity. 
 The law of nations and of war gives the Gene- 
 ral power over his prisoners. The old prac- 
 tice was to put them to death ; and that still 
 exists, when the consent of the belligerents has 
 not adopted a different rule. Civilized nations 
 govern themselves by the laws of humanity ; 
 but our savages have not yet learned them. 
 War, with them, has lost none of its horrors or 
 cruelties. It surely cannot be pretended that 
 we are bound by a rule which they do not re- 
 spect; that we cannot, by retaliation or by 
 just punishment, revenge for past or prevent 
 future murders ; or that where we take white 
 men who have served in civilized armies and 
 know their usages, and yet aid and instigate the 
 most dreadful savage war, we may not treat 
 them as we might the savages or negroes whom 
 they command and lead on. By the laws and 
 uniform practice of civilized nations, this pow- 
 er is in the commanding General. In the case 
 of Captain Asgill, the old Congress resolved 
 that it was in every commander of a detach- 
 ment. This -was a strong case. He was about 
 to be executed for the crimes of another. We 
 have never, by any law, prohibited to a com- 
 manding officer the exercise of this power, and 
 it therefore remains with him. 
 
 MOSTDAY, FEBBTJAEY 8. 
 Bank of the United States. 
 The SPEAKEB laid before the House a memo- 
 rial of William Jones, late President of the 
 Bank of the United States, containing an expo- 
 sition of the views and motives which have 
 regulated his official conduct, and submitting 
 his case to the wisdom and justice of Congress, 
 in the full confidence that his reputation will 
 not be subjected to obloquy, by inferences alike 
 repugnant to his principles and to the whole 
 tenor of his private and public life ; which was 
 read and ordered to lie on the table. 
 
 Seminole War. 
 
 The House again resolved itself into a Com- 
 mittee of the Whole, Mr. BASSETT in the chair, 
 on this subject. 
 
 Mr. FLOYD, of Virginia, rose and said, that 
 he saw the impatience of the House, and knew 
 they were anxious to dispose of the resolutions 
 which had been so many days the subject of 
 discussion ; consequently, he would not detain 
 them though, having failed in several attempts 
 to get the floor at an earlier period of the de- 
 bate, he had entirely declined making any re- 
 marks whatever that he then rose more with 
 a view of expressing an opinion, and of pre- 
 senting a few facts, which had escaped the ob- 
 servation of other gentlemen, than any desire 
 or intention of entering upon the subject at 
 
 have, said he, considered the resolutions, 
 with all the attention I was capable of giving
 
 324 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 The Seminde War. 
 
 [FEBBUAKY, 1819. 
 
 them ; and, if I had believed the measures pur- 
 sued unconstitutional in themselves or barba- 
 rous, or unjust in their execution, I should have 
 revisited them upon the perpetrators -with a 
 heavy vengeance ; but, so far from this, my in- 
 quiry has led me to believe they are, and can 
 be, maintained, upon every principle of justice, 
 and the long-established usages of this Govern- 
 ment. And, sir, said Mr. F., it is with not a 
 little surprise I hear the advocates of these reso- 
 lutions disagreeing among themselves scarce 
 any two holding the same opinion. 
 
 The honorable Committee on Military Affairs 
 have had all the documents relative to the 
 Seminole war before them for weeks, and at 
 last seized upon the objectionable point, and 
 reported a resolution disapproving the trial and 
 execution of Alexander Arbuthnot and Kobert 
 C. Ambrister. There was an end to answer, 
 and this not being broad enough, other resolu- 
 tions are offered, as amendments, to enlarge the 
 chance of obtaining some success. One gentle- 
 man takes strong ground, and insists that the 
 war was produced by us ; that it was an aggres- 
 sion on our part, and all the proceedings result- 
 ing from it were unjust and unconstitutional. 
 One other gentleman does not quite believe the 
 war was waged by us, but believes the whole 
 of the resolutions ought to obtain that Gen- 
 eral Jackson is censurable throughout. One 
 other admits the justice of the sentence of Ar- 
 buthnot and Ambrister, but vehemently con- 
 demns the capture of St. Marks and Pensacola. 
 Again it is admitted that the execution of 
 these men was just and proper, and so with 
 the capture of St. Marks ; yet there is no justi- 
 fication in the affair of Pensacola. One other 
 honorable gentleman finds nothing to ex- 
 cuse but the execution of Ambrister. Last of 
 all, the gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. 
 FTJLLEE,) calls the war an aggression on our 
 part ; that it was unconstitutional ; that its 
 prosecution was unjust; the capture of St. 
 Marks, Pensacola, and the Barancas, an infrac- 
 tion of the constitution a war with Spain ; 
 the execution of these incendiaries a violation 
 of the law of nations ; and has even gone so far 
 as to justify the erection of the negro fort, 
 for the reason that Spain was too weak to pre- 
 vent it. 
 
 Now, sir, if the honorable committee, in their 
 calm retirement, a thousand miles from the 
 scene of action, and months after it happened, 
 could have discovered, from the documents, any 
 " absolute necessity " for the execution of these 
 wretched men, we have a right to infer that 
 such a report would not have been framed by 
 them ; but the General, who was there encom- 
 passed by enemies, death, and devastation, 
 judged wrong, and deserves the heavy censures 
 of his country. There has been so much said 
 upon this subject, such TOrious and conflicting 
 opinion among the advocates of the propositions, 
 all diverging from the long-established maxims 
 and usages of this Government, that I am un- 
 willing to pursue them, without first inquiring 
 
 what has been the course pursued by preceding 
 Administrations, under similar circumstances. 
 
 In reverting to the transactions of this Gov- 
 ernment, it will be found, that, so long ago as 
 the year 1789, difficulties and war with the In- 
 dian tribes took place ; and the then President, 
 WASHINGTON, felt himself authorized in taking 
 measures to defend the people of the South 
 and "West from their hostile incursions, and ad- 
 vised Congress, at their next session, of the 
 steps he had taken. That Congress thought the 
 measures highly commendable and proper. 
 
 In the year 1790, we find the same Washing- 
 ton complaining grievously of hostile irruptions 
 of certain banditti of Indians northwest of the 
 Ohio, aided by some on the Wabash ; that the 
 country was no longer in safety on that whole 
 frontier. He ordered one of the generals to 
 march an army against them, which army was 
 composed of the troops of the United States, 
 combined with such draughts of the militia as 
 were deemed sufficient. When this communi- 
 cation was made, no murmur was heard. 
 
 In 1791 difficulties and war with the Indians 
 beyond the Ohio again commenced ; troops 
 were ordered to march against them, and Con- 
 gress was informed that some of the expedi- 
 tions had been crowned with success ; that in 
 other instances the troops were then in the 
 field, the issue at that time not known. Con- 
 gress again approved. Another proof of this 
 sanctioned method of conducting this species of 
 war, is given us in the transactions of the year 
 1792, when the Indians beyond the Ohio were 
 in arms; the Chickamagas to the south had 
 come to an open rupture. Troops were assem- 
 bled, and put in training for a vigorous cam- 
 paign ; this, too, with a perfect knowledge of 
 Congress, who complained not of any violation 
 of right, or usurpation of power. 
 
 Were I to mention that the President of the 
 United States, in the year 1793, used every pos- 
 sible means in his power to avoid war with the 
 [ndians, but, finding them fruitless and unavail- 
 ing, ordered an army to march and act offen- 
 sively, I should say no more than is known to 
 every gentleman in this House ; and I presume 
 [ should likewise say no more than is known 
 ;o them, were I to say when the communica- 
 ion was made to Congress they approved the 
 >rocedure. Whence, sir, I may be authorized 
 n asserting, that no other opinions have ever 
 >een entertained of the correctness of the mode 
 >f conducting Indian hostilities, from the origin 
 of the constitution to the present time, than 
 those which directed in the late contest ; which 
 ught at least to be some apology with those 
 rho think the constitution has been disregard- 
 ed in the commencement of hostilities. And 
 how a different opinion came now to be enter- 
 ained, though we have passed through some 
 ears of sorrowful experience, is more than 
 can conjecture. 
 
 That a doubt on this subject existed for a 
 hort time, with one member of the Govern- 
 ment, is admitted ; but that doubt was dissi-
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 325 
 
 FEBRUARY, 1819.] 
 
 The Seminole War. 
 
 [H. OP R. 
 
 pated when the true sitnation of the Indians 
 came to be considered. The United States, 
 feeling liberty, and actuated by principles of 
 benevolence alone, extended to these people 
 every privilege, and all the rights of an inde- 
 pendent nation, which could be done consistent 
 with their own safety, and the condition in 
 which themselves were left by the long course 
 of European policy under which they had suf- 
 fered. And 1 presume it is not doubted that, 
 in the war of the Revolution, when these United 
 States took np arms against Great Britain, and 
 conquered the country from her, comprised 
 within the limits assigned to us by the Treaty 
 of Peace in 1783, they likewise conquered those 
 Indians who were the allies of England, bloody 
 and revengeful then, as upon a more recent oc- 
 casion ; full as much so as the most sanguinary 
 Briton could desire. I am much surprised to 
 hear gentlemen now talk of concessions their 
 
 now told, as a proof of their independence, that 
 we make treaties with them. This is the first 
 time I have heard the doctrine, though, without 
 doubt, many weighty reasons have led to that 
 conclusion. The United States have always 
 observed that ceremony, and permitted treaties 
 to be made with different tribes, as one of the 
 best means of conciliating their favor, and 
 maintaining our peaceful relations undisturbed ; 
 as they have never been permitted to treat with 
 any but the United States, or some Indian 
 tribe. But, say gentlemen, they declare war, 
 and are not guilty of treason in doing so. Was 
 it not rather because they were totally inca- 
 pable of appreciating the restraints of civilized 
 men, that they were, in this respect, permitted 
 to fangle their own destinies ? Have not the 
 United States ever claimed jurisdiction over 
 their country, as contained within the limits of 
 the Union ? And when a proposition was made 
 at Ghent to place it on a different footing, some 
 gentlemen then felt great indignation at the 
 idea. None will doubt, I imagine, the laws of 
 the United States having always been in force 
 throughout their country ; the'laws of the In- 
 dians only extending to Indians within their 
 assigned territory. If we go back, with the 
 gentleman from New York, to the discovery of 
 this continent by Europeans, when it waftSfcr- 
 tered away by the monarchs of that country, 
 down to the present time, we find they neither 
 are, nor ever have been, independent. 
 
 But, sir, granting the question in as full and 
 as broad an extent as gentlemen might desire, 
 can it be presumed the forces of the Republic 
 are to remain idle spectators see hostile incur- 
 sions take place men, women, and children, 
 put to death, without marching to defend them, 
 until Congress shall authorize them to protect 
 the helpless, and secure themselves ? Suppose 
 that power, with which we are doomed, at no 
 very iH-tant day, again to contend with, in the 
 bloody field of death, should unexpectedly as it 
 
 will be when it does come, declare war against 
 us : is the President to permit the ships of war 
 and the forces to lie idle, until Congress can be 
 convened from all parts of this Union to declare 
 war in turn ? Yet this is the effect of that doc- 
 trine. This constitution is not of such leaden 
 materials; it never was intended; it cannot 
 abridge the first great clause of the constitution 
 of man himself, written upon his heart by the 
 hand of Omnipotence "preserve yourself." 
 The wisdom of this instrument is acknowl- 
 edged ; the feelings of the hoary sages of the 
 Revolution, blanched in the field, amid embat- 
 tled legions, is appreciated ; and the doctrines 
 of liberty, moulded into form, in this instru- 
 ment, will be preserved ; and to pursue, at this 
 day, a course which themselves pursued, ought 
 to screen us from the charge of dangerous inno- 
 vation, or usurpation of power. I would ask, 
 who there is among us that does not recollect 
 the disasters of General St. Clair, and the anx- 
 iety of every individual for the success of Gen- 
 eral Wayne ? And who is there that does not 
 recollect the joyous enthusiasm at the news of 
 his victory, which ran, like an electric stream, 
 from one end of this continent to the other ? 
 This, I believe, was about the year 1V94 ; and, 
 too, at the instance of the Executive. I be- 
 lieve, likewise, that it was about this time that 
 troubles harassed us at the South an Indian 
 war having been excited by De Carondelet, who 
 was at that time Governor of Louisiana. At 
 all events, there was strong grounds to suspect 
 him for those hostilities. And for their ex- 
 penses in the prosecution of this war, I believe it 
 is, that the State of Georgia yet claims a debt 
 due her from the United States of perhaps 
 $129,000. And, could I recollect the argu- 
 ments of the honorable gentleman from Geor- 
 gia, (Mr. COBB,) at the last session of Congress, 
 when he advocated the Georgia claim with so 
 much ability and zeal, I would use them on the 
 present occasion, with perfect confidence of 
 success, at all events of gaining at least one 
 proselyte. All was constitutional then Exec- 
 utive power was all. 
 
 But, Mr. Chairman, I demand if Congress 
 have not, or, rather, I ought to say, have not 
 we, ourselves, sanctioned this war, to as great 
 and full an extent as ever Congress sanctioned 
 an Indian war ? And why is that an evil 
 now, which, at the last session, was encouraged, 
 and might have been prevented ? Was not the 
 President harassed the whole of last session, 
 with continual calls from this House? Did 
 they not call on him to know what General 
 Jackson was about? What measures he had 
 taken to put an end to the Seminole war ? Did 
 they not require the orders which had been 
 given to General Jackson to be communicated 
 to them ? And were they not communicated ? 
 Surely all this must have apprised them of the 
 nature of the military operations on the Florida 
 frontier ? Nay, more, did they not require in- 
 formation relative to the manner in which that 
 army was supplied ? And the feelings created
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R] 
 
 The Seminole War. 
 
 [FEBRUARY, 1819. 
 
 by the disclosure of the contractor's conduct 
 on that occasion will not, in a long time, be for- 
 gotten. To say nothing of the pay of the 
 Georgia militia in that army having been in- 
 creased from five to eight dollars, at the instance 
 and management of the gentleman from Geor- 
 gia, (Mr. COBB.) At all events, I recollect his 
 pressing through this House a resolution to that 
 effect in April last. 
 
 Now, sir, after these numerous acts of ap- 
 proval ; after granting money, providing men, 
 increasing their pay ; inspecting the orders of 
 the President to your generals with time to 
 act, and a knowledge of all, a measure of this 
 kind, and a report of that nature, was not to be 
 expected from this House as the reward of 
 fidelity and zeal. 
 
 If there is censure anywhere, it is due to 
 Congress for not having performed their duty ; 
 as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. HOP- 
 KINSON) admits, that, if there had been in ex- 
 istence such a law as the one contemplated by 
 these resolutions, he unquestionably believes 
 General Jackson had never executed Arbuthnot 
 and Ambrister, or captured the Spanish for- 
 tresses ; and yet that gentleman would censure 
 this General for doing an act which he would 
 not have done had such a law been in existence, 
 and that such a law has never been enacted, 
 cannot be any part of General Jackson's con- 
 cern. Let Congress themselves account for 
 this deficiency, which has, in the opinion of gen- 
 tlemen, caused such violence to the constitution. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, was it right to pass the Flori- 
 da line ? At the last session I do not recollect 
 to have heard a dissenting voice ; though it was 
 manifest then that the Executive paused and 
 reflected, and reflected much, before the Secre- 
 tary of War issued the order requiring General 
 Gaines to march his army into the Spanish ter- 
 ritory ; and then only upon the recurrence of 
 new outrages. These orders were as well known 
 then as at this time ; these outrages did occur ; 
 and, sir, I must think, then was the time for 
 this House to act ; then was the time to inter- 
 pose, to have preserved the constitution. But, 
 at that time, all these measures were pursued, 
 as the only efficient mode of putting an end to 
 the war. All were then energetically disposed 
 to put an end to those hostilities which harassed 
 Georgia and Alabama with murder and deso- 
 lation. All were then disposed to do them- 
 selves that justice which, by the law of nations 
 and nature, they had a right to do. As the 
 well-known impotence of Spain almost pre- 
 cluded the hope of her maintaining her author- 
 ity in that country, much less fulfilling her 
 treaty obligations, which was manifest from her 
 not having herself undertaken to subdue her 
 Indians making this war upon us, some gentle- 
 men thought the order to General Gaines slow 
 and inefficient, which required him to halt his 
 army, and not to attack the enemy under the 
 fort of St. Marks until he reported to the De- 
 partment of War, and received orders how to 
 proceed ; believing, from the nature of the trea- 
 
 ty of 1795, Spain to be, in that respect, an ally 
 of the United States. 
 
 I will not insist, as has been done by gentle- 
 men who advocate the same side with myself, 
 that the orders of General Gaines were not 
 binding upon General Jackson, believing, as I 
 do, that an order issued to an officer is binding 
 upon the next who takes command, though of 
 a higher rank, provided that order had been is- 
 sued by their common superior. But it appears, 
 from the documents, that General Jackson re- 
 ceived an order of subsequent date, from the 
 War Department, to conduct the war in Florida 
 "in the manner he might think best." Cer- 
 tainly the Secretary could not have meant any 
 thing more than that he was to conduct the 
 war in the manner he should think most con- 
 formable to the law of nations. Considering 
 the peculiar condition of all the parties, they 
 could not mean any thing else. Then the in- 
 quiry is, has he done so ? 
 
 On assuming the command at Fort Scott, this 
 General soon fixed on a plan for his future oper- 
 ations ; and, in the course of his march, pene- 
 trating into Florida to find the enemy's town, 
 he encamped at Prospect Bluff, on the old site 
 of Negro Fort. Finding it so entirely conve- 
 nient as a place of deposit, he erects Fort 
 Gadsden, contrary to every principle of justice, 
 in the opinion of some gentlemen, who justify 
 the erection of Negro Fort, because Spain was 
 not able to prevent it, and call that an outrage 
 which destroyed it, though there were many 
 hundred stand of arms, much powder, cannon, 
 fec., there, manifestly destined to be used 
 against the United States; and the burning 
 alive of a prisoner, and the massacre of a boat's 
 crew, might be thought by some a confirmation 
 of that belief. 
 
 It was from this place General Jackson wrote 
 to Governor Mazot, with all that frank and 
 open manner to be expected from an American 
 officer, who was executing the orders of his 
 Government, in prosecuting a war which we 
 had been engaged in through the inability of 
 Spain to wage, and in the termination of which 
 both countries were equally concerned, inform- 
 ing him, in the most explicit terms, of his 
 friendly intentions, and only asks that provi- 
 sions might be permitted to ascend the Escam- 
 bia to Fort Crawford. Was it the part of a 
 neutral nation to refuse that passage, when per- 
 haps the lives of part of his troops depended 
 upon those supplies? Was that the course 
 Spain ought to have taken to fulfil her stipula- 
 tions ? Under such circumstances, the law of 
 nations will justify force. 
 
 Hearing that the hostile Indians were em- 
 bodied at a town called Mickasuky, his march 
 was directed that way, where a battle ensued 
 the issue, success. And notwithstanding my 
 honorable colleague (Mr. MERCER) thinks the 
 accounts of those terrible massacres all vanish 
 to nothing upon examining into the subject, 
 there was found in this village a war pole, 
 decorated with fresh scalps, recognized by the
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 327 
 
 FEBKCABT, 1819.] 
 
 The Seminole War. 
 
 [H. OF B. 
 
 hair as torn from the heads of Lieutenant Scott 
 and his party ; and in the house of Kenhajo, 
 the chief of that town, were found more than 
 fifty others ! 
 
 . After this hattle, it is ascertained that the 
 enemy had departed, whilst one party directed 
 their march to Suwanee, the other to the fort 
 of St. Marks. It was then Captain Call, a gen- 
 tleman I am not acquainted with, but on in- 
 quiry I learn from every source that he is es- 
 teemed a man of honor, and a brave and excel- 
 lent officer it was then he informed General 
 Jackson of the message of the Governor of 
 Pensacola, That the fort of St. Marks was 
 weak ; that demands had been made upon it 
 for munitions of war by the negroes and In- 
 dians ; that he entertained strong fears for the 
 safety of the fort, as they had threatened to 
 seize it in case of refusal. Moreover, it appears 
 from the documents proof, I think, sufficient 
 of itself to justify the capture of that post 
 that the Indians did obtain ammunition and 
 arms at that place ; that councils of war were 
 held in it by the enemy, and in the quarters of 
 the Spanish commander; that the property 
 plundered from the citizens of Georgia was sold 
 there ; that Luengo did permit the clothes 
 taken from Scott's party to be sold to the Span- 
 ish soldiery ; and even contracts were made for 
 the purchase of property that was to be plun- 
 dered from Georgia. Now, I ask, if prudence, 
 justice, self-defence, did not demand the cap- 
 ture of St. Marks? Surely, the Governor of 
 Pensacola's message, if it means any thing, was 
 an invitation to take possession of it, even per- 
 haps to prevent a development of their nefa- 
 rious conduct. 
 
 After these operations, General Jackson de- 
 termined to put an end to the war, by giving 
 battle to the negro and Indian forces concen- 
 trated at the Suwanee towns, and, after innu- 
 merable difficulties, arrived at that place, and 
 defeated those who had not availed themselves 
 of the philanthropic disinterestedness of Mr. 
 Arbuthuot, who, it seems, had advised his 
 friend Bowlegs, by express from St. Marks, of 
 the number and movements of Jackson's army ; 
 and, too, with a knowledge of the Spanish 
 officer. This duty performed, he returned to 
 St. Marks, through the wilderness, in fijU^ftys,. 
 a distance of more than one hundred imles, 
 with a firm persuasion that the war was at an 
 end, and in a few days returned to Fort Gads- 
 den, on his way home. Why did he not return 
 home ? Here he was informed that Fort Craw- 
 ford was in great distress for the want of pro- 
 visions, which the Governor of Pensacola had 
 prevented from going to them, by enormous 
 exactions ; that the negroes and Indians had 
 possession of that place ; that a party had been 
 pursued within sight of it by a detachment 
 from Fort Crawford, and defeated, the fugitives 
 taking refuge in that town ; that the place; was 
 no longer under the control of the Spanish 
 power ; that many murders had been commit- 
 ted iu Alabama by bauds who went from that 
 
 post, and returned to it, with their booty and 
 scalps. Can it be supposed, under these cir- 
 cumstances, any place is to be regarded as 
 neutral ? It is of little consequence to the suf- 
 ferers, whether it proceeds from inability to 
 maintain its authority, or an unwillingness to 
 do so. The effect is the same. To take pos- 
 session of a post from which he has been an- 
 noyed by his enemy, is justice, and is conform- 
 able to the law of nations. Surely, if his ene- 
 my is sheltered by a fortress, and from it muni- 
 tions of war obtained, inroads and murders 
 planned and executed, and a return to that 
 place safe, to commence anew these scenes ; it 
 is difficult to conceive why the opposite party 
 is not entitled to the same indulgence. The 
 Governor of Pensacola does not deny this fee- 
 bleness, though he refuses positively to surren- 
 der the post ; in which he is right, as he, too, 
 has to account to a superior officer for his con- 
 duct. The inquiry then is, why did General 
 Jackson take it? The same answer may be 
 given which was given for the capture of St. 
 Marks. Are these things true ? The Spanish 
 superior authorities think so ; the Spanish King 
 himself thinks so. Then it was no war on the 
 part of General Jackson, but the assertion of a 
 right, resulting to us from the law of nations. 
 So it has been considered by all but our own 
 constitution ; which, -whilst it secures our liber- 
 ty within, it would seem takes away our rights 
 from without. 
 
 Much has been said of the trial of Arbuthnot 
 and Ambrister ; and, as I have already said, 
 after weeks of consideration, the Committee on 
 Military Affairs could not find any thing to 
 censure but the execution of these two British 
 agents and incendiaries. The one, bold and 
 hardened in guilt, plead guilty to the charges ; 
 the other expects escape from his diplomatic 
 skill. We are perfectly astonished, on examin- 
 ing the documents, to find them persevering 
 for a long time in maturing their schemes of 
 murder, and making arrangements to effect 
 their plans, in procuring arms and placing them 
 in the hands of the merciless savages, in stimu- 
 lating them to commence this war, in all its 
 horrors, and fall like a flood of fire on our 
 whole frontier, sweeping away all, both inno- 
 cence and age. More arms, of every descrip- 
 tion, are sought for ; knives, flints, and toma- 
 hawks, in alarming quantities. To crush the 
 lawless banditti of Indians and rebellious slaves, 
 who observe no law, human or divine, urged to 
 murder, indiscriminately, men, women, and 
 children, burn, plunder, and destroy, without 
 distinction, without remorse, by these relentless 
 fiends, General Jackson is ordered into the field. 
 Yet, for the destruction of these unhappy men, 
 are the Representatives of the people of this 
 great Republic called on, by that extraordinary 
 report of the committee, to censure their Gen- 
 eral ; and that, too, for not showing mercy to 
 those who knew no mercy, and whose hands 
 WC-H' -mukiiig with the blood of hundreds of 
 their countrymen ! This General who, in the
 
 328 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 The Scminole War. 
 
 [FEBRUARY, 1819. 
 
 day of adversity, stood like a rock of adamant, 
 and breasted the tempestuous waves of a doubt- 
 ful war; a war which had shook from their 
 base the massy columns of the Hall where it 
 was declared, and razed the Capitol to its foun- 
 dation stone, whilst frenzied fear bewildered all 
 it met, and red-eyed hate rolled with Satanic 
 smile upon the Administration of your country ; 
 he it was who raised a reputation to your arms 
 aiid to your country, bright and more bright as 
 the storm lulled away. 
 
 Even now again, almost upon the instant, 
 that gentlemen defies all, and challenges histo- 
 ry to produce one single example, and then 
 adds, there was none. I will not, Mr. Chair- 
 man, question the prowess of the Kentuckians ; 
 I believe they are brave, independent, hospita- 
 ble, and magnanimous, and all things that gen- 
 tlemen could wish them. I am proud at all 
 times to hear of their deeds of valor. Yet this 
 thing called bravery, I believe, is pretty equally 
 diffused through the great mass of men, and, 
 under similar circumstances, there would be 
 found but little difference ; brave officers will 
 always make brave men. Though what is said 
 of this conspicuous State cannot be doubted, as 
 all who have conversed with them know they 
 are independent ; all who have travelled in that 
 State doubtless have partaken of their hospi- 
 tality. And that they behaved well at the 
 battle of Tippecanoe, I do not doubt ; that they 
 behaved bravely at the battle of the Eiver 
 Eaisin I will not doubt; that they behaved 
 gallantly at the battle of the Thames I cannot 
 doubt. But, sir, there was retaliation, and 
 most conspicuous, in that State. In one in- 
 stance, well known, when a party of Indians 
 had committed depredations and murders, were 
 followed by Colonel Lyne, known to be a brave 
 and active officer, by some chance of war one 
 of the warriors fell into his hands, and was 
 hanged upon the next tree. The most striking 
 instance, however, is one which my friend from 
 Ohio (Mr. HAERISON) has just brought to my 
 recollection that, when that great General and 
 best of men, George Rogers Clark, was on that 
 celebrated campaign in which he stormed a 
 whole chain of British posts on the "Wabash and 
 Kaskaskias, he captured the town of St. Vin- 
 cennes ; whilst in the town, the well-known 
 noise was heard in the neighborhood, which in- 
 formed the inhabitants that a war party was 
 then returned with scalps. Clark immediately 
 despatched some of his soldiers and took them 
 prisoners. When the mischief they had done 
 was ascertained, he ordered them to be taken 
 in view of the British fort, and told to ask pro- 
 tection from their good father, George the 
 Third, and in that place were all instantly put 
 to death. In those days there were numerous 
 instances of individuals who had lost a relation 
 by the Indians, taking their rifles, and going in 
 search of the enemy, even in their own coun- 
 try, and killing one. At that time they called 
 it " taking satisfaction ; " of course it might 
 not be retaliation. 
 
 If I were to declare an opinion as to the hor- 
 rors and cruelty of all our Indian wars, I would 
 unhesitatingly say, to British agents all is at- 
 tributable ; nor can I now feel this sickly sor- 
 row for them. But, in those gloomy days ttte 
 honorable gentleman from Kentucky speaks of, 
 the machinations of these agents wrung with 
 agony and pain the bosom of many a gallant 
 man in that country with apprehensions for the 
 consequences. Children at school, in the hours 
 of play, were butchered, at the instigation of 
 those agents ; murder on every road, and death 
 in every path ; all went armed to their daily 
 avocations. Sir, the friend of my boyhood, the 
 honorable chairman of the Committee on Mili- 
 tary Affairs, ought to tell of early times there, 
 and of Indian wars and British agents, though 
 at that time he was only of such an age as to 
 "snow the danger, and rejoice when the sun 
 went down without seeing the mangled corse 
 of a murdered friend brought into the fort. 
 The melancholy transactions of the Semiuole 
 war are but faint rehearsals of thousands and 
 thousands of such acts in the "West. And, even 
 at this day, the name of British agent or trader, 
 for they are synonymous, will create a sudden 
 start of horror in the widowed mother of a 
 family, as it tears open all the sluices of her 
 grief, which time had soothed, but could not 
 destroy. The children were hushed to silence 
 by the terrible names of Simon Girty and Mc- 
 Kee. Could those incendiaries have been taken 
 n those days, every voice would have pro- 
 nounced their doom. Not only individuals in 
 that country, but whole families, were swept 
 away ; many who had rendered brilliant services 
 to their country, are now only known to those 
 who feel a kindred sorrow ; and if a gallant 
 deed has faintly pierced the terrible night which 
 overhangs their fame, should cause a stranger 
 to ask where they are now, or where their 
 children, echo mocks the inquiry, and retorts 
 the question. 
 
 Unquestionably, sir, there are many rights 
 incident to a state of war ; that, when hostili- 
 ties have commenced, and an enemy every 
 hour in view, it is difficult for a deliberative 
 body like this to seize upon an abstract princi- 
 ple, and apply it, at that particular place or 
 moment, and say what was or was not neces- 
 sary for their General to do. He knows the 
 obligation he owes to the constitution of his 
 country and the authorities of the State, and 
 knows what, by the law of nations, he may do 
 when surrounded by war and desolation, his 
 enemy near at hand, and retiring into a neutral 
 country. He has a right to follow, that neutral 
 power not prohibiting the entry of his enemy ; 
 his country, to say the least, rightfully becomes 
 the theatre of war. Nor is it easy to conceive 
 this feverish discontent at the death of men 
 who rightfully died; and, whatever may be 
 thought of it here, in the sunshine of peace, 
 and the whirl of gay daylight, the people there 
 consider it a blessing, and no doubt has already 
 saved the lives of many hundreds of our citi-
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 329 
 
 FEBRUARY, 1819.] 
 
 The Seminole War. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 zens. Nor can it be well understood why 
 these executions should be deemed cruel, when 
 with .them are associated the deeds for which 
 they suffered. Whilst recollection paints the 
 horrors of death in all its terrible forms the 
 scalps, fresh bleeding, torn from our country- 
 men, placed upon a pole, becoming the subject 
 of hellish mirth ; the helpless female butchered 
 whilst kneeling and suing for mercy ; the tooth- 
 less little infant snatched from its mother's 
 bosom, and its brains dashed out against a tree 
 its body thrown on the ground, there lies 
 quivering in death. Sir, amid scenes like these, 
 and the enemy at hand, to talk of delays is to 
 deride the mandates of nature and of nature's 
 God. 
 
 It has been further remarked by an honor- 
 able gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. HOP- 
 KCfsox,) that of all the genius in the world 
 there is none dangerous to the community but 
 a military one. Newton's genius was so great 
 that it seemed to hold converse with the stars ; 
 the erratic comet in its course could not escape 
 him, and, I believe, even threw light upon the 
 sun yet this was harmless. Shakspeare, the 
 great source of pleasure and instruction to ages, 
 past, present, and to come, was perfectly inno- 
 cent in all its operations. The honorable 
 Speaker says, too, should we not cling to the 
 constitution, and preserve it by passing these 
 resolutions, that the day is close at hand when 
 some daring chieftain, after another splendid 
 victory, will strut in his gaudy costume, casting 
 a look of approbation as he walks between obe- 
 dient rows of admiring vassals, and seize upon 
 your liberties ; and then the hills rising round 
 your Capitol will be covered with the gorgeous 
 palaces of a pampered noblesse ; and then tells 
 us, in words which sound very much like Pa- 
 trick Henry's, that Rome had her Caesar, Britain 
 her Cromwell, France her Napoleon, and may 
 we profit by the example. Napoleon! If I 
 were to express myself with an enthusiasm not 
 my own, I would say when nature made the 
 world, she next made the spirit of that great 
 man, and then she rested. I saw, or thought I 
 saw, the impression those dangers of military men 
 seemed to make upon the House, and believe I 
 am about to hazard an opinion, new in a degree, 
 and very opposite to that of both these honor- 
 able gentlemen, which is, that no government 
 has ever yet been destroyed by a successful 
 military chieftain. I appeal to history to sup- 
 port me, if my construction be right. If I re- 
 collect the words of the historian, "Caesar, 
 having less reputation, like a wise champion, 
 retired to a distance, for exercise, whilst the 
 two great factions preyed upon the liberties of 
 Rome ; when every contest for place or power, 
 was decided in the forum by the sword, and 
 stained the Capitol with blood." Then, not till 
 then, did Caesar return to Eome, which, ever 
 since the wars of Marias and Sylla, had known 
 no liberty. Nor is the overthrow of the Brit- 
 ish Government attributable to Cromwell : the 
 speeches of Parliament produced the revolution, 
 
 and the treachery of members. When all was 
 in commotion, by canting and preaching, Crom- 
 well secured the stronger party and became the 
 Protector. Nor can the French revolution be 
 attributed to any thing but to the insincerity of 
 the orators in the States General, and to none 
 in a higher degree than that greatest of orators, 
 and worst of men, Mirabeau. If, in after times, 
 as in all other revolutions, Napoleon secured 
 the stronger party, and swayed the Govern- 
 ment, it cannot be said he overturned it. Did 
 not every distinguished man in France rule as 
 long as he was popular with the stronger party ; 
 and did he not cease to rule as soon as he lost 
 his popularity ? This was no reproach to pro- 
 fessedly politicians, though in a military man, 
 possessing power by the same means, it subjects 
 him to the charge of using his military power 
 to overthrow the Government of his country ; 
 and by none more than disappointed orators, 
 who had contributed to the downfall of many 
 successive administrations, with a hope of one 
 day possessing it themselves. If I recollect the 
 history right, the only instance of the over- 
 throw of a regular government was by an am- 
 bitious statesman, one of the Dukes of Venice, 
 who boldly seized upon the powers, declared 
 the then Senators Senators for life, and then- 
 children after them. This, I am inclined to be- 
 lieve, is the source of then" nobility, the only 
 patent they have for rank. Moreover, I believe 
 it would be correct to say these men, the most 
 conspicuous military destroyers of their coun- 
 try, were all created by the times. No, Mr. 
 Chairman, our liberties are not to be endan- 
 gered by a successful chieftain, returning to us 
 with his gaudy costume, even after a hundred 
 victories of New Orleans. It is here, in this 
 Capitol, on this floor, that our liberty is to be 
 sacrificed, and that by the hollow, treacherous 
 eloquence of some ambitious, proud, aspiring 
 demagogue. And if, in tunes to come, we 
 should hear a favorite officer, who has exhaust- 
 ed his constitution in defence of his country 
 throwing wreaths of victory at her feet 
 charged with violations of her liberty, let us 
 inquire whether the sternness of his virtues is 
 not his greatest blemish. If history gives an 
 account of a military chiefs returning to his 
 country, and overthrowing its settled insti- 
 tutions, it has, at this time, escaped my recol- 
 lection. 
 
 Mr. ERVIN addressed the Chair as follows : 
 Mr. Chairman : I am sorry it has fallen to 
 my lot to be so late in debate on this question. 
 From my own feelings, I am persuaded the 
 committee is exhausted, and unwilling to be- 
 stow its attention, anticipating a want of capa- 
 city in any member to throw any new light 
 upon this interesting subject. A sense of duty, 
 however, has determined me to express to you 
 the opinion which 1 entertain in relation to it, 
 in doing which, I anticipate the same indulgent 
 attention which you have accorded to other 
 gentlemen. Before entering upon ite discussion, 
 I feel it a duty which I owe to the people and
 
 330 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 The Seminole War. 
 
 [FEBRUARY, 1819. 
 
 myself, to express my extreme regret, that so 
 much of our time has been appropriated to its 
 discussion, whilst other subjects of practical 
 utility, and great public importance, have 
 awaited our attention. Experience, sir, has 
 long since taught me the inutility of the ex- 
 pression of legislative opinion upon abstract 
 questions ; because, whatever may be the re- 
 sult of their deliberations, and the opinion ex- 
 pressed, it can have no binding efficacy in deter- 
 mining the discretion of subsequent legislatures. 
 At the last session of Congress, much sensibility 
 was felt because the President of the United 
 States expressed his opinion and determination 
 on a subject which he anticipated would engage 
 the attention of Congress. Although the cor- 
 rectness of the motive, in that case, was known 
 and appreciated, fears were entertained, lest, if 
 indulged and continued on the part of the Ex- 
 ecutive, and acquiesced in by Congress, a pre- 
 cedent would be formed which might tend to 
 limit legislative discretion. If the informal ex- 
 pression of this opinion, on a subject of which 
 he had concurrent jurisdiction, was deemed in- 
 correct, what opinion will be formed of the 
 character of the expression of an opinion in 
 relation to a military officer, not by the Con- 
 gress of the United States, but by the House of 
 Eepresentatives, over whom, even in their ca- 
 pacity as the impeaching power, they have no 
 jurisdiction ? For, as the House of Represent- 
 atives, the only power given to it by the consti- 
 tution (and without which it has no power) is 
 a power to judge of the elections, returns, 
 and qualifications of its own members, and to 
 punish or expel a member. In giving a con- 
 struction to the constitution, which I am sworn 
 to support, I cannot, and will not, suffer my 
 mind to be deluded by the imposing idea of the 
 House of Eepresentatives being " the grand in- 
 quest of the nation." I have just enumerated 
 its powers in its separate capacity, and contend, 
 that the exercise of any power beyond that 
 enumeration is assumed, but not delegated. 
 Courts of inquiry and courts-martial are the 
 proper and legal correctives of error or crimi- 
 nality in the military, which, if neglected to be 
 applied by the President, in cases requiring it, 
 he is responsible. 
 
 Again, sir, the sovereign authority ought 
 never to speak, but when it can command ; and 
 ought never to command, but when it can com- 
 pel obedience. In this case, the officer may lie 
 securely intrenched behind Executive protec- 
 tion, your resolves to the contrary notwith- 
 standing ; and a departure from this principle 
 ought never to be indulged, unless in approba- 
 tion of splendid achievements, by land or by 
 water, which will have the happy effect of in- 
 creasing the moral power or force of the 
 nation. 
 
 The treaty of Fort Jackson, in August, 1814, 
 which is said to have been the cause of the late 
 Indian war, has been adverted to in terms of 
 disapprobation and severe animadversion. " The 
 United States demand the United States de- 
 
 mand" expressions used in that treaty, are 
 thought too dictatorial. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, what age or country ever, saw 
 it otherwise than that the conqueror should 
 dictate terms of peace ; and, in this case, cir- 
 cumstances imperiously required it. For, in 
 the midst of peace, whilst we were endeavoring 
 to extend to the Indians the advantages of 
 civilization, supplying them with implements of 
 husbandry, and paying them an annual tribute 
 for their friendship, and just at the time when 
 we had engaged in war with a powerful and 
 warlike nation, forgetful of those acts of kind- 
 ness, they joined our enemy, and commenced a 
 war of extermination against our helpless wo- 
 men and children. Pity still drops a tear at 
 the remembrance of the conflagration of up- 
 wards of three hundred men, women and chil- 
 dren in Fort Mimms in 1813, and the winds 
 still sigh over the fields and repeat the dying 
 groans of our brave countrymen, who were in- 
 humanly butchered in cold blood by the Indians 
 after they, had capitulated at the River Raisin. 
 The whole frontier of Tennessee and Georgia 
 was threatened with ruin and desolation from 
 savage barbarity until the hero of New Orleans 
 appeared upon the theatre of action, and, by 
 triumphing at Talladega, Tullushatcha, Emuck- 
 faw, and Tohopeka, taught that unhappy de- 
 luded people, that, although we were engaged 
 in a foreign war, we were still able to avenge 
 savage insults, and repel savage injuries. And 
 will any one, after these facts and atrocities 
 being presented to him, pretend to say, that it 
 was unjust or unwise for the conqueror to cause 
 them to bo removed from the proximity of a 
 neighboring nation, from whence they were 
 continually goaded on to acts of violence and 
 deeds of murder ; or to dictate such terms of 
 peace as were best calculated to prevent the 
 repetition of similar scenes, and give security to 
 our southern frontier? I hope not. Your 
 General, as one of the commissioners on the 
 part of the United States to make that treaty, 
 acted correctly. The laws of nations declare, 
 " that an equitable conqueror, deaf to the sug- 
 gestions of ambition and avarice, will make a 
 just estimate of what is due to him, and will 
 retain no more of the enemy's property than 
 what is precisely sufficient to furnish the equiv- 
 alent. But, if he has to do with a perfidious, 
 restless, and dangerous enemy, he will, by way 
 of punishment, deprive him of some of his 
 towns or provinces, and keep them to serve as 
 a barrier to his own dominions." Notwith 
 standing the treaty of August, 1814, which was 
 depended on as effecting peace between us and 
 those savages ; notwithstanding the treaty of 
 peace between this country and Great Britain, 
 which also was expected to have produced the 
 same happy effect, they remained still hostile ; 
 notwithstanding all your triumphs over them, 
 they were beaten, but not conquered; they 
 were scattered, but not annihilated ; they ral- 
 lied again, and were afforded shelter and pro- 
 tection in East and West Florida, Spanish
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 331 
 
 FEBRUARY, 1819.] 
 
 The Seminole War. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 neutral neutral, did I say? Spanish hostile 
 territory. 
 
 Mr. Chairman : I care not for professions of 
 neutrality ; they shall not impose upon my cre- 
 dulity ; give me the evidence of facts which 
 are not to be biassed by fear, or influenced by 
 hope ; and, if we are to be determined, or to 
 judge by them, Spain was not neutral. I said, 
 sir, that the Indians were suffered to settle in 
 the Spanish territory, in the neighborhood of 
 Pensacola, in West Florida, and on the river 
 Appalachicola, and on a creek called Yellow 
 Water, in East Florida, and there in silence 
 brooded over imaginary evils, and meditated 
 bloody vengeance. Two civilized barbarians, 
 Ambrister and Arbuthnot, foreign emissaries, 
 once more lighted up the torch of war, and let 
 loose upon us those infuriated barbarians. In 
 
 1816, a boat's crew was murdered, and an 
 American citizen was tarred, feathered, and 
 burnt to death. On the 30th of November, 
 
 1817, Lieutenant Scott and fifty persons, con- 
 sisting of men, women, and children, were in- 
 humanly murdered, except a very few who 
 were wounded, but effected their escape. On 
 the 13th or 14th of March, 1818, two whole 
 families on the Federal road, in the Alabama 
 Territory, were put to death. The next day, 
 five men, riding along a road, were fired upon, 
 three killed and two wounded. Terror and 
 dismay pervaded the whole country. 
 
 Mr. Chairman : War in its mildest form is 
 dreadful ; but what force of eloquence what 
 power of description, can give an adequate idea 
 of Indian warfare ? It is a war of extermi- 
 nation : like the lava of Etna, fear marches be- 
 fore it. Like the storm of the desert, ruin and 
 desolation lead up its dreadful rear. Did you 
 ever, sir, meet a man returning alone from your 
 southern frontier, who had moved there with a 
 large family? With sorrow in his face, and 
 tears in his eyes, he begins the mournful tale, 
 but is unable to proceed his feelings deny him 
 utterance. Mr. Chairman : Have you not a 
 family ? Do you not love them ? Is it not for 
 them that you wish to live ? Is it not for them 
 that you would dare to die ? The glad day, sir, 
 will soon arrive, when you will return home, 
 aud behold again the wife of your youth, and 
 your children, the objects of your affection. 
 He too once had a family, but now they are 
 gone ; he will never see them more. The night 
 was gloomy ; her husband, her protector, was 
 far away ; the pale moon hid her face be- 
 hind the clouds ; the winds blew ; the tempest 
 howled; trembling she pressed to her bosom 
 the tender objects of their mutual love. At 
 length destruction came : the yell of the savage 
 awoke the sleep of the cradle ; fire and the 
 tomahawk without, horror and dismay within ; 
 the tender infant lifts up its arms for protec- 
 tion, and receives the stroke of death, and the 
 shrieks of the distracted mother are hushed in 
 everlasting silence. 1 sir, suspect no decep- 
 tion ; it is not the pencilling of fancy ; it is 
 history, faithful history, written in charac- 
 
 ters of blood along your whole southern fron- 
 tier. 
 
 But, sir, it is said that General Jackson, in 
 causing Arbuthnot and Ambrister to be exe- 
 cuted, acted incorrectly, and even his reasoning 
 has been considered wrong. I disclaim, Mr. 
 Chairman, having any thing to do with his rea- 
 soning, and if, upon investigation, I find his 
 conduct correct, I shall be satisfied. I would 
 do great injustice to my feelings, sir, notwith- 
 standing the criminality of the conduct of those 
 men, did I not express my extreme regret that 
 they were executed. Thinking, however, as I 
 do, that General Jackson had the power, as 
 commander, to put them to death, and having 
 exerted that power, no doubt as he thought for 
 the good of his country, I acquiesce. There is 
 no evidence that they were spies, in which 
 case they ought to have been tried by a court- 
 martial, furnished with the grounds of their ac- 
 cusation, and confronted with the witnesses. 
 They were foreigners, without our territory, 
 owed this Government no allegiance, either 
 local or general, and could therefore not be put 
 to death for high treason. And our courts for 
 the punishment of crimes on land could not 
 take cognizance of their acts, however criminal, 
 because they were perpetrated in a foreign 
 country and out of their jurisdiction. Nor were 
 they put to death to satiate cruelty or gratify 
 a malignant spirit of revenge, but as subjects 
 of retaliation, and, in terrorem, to prevent other 
 foreigners from identifying themselves with the 
 Indians and exciting them to murder and ra- 
 pine. This power, in every age, has belonged 
 and appertained to the commanding General ; 
 he commands the commencement of destruc- 
 tion, and, in modern warfare, stays the carnage 
 at the cessation of resistance ; but, in ancient 
 times, if he pleased, not until there was no one 
 left to resist. When war became less san- 
 guinary, the vanquished were made prisoners 
 and led into slavery : chained, they followed 
 in the train, to swell the pomp and triumph of 
 the victor ; and their lives, although spared, 
 were always supposed to be forfeited, and at 
 the mercy of the commanding officer, under 
 circumstances of imperious necessity. Upon 
 this principle was the bloody massacre of the 
 prisoners justified, who, upon the false alarm 
 after the battle of Agincourt were ordered to 
 be executed by Henry the Fifth, the pink of 
 courtesy and delight of chivalry ; and from this 
 principle, disguise it as you may, is derived the 
 power to put an innocent prisoner to death by 
 way of retaliation. The law of nations con- 
 siders your enemies in your power, not merely 
 as prisoners, but as hostages for the correct 
 treatment of your countrymen in the power of 
 your enemies. By the laws of civilized modern 
 warfare, women and children are exempt from 
 destruction, which, if denied to them, you are 
 perfectly justifiable to retaliate upon the In- 
 dians, or those who identify themselves with 
 them, so as to prevent its repetition. This 
 power of retaliation was assumed by General
 
 332 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OP R.] 
 
 The Seminole Wa 
 
 [FEBRUARY, 1819. 
 
 "Washington, in the Revolutionary war, in the 
 case of Captain Asgill ; and when the same 
 power was assumed by General Greene, to the 
 south, on account of the execution of the gal- 
 lant Hayne, the then Congress acquiesced in 
 the assumption of such power, by each of those 
 great men. But the honorable Speaker says, 
 "the right of retaliation is an attribute of 
 sovereignty, and comprehended in the war- 
 making power," and that because Congress has, 
 in the rules and articles of war, provided a tri- 
 bunal for the trial of spies, they have the power 
 to prescribe the rule or mode of trial in cases 
 of retaliation. Again, that no man could be 
 executed in this free country, without two 
 things being shown: first, that the law con- 
 demns him to death ; secondly, that his death 
 is pronounced by that tribunal which is au- 
 thorized by law to try him. 
 
 After Mr. EBVIN had concluded his speech, 
 the House yet being in Committee of the 
 Whole 
 
 The question was taken on the adoption of 
 the following resolution, reported by the Com- 
 mittee on Military Affairs : 
 
 " Resolved, That the House of [Representatives of 
 the United States disapproves the proceedings in the 
 trial and execution of Alexander Arbuthnot and 
 Robert C. Ambrister." 
 
 And decided in the negative ayes 54, noes 
 90. 
 
 The question was then put on agreeing to 
 the first resolution proposed by Mr. COBB, as 
 follows: 
 
 " Resolved, That the Committee on Military Affairs 
 be instructed to prepare and report a bill to this 
 House, prohibiting, in time of peace, or in time of 
 war, with any Indian tribe or tribes only, the exe- 
 cution of any captive, taken by the Army of the 
 United States, without the approbation of such exe- 
 cution by the President." 
 
 And decided in the negative ayes 57, noes 
 98. 
 
 The question was then taken on the second 
 resolution offered by Mr. COBB, which he modi- 
 fied to read as follows : 
 
 " Resolved, That the late seizure of the Spanish 
 posts of Pensacola and St. Carlos de Barancas, in 
 West Florida, by the Army of the United States, 
 was contrary to the Constitution of the United 
 States." 
 
 And decided in the negative, also ayes 65, 
 noes 91. 
 
 The question was then taken on the third 
 and last resolution proposed by Mr. COBB, as 
 follows : 
 
 " Resolved, That the same committee be also in- 
 structed to prepare and report a bill prohibiting the 
 march of the Army of the United States, or any 
 corps thereof, into any foreign territory, without the 
 previous authorization of Congress, except it be in 
 the case of fresh pursuit of a defeated enemy of the 
 United States, taking refuge within such foreign 
 territory." 
 
 And decided in the negative ayes 42. 
 
 The Committee of the Whole then rose and 
 reported their proceedings to the House, and 
 the question being stated on concurring with 
 the Committee of the Whole in their disagree- 
 ment to the resolution reported by the Military 
 Committee 
 
 Mr. POINDEXTEE, with the view, and with 
 that view alone, of obtaining a vote directly 
 on concurrence with the Committee of the 
 Whole in their report, called for the previous 
 question. 
 
 The House agreed to take the previous ques- 
 tion ayes 95 ; and. 
 
 The question being pronounced from the 
 Chair, " Shall the main question be now put ? " 
 
 Mr. SPENCER, upon this question, called for 
 the yeas and nays, which were refused ; and 
 
 The House having agreed to take the main 
 question, of concurring with the Committee of 
 the Whole in their disagreement to the resolu- 
 tion reported by the Military Committee, 
 
 Mr. HARBISON called for a division of the 
 question conceiving the cases of Arbuthnot 
 and Ambrister to be very distinct, and marked 
 by circumstances so different, as to permit the 
 approval of one and censure of the other. 
 
 The trial, sentence, and execution of Arbuth- 
 not were, he said, in his opinion, perfectly cor- 
 rect ; and, although he would not agree to cen- 
 sure any one concerned, when their motives 
 were as pure as he was certain they were on 
 this occasion, especially when he had no doubt 
 but both men deserved death ; yet, being called 
 upon to say whether the execution of Ainbris- 
 ter was right or wrong, as he differed in opin- 
 ion from General Jackson as to his powers over 
 the court, he was obliged to say that it was 
 wrong. It was an honest difference of opinion, 
 he said, and was not intended to convey any 
 censure upon that officer. 
 
 The question was then taken on concurring 
 with the Committee of the Whole in their dis- 
 agreement to the first branch of the resolution, 
 viz : " That this House disapproves of the trial 
 and execution of Alexander Arbuthnot," and 
 decided in the affirmative, by yeas and nays, 
 108 62. 
 
 The question was then taken on concurring 
 with the Committee of the Whole, in its disa- 
 greement to the second part of the resolution, 
 viz : " That this House disapproves of the trial 
 and execution of Robert C. Ambrister," and de- 
 cided also in the affirmative, by yeas and nays, 
 10763. 
 
 So the House concurred with the Committee 
 of the Whole in rejecting the resolution of cen- 
 sure reported by the Military Committee. 
 
 Mr. COBB then moved the adoption of the 
 second resolution, offered by him in Committee 
 of the Whole, as modified, in the following 
 words : 
 
 Resolved, That the late seizure of the Spanish posts 
 of Pensacola, and St. Carlos de Barancas, in West 
 Florida, by the Army of the United States, was con- 
 trary to the Constitution of the United States. 
 
 The question was then taken on the resolu-
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 FEBRUARY, 1819.] 
 
 Missouri State Government Restriction on the State. 
 
 [H. OF R 
 
 tion proposed by Mr. COBB, and decided in the 
 negative as follows : 
 
 YEAS. Messrs. Abbot, Adams, Allen, Austin, Ball, 
 Bayley, Beecher, Bloomfield, Burwell, Cobb, Colston, 
 Cook, Crawford, Culbreth, Cushman, Edwards, Elli- 
 cott, Fuller, Gilbert, Harrison, Herbert, Hopkinson, 
 Huntington, Irving of N. Y., Johnson of Va., Lewis, 
 Lincoln,. Lowndes, W. Maclay, W. P. Maclay, Mason 
 of Rhode Island, Mercer, Mills, Robert Moore, Mosely, 
 J. Nelson, T. M. Nelson, Ogden, Pawling, Pegram, 
 Piiidall, Pitkin, Pleasants, Reed, Rice, Robertson, 
 Rug-rles, Schuyler, Sherwood, Silsbee, Simkins, Slo- 
 cumb, J. S. Smith, Speed, Spencer, Stewart of North 
 Carolina, Storrs, Strong, Stuart of Maryland, Terrell, 
 Terry, Trimble, Tucker of Virginia, Tyler, Westerlo, 
 Whitman, Williams of Connecticut, Williams of North 
 Carolina, Wilson of Massachusetts, and Wilson of 
 Pennsylvania 70. 
 
 NAYS. Messrs. Anderson of Kentucky, Baldwin, 
 Barbour of Virginia, Barber of Ohio, Bassett, Bate- 
 man, Bennett Blount, Boden, Bryan, Butler of Lou- 
 isiana, Campbell. Clngett, Comstock, Crafts, Cruger, 
 Davidson, Desha, Drake, Ervin of South Carolina, 
 Floyd, Folger, Gage, Garnett, Hale, HaU of Dela- 
 ware, Hall of North Carolina, Hasbrouck, Hend- 
 ricks, Herkimer, Herrick, Heister, Hitchcock, Hogg, 
 Holmes, Hostetter, Hubbard, Hunter, Johnson of 
 Kentucky, Jones, Kinsey, Kirtland, Lawyer, Linn, 
 Little, Livermore, McLane of Delaware, McLean of 
 Illinois, McCoy, Marchand, Marr, Mason of Massa- 
 chusetts, Merrill, Middleton, Samuel Moore, Morton, 
 Murray, H. Nelson, Nesbitt, New, Newton, Ogle, 
 Orr, Owen, Palmer, Parrot, Patterson, Peter, Poin- 
 dexter, Porter, Quarles, Rhea, Rich, Richards, Ring- 
 gold, Rogers, Sampson, Savage, Scudder, Sergeant, 
 Settle, Seybert, Shaw, S. Smith, BaL Smith, Alexan- 
 der Smyth, Southard, Strother, Tarr, Taylor, Tomp- 
 kins, Tucker of South Carolina, Upham, Walker of 
 North Carolina, Walker of Kentucky, Wallace, Wen- 
 dover, Whiteside, Wilkin, and Williams of New 
 York 100. 
 
 And then the House adjourned. 
 
 THURSDAY, February 11. 
 A new member, to wit, from North Carolina, 
 CHARLES FISHER, elected to supply the vacancy 
 occasioned by the death of George Mumford, 
 appeared, produced his credentials, was quali- 
 fied, and took his seat. 
 
 SATURDAY, February 13. 
 
 Missouri State Government Restriction of 
 
 Slavery. 
 
 The House then, on motion of Mr. SCOTT, re- 
 solved itself into a Committee of the Whole, 
 (Mr. SMITH, of Maryland in the chair,) on the 
 bills to enable the people of the Territories of 
 Missouri and Alabama to form State Govern- 
 ments. 
 
 The bill relating to the Missouri Territory 
 was the first in order, and the first taken up. 
 
 The committee were busily occupied until 
 half past 4 o'clock, in maturing the details of 
 this bill, and discussing propositions for its 
 amendment ; in which Messrs. SCOTT, ROBERT- 
 SON, MILLS, HARRISON, ANDERSON of Kentucky, 
 
 DESHA, TALLMADGE, CLAY, and BARBOUR, par- 
 ticipated. 
 
 In the course of the consideration, Mr TALL- 
 MADGE moved an amendment, substantially to 
 limit the existence of slavery in the new State, 
 by declaring all free who should be born hi the 
 Territory after its admission into the Union, 
 and providing for the gradual emancipation of 
 those now held in bondage. 
 
 This motion gave rise to an interesting and 
 pretty wide debate, in which the proposition 
 was supported by the mover, and by Messrs. 
 LIVERMORE and MILLS, and was opposed by 
 Messrs. CLAY, (Speaker,) BARBOUR, and Pnr- 
 DALL ; but before any question was taken, the 
 committee rose, and the House adjourned.* 
 
 MONDAY, February 15. 
 
 Missouri State Government Restriction on the 
 State. 
 
 The House having again resolved itself into a 
 Committee of the Whole, (Mr. SMITH of Mary- 
 land in the chair,) on the bill to authorize the 
 people of the Missouri Territory to form a con- 
 stitution and State government, and for the ad- 
 mission of the same into the Union 
 
 The question being on the proposition of Mr. 
 TALLMADGE to amend the bill by adding to it 
 the following proviso : 
 
 * This was the commencement of the great Missouri agi- 
 tation which was settled by the compromise. No two 
 words have been more confounded of late than these of the 
 restriction and compromise BO much so that some of the 
 eminent speakers of the time have had their speeches against 
 the restriction quoted as being against the compromise of 
 which they were zealous advocates. Though often con- 
 founded, no two measures could be more opposite in the 
 nature and effects. The restriction was to operate upon a 
 State the compromise on territory. The restriction was 
 to prevent the State of Missouri from admitting slavery 
 the compromise was to admit slavery there, and to divide 
 the rest of Louisiana about equally between free and slave 
 soil. The restriction came from the North the compro- 
 mise from the South. The restriction raised the storm 
 the compromise allayed it. And all this may be seen in the 
 debates on the subject, now made accessible to the commu- 
 nity by this abridgment. Since it has come into vogue to 
 decry the compromise, much inapplicable testimony has 
 been brought against it ; among the rest a letter from Mr 
 Madison to Mr. Robert Walsh, of Philadelphia, of date No- 
 vember 27th, 1819. That letter has been published in a 
 handsome quarto volume (of Mr. Madison's letters) by Mr. 
 James C. McGuire, of Washington City a publication not 
 made for sale, or to subserve a purpose, but for presents to 
 friends. It is a great mistake in the understanding of that 
 letter, and a wide misapplication of its close and masterly 
 reasoning, to understand it as applying to the compromise. 
 On looking at it, it will bo seen that its whole tenor applies 
 to the restriction on the State ; that the word compromise 
 is not in it ; that it was written the year before the compro- 
 mise, and at the very moment the eve of the meeting of 
 Congress, the session of 1819-'20 when the attempted re- 
 striction had occasioned the loss of the State bill the session 
 before, ami when the restriction question was wearing its 
 direst aspect.
 
 334 
 
 ABKIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OP R.] 
 
 Missouri State Government Restriction on the State. 
 
 [FEBRUARY, 1819. 
 
 " And provided, That the further introduction of 
 slavery or involuntary servitude be prohibited, except 
 for the punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall 
 have been fully convicted ; and that all children born 
 within the said State, after the admission thereof into 
 the Union, shall be free at the age of twenty-five 
 years :" 
 
 The debate which commenced on Saturday 
 was to-day resumed on this proposition ; which 
 was supported by Mr. TAYLOR, Mr. MILLS, Mr. 
 LIVEKMOEE, and Mr. FULLER; and opposed by 
 Mr. BARBOUR, Mr. PINDALL, Mr. CLAY, and Mr. 
 HOLMES. 
 
 This debate (which was quite interesting) in- 
 volved two questions ; one of right, the other of 
 expediency. Both were supported by the advo- 
 cates of the amendment, and generally opposed 
 by its opponents. On the one hand, it was con- 
 tended that Congress had no right to prescribe 
 to any State the details of its government, any 
 further than that it should be republican in its 
 form ; that such a power would be nugatory, if 
 exercised, since, once admitted into the Union, 
 the people of any State have the unquestioned 
 right to amend their constitution of govern- 
 ment, &c. 
 
 On the other hand, it was as strongly con- 
 tended .that Congress had the right to annex 
 conditions to the admission of any new State 
 into the Union ; that slavery was incompatible 
 with our Republican institutions, &c. 
 
 Besides the above gentlemen, Mr. HARRISON 
 and Mr. HENDRIOKS spoke on points incidentally 
 introduced into the debate. 
 
 Mr. TAYLOR, of New York, spoke as follows : 
 
 Mr. Chairman, if the few citizens who now 
 inhabit the territory of Missouri were alone in- 
 terested in the decision of this question, I should 
 content myself with voting in favor of the 
 amendment, without occupying for a moment 
 the attention of the committee. But the fact 
 is far otherwise : those whom we shall authorize 
 to set in motion the machine of free government 
 beyond the Mississippi, will, in many respects, 
 decide the destiny of millions. Cast your eye 
 on that majestic river which gives name to the 
 Territory, for the admission of which into the 
 Union we are about to provide ; trace its 
 meanderings through fertile regions for more 
 than two thousand miles ; cross the Stony Moun- 
 tains, and descend the navigable waters which 
 empty into the Western ocean; contemplate 
 the States hereafter to unfurl their banners 
 over this fair portion of America, the successive 
 generations of freemen who there shall adorn 
 the arts, enlarge the circle of science, and im- 
 prove the condition of our species. Having 
 taken this survey, you will be able, in some 
 measure, to appreciate the importance of the 
 subject before us. Our votes this day will de- 
 termine whether the high destinies of this 
 region, and of these generations, shall be fulfilled, 
 or whether we shall defeat them by permitting 
 slavery, with all its baleful consequences, to in- 
 herit the land. Let the magnitude of this ques- 
 tion plead my apology, while I briefly address 
 
 a few considerations to the sober judgment of 
 patriots and statesmen. 
 
 I will not now stop to examine the policy of 
 extending our settlements into the wilderness, 
 with the astonishing rapidity which has marked 
 their progress, leaving within our ancient 
 borders an extensire country, unsubdued by the 
 hand of man. This inquiry, although intimately 
 connected with the subject, would too much 
 extend the range of discussion at this late period 
 of the session. I, however, cannot forbear re- 
 minding gentlemen, that but few years have 
 elapsed since the opinion was often expressed, 
 and earnestly inculcated by our wisest and best 
 men, that no locations ought to be made beyond 
 the Mississippi, until the original States and 
 Territories should acquire a population of con- 
 siderable compactness and strength ; and that 
 our military posts should not be pushed forward 
 faster than was necessary to protect the frontier 
 settlements. A policy embracing more en- 
 larged ideas, and more magnificent projects, 
 appears to have succeeded. We now talk of 
 forts at the mouth of the Yellow Stone, and 
 military establishments some fifteen or twenty 
 hundred miles in the Indian country, as objects 
 of reasonable and easy achievement. An hon- 
 orable member from Virginia has this morning 
 presented a petition from sundry inhabitants of 
 that State, praying of Congress permission to 
 settle on Columbia River, between the Rocky 
 Mountains and the Pacific Ocean, probably in- 
 tending to introduce slavery into the remotest 
 verge of republican territory. I pass over these 
 subjects, however momentous, and well deserv- 
 ing the attention of Congress, and come directly 
 to the points in issue. 
 
 First. Has Congress power to require of Mis- 
 souri a constitutional prohibition against the 
 further introduction of slavery, as a condition of 
 her admission into the Union ? 
 
 Second. If the power exist, is it wise to exer- 
 cise it? 
 
 Congress has no power unless it be expressly 
 granted by the constitution, or necessary to the 
 execution of some power clearly delegated. 
 What, then, ar% the grants made to Congress in 
 relation to the Territories ? The third section 
 of the fourth article declares, that " the Con- 
 gress shall have power to dispose of and make 
 all needful rules and regulations respecting the 
 territory, or other property, belonging to the 
 United States." It would be difficult to devise 
 a more comprehensive grant of power. The 
 whole subject is put at the disposal of Congress, 
 as well as the right of judging what regulations 
 are proper to be made, as the power of making 
 them is clearly granted. Until admitted into 
 the Union, this political society is a territory ; 
 all the preliminary steps relating to its admis- 
 sion are territorial regulations. Hence, in all 
 such cases, Congress has exercised the power of 
 determining by whom the constitution should 
 be made, how its framers should be elected, 
 when and where they should meet, and what 
 propositions should be submitted to their deci-
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 335 
 
 FEBRUARY, 1819.] 
 
 Missouri State Government Restriction on the State. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 sion. After its formation, the Congress examine 
 its provisions, and, if approved, admit the State 
 into the Union, in pursuance of a power dele- 
 gated by the same section of the constitution, 
 in the following words : " New States may be 
 admitted by the Congress into the Union." 
 This grant of power is evidently alternative ; 
 its exercise is committed to the sound discretion 
 of Congress ; no injustice is done by declining it. 
 But if Congress has the power of altogether re- 
 fusing to admit new States, much more has it 
 the power of prescribing such conditions of ad- 
 mission as may be judged reasonable. The exer- 
 cise of this power, until now, has never been 
 questioned. The act of 1802, under which Ohio 
 was admitted into the Union, prescribed the 
 condition that its constitution should not be re- 
 pugnant to the ordinance of 1787. The sixth 
 article of that ordinance declares, " there shall 
 be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in 
 the said territory, otherwise than in the punish- 
 ment of crimes whereof the party shall have been 
 duly convicted." The same condition was im- 
 posed by Congress on the people of Indiana and 
 Illinois. These States have all complied with 
 it, and framed constitutions excluding slavery. 
 Missouri lies in the same latitude. Its soil, pro- 
 ductions, and climate are the same, and the same 
 principles of government should be applied 
 to it. 
 
 But it is said that, by the treaty of 1803, with 
 the French Republic, Congress is restrained from 
 imposing this condition. The third article is 
 quoted as containing the prohibition. It is in 
 the following words : " The inhabitants of the 
 ceded territory shall be incorporated in the 
 Union of the United States, and admitted as 
 soon as possible, according to the principles of 
 the Federal Constitution, to the enjoyment of all 
 the rights, advantages, and immunities of citi- 
 zens of the United States, and, in the mean time, 
 they shall be maintained and protected in the 
 free enjoyment of their liberty, property, and 
 the religion which they profess." The inhab- 
 itants of the ceded territory, when transferred 
 from the protection of the French Republic, in 
 regard to the United States, would have stood 
 in the relation of aliens. The object of the 
 article doubtless was to provide for their admis- 
 sion to the rights of citizens, and their in- 
 corporation into the American family. The 
 treaty made no provision for the erection of 
 new States in the ceded territory. That was a 
 question of national policy, properly reserved 
 for the decision of those to whom the constitu- 
 tion had committed the power. The framers of 
 the treaty well knew that the President and Sen- 
 ate could not bind Congress to admit new States 
 into the Union. The unconstitutional doctrine 
 had not then been broached, that the President 
 and Senate could not only purchase a West In- 
 dia island or an African principality, but also 
 impose upon Congress an obligation to make it 
 an independent State, and admit it into the 
 Union. If the President and Senate can, by 
 treaty, change the Constitution of the United 
 
 States, and rob Congress of a power clearly del- 
 egated, the doctrine may be true, but other- 
 wise, it is false. The treaty, therefore, has no 
 operation on the question in debate. Its re- 
 quirements, however, have been faithfully ful- 
 filled. In 1804, the laws of the United States 
 were extended to that territory. The protec- 
 tion afforded by the Federal Constitution was 
 guaranteed to its inhabitants. They were thus 
 "incorporated in the Union," and secured in 
 the enjoyment of their rights. The treaty stipu- 
 lation being thus executed, " as soon as possible," 
 it remained a question for the future determi- 
 nation of Congress, whether the Government 
 should remain territorial or become that of an 
 independent State. In 1811, this question was 
 decided in relation to that part of the territory 
 which then embraced nearly all the population, 
 and to acquire which, alone, the treaty had been 
 made. A law was passed to enable the people 
 of the Territory of Orleans to form a constitu- 
 tion and State government, and to provide for 
 its admission into the Union. Did Congress 
 then doubt its power to annex conditions to 
 such admission? No, sir, far from it. The 
 government of Orleans had always been admin- 
 istered according to the principles of the civil 
 law. The common law, so highly valued in 
 other parts of our country, was not recognized 
 there. Trial by jury was unknown to the in- 
 habitants. Instead of a privilege, they con- 
 sidered its introduction an odious departure 
 from their ancient administration of justice. 
 Left to themselves, they never would have in- 
 troduced it. Congress, however, knowing these 
 things, made it a condition of their admission 
 into the Union, that trial by jury should be 
 secured to the citizen by a constitutional pro- 
 vision. 
 
 Even the language of the Territory was re- 
 quired to be changed, as a condition of its ad- 
 mission. The inhabitants were wholly French 
 and Spanish. Theirs were the only languages 
 generally spoken, or even understood. But 
 Congress required from them a constitutional 
 provision, that their legislative and judicial pro- 
 ceedings should be conducted in the English 
 language. They were not left at liberty to de- 
 termine this point for themselves. From these 
 facts, it appears that Congress, at that day, acted 
 from a conviction that it possessed the power 
 of prescribing the conditions of their admission 
 into the Union. 
 
 Gentlemen have said the amendment is in 
 violation of the treaty, because it impairs the 
 property of a master in his slave. Is it then 
 pretended, that, notwithstanding the declaration 
 in our bill of rights, " that all men are created 
 equal," one individual can have a vested prop- 
 erty not only in the flesh and blood of his fel- 
 low man, but also in generations not yet called 
 into existence? Can it bo believed that the 
 supreme Legislature has no power to provide 
 rules and regulations for ameliorating the con- 
 dition of future ages ? And this, too, when the 
 constitution itself has vested in Congress full
 
 336 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 Missouri State Government Restriction on the State. 
 
 [FEBKUAKT, 1819. 
 
 sovereignty, by authorizing the enactment of 
 whatever law it may deem conducive to the 
 welfare of the country. The sovereignty of 
 Congress in relation to the States, is limited by 
 specific grants but, in regard to the Territories, 
 it is unlimited. Missouri was purchased with 
 our money, and, until incorporated into the 
 family of States, it may be sold for money. 
 Can it then be maintained, that although we 
 have the power to dispose of the whole Terri- 
 tory, we have no right to provide against the 
 further increase of slavery within its limits? 
 That, although we may change the political re- 
 lations of its free citizens by transferring their 
 country to a foreign power, we cannot provide 
 for the gradual abolition of slavery within its 
 limits, nor establish those civil regulations which 
 naturally flow from self-evident truth? No, 
 sir, it cannot ; the practice of nations and the 
 common sense of mankind have long since de- 
 cided these questions. 
 
 Having proved, as I apprehend, our right to 
 legislate in the manner proposed, I proceed to 
 illustrate the propriety of exercising it. And 
 here I might rest satisfied with reminding my 
 > opponents of their own declarations on the sub- 
 ject of slavery. How often, and how eloquently, 
 have they deplored its existence among them ? 
 What willingness, nay, what solicitude have 
 they not manifested to be relieved from this 
 burden ? How have they wept over the unfor- 
 tunate policy that first introduced slaves into 
 this country ! How have they disclaimed the 
 guilt and shame of that original sin, and thrown 
 it back upon their ancestors! I have with 
 pleasure heard these avowals of regret, and con- 
 fided in their sincerity ; I have hoped to see its 
 effects in the advancement of the cause of hu- 
 manity. Gentlemen have now an opportunity 
 of putting their principles into practice ; if they 
 have tried slavery and found it a curse ; if they 
 desire to dissipate the gloom with which it 
 covers their land ; I call upon them to exclude 
 it from the Territory in question ; plant not its 
 seeds in this uncorrupt soil ; let not our chil- 
 dren, looking back to the proceedings of this 
 day, say of them, as they have been constrained 
 to speak of their fathers, " we wish their decision 
 had been different ; we regret the existence of 
 this unfortunate population among us ; but we 
 found them here : we know not what to do 
 with them ; it is our misfortune, we must bear 
 it with patience." 
 
 History will record the decision of this day as 
 exerting its influence for centuries to come over 
 the population of half our continent. If we re- 
 ject the amendment, and suffer this evil, now 
 easily eradicated, to strike its roots so deep in 
 the soil that it can never be removed, shall we 
 not furnish some apology for doubting our sin- 
 cerity, when we deplore its existence shall we 
 not expose ourselves to the same kind of censure 
 which was pronounced by the Saviour of man- 
 kind upon the Scribes and Pharisees, who build- 
 ed the tombs of the prophets and garnished the 
 sepulchres of the righteous, and said, if they 
 
 had lived in the days of their fathers, they would 
 not have been partakers with them in the blood . 
 of the prophets, while they manifested a spirit 
 which clearly proved them the legitimate de- 
 scendants of those who killed the prophets, and 
 thus filled up the measure of their fathers' 
 iniquity ? 
 
 Mr. Chairman, one of the gentlemen from 
 Kentucky (Mr. CLAY) has pressed into his ser- 
 vice the cause of humanity. He has pathetically 
 urged us to withdraw our amendment and suffer 
 this unfortunate population to be dispersed over 
 the country. He says they will be better fed, 
 clothed, and sheltered, and their whole condi- 
 tion will be greatly improved. Sir, true hu- 
 manity disowns his invocation. The humanity 
 to which he appeals is base coin ; it is counter- 
 feit, it is that humanity which seeks to palliate 
 disease by the application of nostrums, which 
 scatter its seeds through the whole system 
 which saves a finger to day, but amputates the 
 arm to-morrow. Sir, my heart responds to the 
 call of humanity ; I will zealously unite in any 
 practicable means of bettering the condition of 
 this oppressed people. I am ready to appro- 
 priate a territory to their use, and to aid them 
 in settling it but I am not willing, I never will 
 consent to declare the whole country west of 
 the Mississippi a market overt for human flesh. 
 In vain will you enact severe laws against the 
 importation of slaves, if you create for them an 
 additional demand, by opening the western world 
 to their employment. While a negro man is 
 bought in Africa for a few gewgaws or a bottle 
 of whiskey, and sold at New Orleans for twelve 
 or fifteen hundred dollars, avarice will stimulate 
 to the violation of your laws. Notwithstanding 
 the penalties and confiscations denounced in 
 your statutes and actually enforced on all de- 
 tected offenders, the slave trade continues a 
 vigilant execution of the laws may diminish it, 
 but, while you increase the demand and offer so 
 great temptation to the cupidity of unprincipled 
 men, they will encounter every peril in the 
 prosecution of this unhallowed traffic. The 
 gentleman from Kentucky has intimated his 
 willingness, in addition to the existing penalties 
 upon transgression, to discourage this inhuman 
 commerce by declaring the imported slave to be 
 free. This provision, if established, would in 
 theory provide some remedy for the evil, but in 
 practice it would be found altogether inopera- 
 tive. A slave is smuggled into the country and 
 by law becomes free ; but the fact of importa- 
 tion must be established by witnesses in a court 
 of justice. In non-slaveholding States, all men 
 are presumed free, until the contrary be proved ; 
 but, where slavery is established, all black men 
 are presumed slaves, until they are proved free. 
 This presumption alone would generally present 
 to the slave an insuperable obstacle to the suc- 
 cessful prosecution of his claim he moreover 
 would be poor, unfriended, ignorant of our lan- 
 guage, and under the watchful eye of those 
 whose interest it would be to allow no commu- 
 nication of his wrongs .where redress could be
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 337 
 
 FEBRUARY, 1819.] 
 
 Missouri State Government Restriction on the State. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 obtained. The right of freedom might exist, 
 but he would find it impracticable to enforce it, 
 and he probably would have occasion to feel 
 that every effort to break his chains only in- 
 crease their weight and render his condition the 
 more intolerable. 
 
 To the objection that this amendment will, if 
 adopted,, diminish the value of a species of prop- 
 erty in one portion of the Union, and thereby 
 operate unequally, I reply, that if, by depriving 
 slaveholders of the Missouri market, the business 
 of raising slaves should become less profitable, it 
 would be an effect incidentally produced, but 
 is not the object of the measure. The law pro- 
 hibiting the importation of foreign slaves was 
 not passed for the purpose of enhancing the 
 value of those then in the country, but that 
 effect has been incidentally produced in a very 
 great degree. So now the exclusion of slavery 
 from Missouri may operate, in some measure, to 
 retard a further advance of prices ; but, surely, 
 when gentlemen consider the present demand 
 for their labor, and the extent of country in 
 Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, requiring a 
 supply, they ought not to oppose their exclusion 
 from the territory in question. It is further 
 objected, that the amendment is calculated to 
 disfranchise our brethren of the South, by dis- 
 couraging their emigration to the country west 
 of the Mississippi. If it were proposed to dis- 
 criminate between citizens of the different sec- 
 tions of our Union, and allow a Pennsylvanian 
 to hold slaves there while the power was denied 
 to a Virginian, the objection might very properly 
 be made ; but, when we place all on an equal 
 footing, denying to all what we deny to one, I 
 am unable to discover the injustice or inequality 
 of which honorable gentlemen have thought 
 proper to complain. The description of emi- 
 grants may be affected in some measure, by the 
 amendment in question. If slavery shall be 
 tolerated, the country will be settled by rich 
 planters, with their slaves ; if it shall be rejected, 
 the emigrants will chiefly consist of the poorer 
 and more laborious classes of society. If it be 
 true that the prosperity and happiness of a coun- 
 try ought to constitute the grand object of its 
 legislators, I cannot hesitate for a moment which 
 species of population deserves most to be en- 
 couraged by the laws we may pass. Gentlemen, 
 in their zeal to oppose the amendment, appear 
 to have considered but one side of the case. If 
 the rejection of slavery will tend to discourage 
 emigration from the South, will not its admis- 
 sion have the same effect in relation to the North 
 and East ? Whence came the people who, with 
 a rapidity never before witnessed, have changed 
 
 into fruitful fields ; who have erected there, in 
 a period almost too short for the credibility of 
 future ages, three of the freest and most flour- 
 ishing States, in our Union ? They came from 
 the eastern hive ; from that source of popula- 
 tion which, in the same time, has added more 
 than one hundred thousand inhabitants to my 
 native State, and furnished seamen for a large 
 VOL. VL 22 
 
 portion of the navigation of the world ; seamen 
 who have unfurled your banner in every port 
 to which the enterprise of man has gained ad- 
 mittance, and who, though poor themselves, 
 have drawn rich treasures for the nation from 
 the bosom of the deep. Do you believe that 
 these people will settle in a country where they 
 must take rank with negro slaves? Having 
 neither the ability nor will to hold slaves them- 
 selves, they labor cheerfully while labor is hon- 
 orable ; make it disgraceful, they will despise 
 it. You cannot degrade it more effectually than 
 by establishing a system whereby it shall be 
 performed principally by slaves. The business 
 in which they are generally engaged, be it what 
 it may, soon becomes debased in public estima- 
 tion. It is considered low, and unfit for free- 
 men. I cannot better illustrate this truth than 
 by referring to a remark of the honorable gen- 
 tleman from Kentucky, (Mr. CLAY.) I have 
 often admired the liberality of his sentiments. 
 He is governed by no vulgar prejudices ; yet 
 with what abhorrence did he speak of the per- 
 formance, by your wives and daughters, of those 
 domestic offices which he was pleased to call 
 servile! What comparison did he make be- 
 tween the "black slaves" of Kentucky and the 
 "white slaves" of the North; and how in- 
 stantly did he strike a balance in favor of the 
 condition of the former ! If such opinions and 
 expressions, even in the ardor of debate, can 
 fall from that honorable gentleman, what ideas 
 do you suppose are entertained of laboring men 
 by the majority of slaveholders ? A gentleman 
 from Virginia (Mr. BAEBOTJE) replies they are 
 treated with confidence and esteem, and their 
 rights are respected. Sir, I did not imagine they 
 were put out of the protection of law. Their 
 persons and property are doubtless secure from 
 violence, or, if injured, the courts of justice are 
 open for their redress. But, in a country like 
 this, where the people are sovereign, and every 
 citizen is entitled to equal rights, the mere ex- 
 emption from flagrant wrong is no great privi- 
 lege. In this country, no class of freemen should 
 be excluded, either by law, or by the ostracism 
 of public opinion, more powerful than law, from 
 competing for offices and political distinctions. 
 Sir, a humane master will respect the rights of 
 his slave, and, if worthy, will honor him with 
 confidence and esteem. And this same measure, 
 I apprehend, is dealt out, in slaveholding States, 
 to the laboring class of their white population. 
 But whom of that class have they ever called 
 to fill stations of any considerable responsibility ? 
 When have we seen a Representative on this 
 floor, from that section of our Union, who was 
 not a slaveholder ? Who but slaveholders are 
 elected to their State Legislatures ? Who but 
 they are appointed to fill their executive and 
 judicial offices ? I appeal to gentlemen, whether 
 the selection of a laboring man, however well 
 educated, would not be considered an extraor- 
 dinary event ? For this I do not reproach my 
 brethren of the South. They doubtless choose 
 those to represent them in whom they most
 
 338 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 Missouri State Government Restriction on the State. 
 
 [FEBRUARY, 1819. 
 
 confide ; and far be it from me to intimate that 
 their confidence is ever misplaced. But my 
 objection is to the introduction of a system 
 which cannot but produce the effect of render- 
 ing labor disgraceful. 
 
 An argument has been urged by a gentleman 
 from Virginia (Mr. BARBOTJB) against the pro- 
 posed amendment, connected with our revenues. 
 He said that by prohibiting the further intro- 
 duction of slaves into the proposed State, we 
 should reduce the price and diminish the sales 
 of our public lands. In my opinion, the effect 
 would be precisely the reverse. True, it is, 
 that lands for cultivation have sold higher 
 in Alabama than in Illinois, but this is owing 
 not to the rejection of slavery in the one and 
 its admission into the other, but to the different 
 staples they are capable of producing. The ad- 
 vanced price of cotton has created in market 
 a demand for lands suited to its cultivation, and 
 enhanced their value far beyond any former 
 precedent. But, to test the truth of the posi- 
 tion, we must ascertain the relative value of 
 land in adjoining States, the one allowing and 
 the other rejecting slavery, where the climate, 
 soil, productions, and advantages of market are 
 similar. Pennsylvania and Maryland furnish 
 fair specimens of comparison in all these re- 
 spects. But here the result is in direct opposi- 
 tion to the conjecture of the gentleman from 
 Virginia. Land on the Pennsylvania side of 
 the line, where the powerof holding slaves does 
 not exist, uniformly sells at a higher price than 
 lands of equal quality on the Maryland side, 
 where the power is in full exercise. It, there- 
 fore, is probable, that the further introduction 
 of slavery into Missouri, far from increasing, 
 would actually diminish the value of our pub- 
 lic lands. But, should the fact be otherwise, I 
 entreat gentlemen to consider whether it be- 
 come the high character of an American Con- 
 gress to barter the present happiness and future 
 safety of unborn millions for a few pieces of 
 pelf, for a few cents on an acre of land. For 
 myself, I would no sooner contaminate the 
 national Treasury with such ill-gotten gold, 
 than I would tarnish the fame of our national 
 ships by directing their employment in the 
 African slave trade. But, whatever may be 
 the influence of the subject in controversy upon 
 the original price of land, it must be evident to 
 all men of observation that its ultimate and per- 
 manent effects are very prejudicial to agricul- 
 tural improvement. Farms in Maryland, not- 
 withstanding the mildness of its climate com- 
 pared with New York, I am informed, may be 
 Eurchased at five or six dollars an acre, while 
 mds by nature not more fertile nor more ad- 
 vantageously situated, in the last-mentioned 
 State, sell at a rate ten times higher. Had 
 not slavery been introduced into Maryland, her 
 numerous and extensive old fields, which now 
 appear to be worse than useless, would long 
 since have supported a dense population of in- 
 dustrious freemen, and contributed largely to 
 the strength and resources of the State. Who 
 
 has travelled along the line which divides that 
 State from Pennsylvania, and has not observed 
 that no monuments are necessary to mark the 
 boundary ; that it is easily traced by following 
 the dividing lines between farms highly culti- 
 vated and plantations laying open to the com- 
 mon and overrun with weeds ; between stone 
 barns and stone bridges on one side, and stalk 
 cribs and no bridges on the other ; between a 
 neat, blooming, animated, rosy-cheeked peasant- 
 ry on the one side, and a squalid, slow-motioned, 
 black population on the other ? Our vote this 
 day will determine which of these descriptions 
 will hereafter best suit the inhabitants of the new 
 world beyond the Mississippi. I entreat gen- 
 tlemen to pause, and solemnly consider how 
 deeply are involved the destinies of future gen- 
 erations in the decision now to be made. If I 
 agreed in opinion with the gentleman from 
 Georgia, (Mr. COBB,) that this amendment does 
 not present an insurmountable barrier against 
 the further introduction of slavery ; that Mis- 
 souri, after becoming a State, may call a con- 
 vention, and change this feature of her consti- 
 tution even then I should consider the amend- 
 ment scarcely less important than if it were 
 a fundamental and unalterable compact. On 
 this subject we have experience, and the result 
 has justified the best hopes of our country; 
 while under the government of Congress, slavery 
 was excluded from the Territories, now the 
 States, north of the Ohio. Our power over 
 their municipal regulations has since been with- 
 drawn ; they have taken the government into 
 their own hands. But who has not seen the 
 moral effect produced on the inhabitants by the 
 ordinance of 178V ? It is as permanent as the 
 soil over which it was established. The exclu- 
 sion of slavery from all these States is now more 
 effectually insured by public sentiment than by 
 their constitutional prohibitions. Eequire the 
 government of Missouri to commence right, and 
 the same moral effect will then be produced. 
 No convention of the people will ever permit 
 the future introduction of slaves. Let their 
 political institutions be established in wisdom, 
 and I shall confidently trust in the good sense 
 of the people to direct them hereafter. But, be 
 the event as it may, I at least shall have the 
 satisfaction of reflecting that, if the misfortune 
 of slavery shall be entailed upon this country, 
 every thing in my power will have been done to 
 prevent it. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, it was my intention to say 
 something of the moral and political interests 
 involved in this question. But, having already 
 occupied more of your time than was my pur- 
 pose when I rose to address you, and being ad- 
 monished by the multiplicity of important bills 
 which, during the few remaining days of the 
 session, demand our attention, I forbear to dis- 
 cuss or even touch upon those parts of the sub- 
 ject. It, moreover, is the less necessary, be- 
 cause those views have often been presented to 
 the public, and have doubtless been seriously 
 considered by every member of this committee.
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 339 
 
 FEBBUABY, 1819.] 
 
 Missouri State Government Restriction on the State. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 The facts and arguments to which I have drawn 
 your attention, more particularly relate to our 
 condition as a Federal Kepublic, and our duties 
 to Missouri, arising from the relation in which 
 she stands to the Union. While regretting that 
 it has not been in my power to do more ample 
 justice to this important subject, owing in part 
 to the unexpected manner in which it was taken 
 up, I cannot sit down without expressing an 
 earnest hope that our present decision may be 
 such as will promote the permanent union, sta- 
 bility, and security of our country. 
 
 Mr. FULLER, of Massachusetts, said, that, in 
 the admission of new States into the Union, he 
 considered that Congress had a discretionary 
 power. By the 4th article and 3d section of 
 the constitution, Congress are authorized to ad- 
 mit them ; but nothing in that section, or in any 
 part of the constitution, enjoins the admission 
 as imperative under any circumstances. If it 
 were otherwise, he would request gentlemen to 
 point out what were the circumstances or con- 
 ditions precedent, which being found to exist, 
 Congress must admit the new State. All dis- 
 cretion would in such case be taken from Con- 
 gress, Mr. F. said, and deliberation would be 
 useless. The honorable Speaker (Mr. CLAY) 
 has said, that Congress has no right to prescribe 
 any condition whatever to the newly organized 
 States, but must admit them by a simple act, 
 leaving their sovereignty unrestricted. [Here 
 the SPEAKER explained he did not intend to 
 be understood in so broad a sense as Mr. F. 
 stated.] With the explanation of the honorable 
 gentleman, Mr. F. said, I still think his ground 
 as untenable as before. We certainly have a 
 right, and our duty to the nation requires, that 
 we should examine the actual state of things in 
 the proposed State ; and, above all, the consti- 
 tution expressly makes a republican form of 
 government in the several States, a fundamental 
 principle, to be preserved under the sacred 
 guarantee of the National Legislature. [Art. 4, 
 sec. 4.] It clearly, therefore, is the duty of 
 Congress, before admitting a new sister into the 
 Union, to ascertain that her constitution or form 
 of government is republican. Now, sir, the 
 amendment proposed by the gentleman from 
 New York, (Mr. TALLMADGE,) merely requires 
 that slavery shall be prohibited in Missouri. 
 Does this imply any thing more than that its 
 constitution shah 1 be republican ? The existence 
 of slavery in any State, is so far a departure 
 from republican principles. The Declaration 
 of Independence, penned by the illustrious 
 statesman then and at this time a citizen of a 
 State which admits slavery, defines the princi- 
 ple on which our National and State constitu- 
 tions are all professedly founded. The second 
 paragraph of that instrument begins thus : " "We 
 hold these truths to be self-evident that all 
 men are created equal that they are endowed 
 by their Creator with certain inalienable rights 
 that among these are life, liberty, and the 
 pursuit of happiness." Since, then, it cannot 
 bo denied that slaves are men, it follows that 
 
 they are in a purely republican government 
 born free, and are entitled to liberty and the 
 pursuit of happiness. [Mr. F. was here inter- 
 rupted by several gentlemen, who thought it 
 improper to question in debate the republican 
 character of the slaveholding States, which had 
 also a tendency, as one gentleman (Mr. COLSTON 
 of Virginia) said, to deprive those States of 
 the right to hold slaves as property, and he ad- 
 verted to the probability that there might be 
 slaves in the gallery listening to the debate.] 
 Mr. F. assured the gentleman that nothing was 
 further from his thoughts than to question on 
 that floor the right of Virginia and other States 
 which held slaves when the constitution was 
 established, to continue to hold them. With 
 that subject the National Legislature could not 
 interfere, and ought not to attempt it. But, 
 Mr. F. continued, if gentlemen will be patient, 
 they will see that my remarks will neither 
 derogate from the constitutional rights of the 
 States, nor from a due respect to their several 
 forms of government. Sir, it is my wish to 
 allay not to excite local animosities ; but I shall 
 never refrain from advancing such arguments 
 in debate as my duty requires, nor do I believe 
 that the reading of our Declaration of Independ- 
 ence, or a discussion of republican principles 
 on any occasion, can endanger the rights, or 
 merit the disapprobation of any portion of the 
 Union. 
 
 My reason, Mr. Chairman, for recurring to 
 the Declaration of our Independence, was to 
 draw from authority admitted in all parts of 
 the Union a definition of the basis of republican 
 government. If then,' all men have equal rights, 
 it can no more comport with the principles of 
 a free Government to exclude men of a certain 
 color from the enjoyment of " liberty and the 
 pursuit of happiness," than to exclude those 
 who have not attained a certain portion of 
 wealth, or a certain stature of body ; or to found 
 the exclusion on any other capricious or acci- 
 dental circumstance. Suppose Missouri, before 
 her admission as a State, were to submit to us 
 her constitution, by which no person could 
 elect, or be elected to any office, unless he pos- 
 sessed a clear annual income of twenty thou- 
 sand dollars ; and suppose we had ascertained 
 that only five, or a very small number of per- 
 sons, had such an estate ; would this be any 
 thing more or less than a reaL aristocracy, un- 
 der a form nominally republican? Election 
 and representation, which some contend are 
 the only essential principles of republics, would 
 exist only in name a shadow without sub- 
 stance, a body without a souL Bat if all the 
 other inhabitants were to be made slaves, and 
 mere property of the favored few, the outrage 
 on principle would be still more palpable. Yet, 
 sir, it is demonstrable that the exclusion of the 
 black population from ah 1 political freedom, and 
 making them the property of the whites, is an 
 equally palpable invasion of right and abandon- 
 ment of principle. If wo do this in the admis- 
 sion of new States, we violate the constitution,
 
 340 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R] 
 
 ItiMMpri State Government Restriction on the State. 
 
 [FEBRUARY, 1819. 
 
 arid we have not now the excuse which existed 
 when our national constitution was established. 
 Then, to effect a concert of interests, it was 
 proper to make concessions. The States where 
 slavery existed not only claimed the right to 
 continue it, but it was manifest that a general 
 emancipation of slaves could not be asked of 
 them. Their political existence would have 
 been in jeopardy ; both masters and slaves must 
 have been involved in the most fatal conse- 
 quences. 
 
 To guard against such intolerable evils, it is 
 provided in the constitution " that the migration 
 or importation of such persons, as any of the 
 existing States think proper to admit, shall not 
 be prohibited till 1808." Art. 1, sec. 9. And 
 it is provided elsewhere, that persons held to 
 service by the laws of any State, shall be given 
 up by other States to which they may have es- 
 caped, &c. Art. 4, sec. 2. 
 
 These provisions effectually recognized the 
 right in the States, which, at the time of fram- 
 ing the constitution, held the blacks in slavery, 
 to continue so to hold them, until they should 
 think proper to meliorate their condition. The 
 constitution is a compact among all the States 
 then existing, by which certain principles of 
 government are established for the whole and 
 for each individual State. The predominant 
 principle, in both respects, is, that all men are 
 free, and have an equal right to liberty, and all 
 other* privileges ; or, in other words, the pre- 
 dominant principle is republicanism, in its 
 largest sense. But, then, the same compact 
 contains certain exceptions. The States then 
 holding slaves are permitted, from the necessity 
 of the case, and for the sake of union, to ex- 
 clude the republican principle so far, and only 
 so far, as to retain their slaves in servitude, and 
 also their progeny, as had been the usage, until 
 they should think it proper or safe to conform 
 to the pure principle by abolishing slavery. 
 The compact contains on its face the general 
 principle and the exceptions. But the attempt 
 to extend slavery to the new States is in direct 
 violation of the clause which guarantees a re- 
 publican form of government to all the States. 
 This clause, indeed, must be construed in con- 
 nection with the exceptions before mentioned ; 
 but it cannot, without violence, be applied to 
 any other States than those in which slavery 
 was allowed at the formation of the consti- 
 tution. 
 
 The honorable Speaker cites the first clause 
 in the second section of the fourth article: 
 " The citizens of each State shall be entitled to 
 all the privileges and immunities of citizens of 
 the several States," which he thinks would be 
 violated by the condition proposed in the con- 
 stitution of Missouri. To keep slaves to make 
 one portion of the population the property of 
 another, hardly deserves to be called a privilege, 
 since what is gained by the masters must be 
 lost by the slaves. But, independently of this 
 consideration, I think the observations already 
 offered to the committee, showing that holding 
 
 the black population in servitude is an excep- 
 tion to the general principles of the constitu- 
 tion, and cannot be allowed to extend beyond 
 the lair import of the terms by which that ex- 
 ception is provided, are a sufficient answer to 
 the objection. The gentleman proceeds in the 
 same train of reasoning, and asks, if Congress 
 can require one condition, how many more can 
 be required, and where these conditions will 
 end ? With regard to a republican constitution, 
 Congress are obliged to require that condition, 
 and that is enough for the present question ; 
 but I contend, further, that Congress has a 
 right, at their discretion, to require any other 
 reasonable condition. Several others were re- 
 quired of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Mississippi. 
 The State of Louisiana, which was a part of 
 the territory ceded to us at the same time with 
 Missouri, was required to provide in her con- 
 stitution for trials by jury, the writ of habeas 
 corpus, the principles of civil and religious lib- 
 erty, with several others peculiar to that State. 
 These certainly are, none of them, more indis- 
 pensable ingredients in a republican form of 
 government, than the equality of privileges of 
 all the population ; yet these have not been de- 
 nied to be reasonable, and warranted by the 
 national constitution in the admission of new 
 States. Nor need gentlemen apprehend that 
 Congress will set no reasonable limits to the 
 conditions of admission. In the exercise of 
 their constitutional discretion on this subject, 
 they are, as in all other cases, responsible to the 
 people. Their power to levy direct taxes is not 
 limited by the constitution. They may lay a 
 tax of one million of dollars, or of a hundred 
 millions, without violating the letter of the con- 
 stitution ; but if the latter enormous and un- 
 reasonable sum were levied, or even the former, 
 without evident necessity, the people have the 
 power in their own hands a speedy corrective 
 is found in the return of the elections. This 
 remedy is so certain, that the representatives of 
 the people can never lose sight of it ; and con- 
 sequently an abuse of their powers, to any con- 
 siderable extent, can never be apprehended. 
 The same reasoning applies to the exercise of 
 all the powers intrusted to Congress, and the 
 admission of new States into the Union is in no 
 respect an exception. 
 
 One gentleman, however, has contended 
 against the amendment, because it abridges the 
 rights of the slaveholding States to transport 
 their slaves to the new States for sale or other- 
 wise. This argument is attempted to be en- 
 forced in various ways, and particularly by the 
 clause in the constitution last cited. It admits, 
 however, of a very clear answer, by recurring 
 to the ninth section of article first, which pro- 
 vides, that "the migration or importation of 
 such persons as any of the States then existing 
 shall admit, shall not be prohibited by Con- 
 gress till 1808." This clearly implies that_the 
 migration and importation may be prohibited 
 after that year. The importation has been pro- 
 hibited, but the migration has not hitherto been
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 341 
 
 FEBRUARY, 1819.] 
 
 Missouri State Government Restriction on the State, 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 restrained ; Congress, however, may restrain it 
 when it may be judged expedient. It is, in- 
 deed, contended by some gentlemen, that mi- 
 gration is cither synonymous with importation, 
 or that it means something different from the 
 transportation of slaves from one State to an- 
 other. It certainly is not synonymous with 
 importation, and would not have been used if 
 it had been so. It cannot mean exportation, 
 which is also a definite and precise term. It 
 cannot mean the reception of free blacks from 
 foreign countries, as is alleged by some, because 
 no possible reason existed for regulating their 
 admission by the constitution ; no free blacks 
 ever came from Africa, or any other country, 
 to this ; and to introduce the provision by the 
 side of that for the importation of slaves would 
 have been absurd in the highest degree. What 
 alternative remains but to apply the term " mi- 
 gration" to the transportation of slaves from 
 those States where they are admitted to be 
 held, to other States ? Such a provision might 
 have in view a very natural object. The price 
 of slaves might be affected so far by a sudden 
 prohibition to transport slaves from State to 
 State, that it was as reasonable to guard against 
 that inconvenience, as against the sudden inter- 
 diction of the importation. Hitherto it has not 
 been found necessary for Congress to prohibit 
 migration or transportation from State to State. 
 But now it becomes the right and duty of Con- 
 gress to guard against the further extension of 
 the intolerable evil and the crying enormity of 
 slavery. 
 
 The expediency of this measure is very appa- 
 rent. The opening of an extensive slave mar- 
 ket will tempt the cupidity of those who other- 
 wise perhaps might gradually emancipate their 
 slaves. "We have heard much, Mr. Chairman, 
 of the Colonization Society; an institution 
 which is the favorite of the humane gentlemen 
 in the slaveholding States. They have long 
 been lamenting the miseries of slavery, and ear- 
 nestly seeking for a remedy compatible with their 
 own safety and the happiness of their slaves. 
 At last the great desideratum is found a colony 
 in Africa for the emancipated blacks. How 
 will the generous intentions of these humane 
 persons be frustrated, if the price of slaves is to 
 be doubled by a new and boundless market ! 
 Instead of emancipation of the slaves, it is much 
 to be feared that unprincipled wretches will be 
 found kidnapping those who are already free, 
 and transporting and selling the hapless victims 
 into hopeless bondage. Sir, I really hope that 
 Congress will not contribute to discountenance 
 and render abortive the generous and philan- 
 thropic views of this most worthy and laudable 
 society. Rather let us hope that the time is 
 not very remote when the shores of Africa, 
 which have so long been a scene of barbarous 
 rapacity and savage cruelty, shall exhibit a race 
 of free and enlightened people, the offspring in- 
 deed of cannibals or of slaves, but displaying 
 the virtues of civilization and the energies of 
 independent freemen. America may then hope 
 
 to see the development of a germ, now scarcely 
 visible, cherished and matured under the genial 
 warmth of our country's protection, till the 
 fruit shall appear in the regeneration and hap- 
 piness of a boundless continent. 
 
 One argument still remains to be noticed. It 
 is said that we are bound by the treaty of ces- 
 sion with France to admit the ceded territory 
 into the Union, " as soon as possible." It is ob- 
 vious that the President and Senate, the treaty- 
 making power, cannot make a stipulation with 
 any foreign nation in derogation of the consti- 
 tutional powers and duties of this House, by 
 making it imperative on us .to admit the new 
 territory according to the literal tenor of the 
 phrase ; but the additional words hi the treaty, 
 " according to the principles of the constitu- 
 tion," put it beyond all doubt that no such 
 compulsory admission was intended, and that 
 the republican principles of our constitution are 
 to govern us in the admission of this, as well as 
 all the new States, in the national family. 
 
 Mr. P. P. BAEBOTJE, of Virginia, said that, as 
 he was decidedly opposed to the amendment 
 which had been offered, he asked the indul- 
 gence of the House whilst he made some re- 
 marks in addition to those which had fallen 
 from the Speaker, for the purpose of showing 
 the impropriety of its adoption. 
 
 The effect of the proposed amendment is to 
 prohibit the further introduction of slaves into 
 the new State of Missouri, and to emancipate, at 
 the age of twenty-five years, the children of all 
 those slaves who are now within its limits. The 
 first objection, said he, which meets us at the 
 very threshold of the discussion, is this, that we 
 have no constitutional right to enact the pro- 
 posed provision. Our power, in relation to this 
 subject, is derived from the first clause of the 
 third section of the fourth article of the consti- 
 tution, which is in these words : " New States 
 may be admitted, by the Congress, into this 
 Union." Now, sir, although, by the next suc- 
 ceeding clause of the same section, " Congress 
 has the power to make all needful rules and 
 regulations respecting the territory of the Unit- 
 ed States ;" and although, therefore, whilst the 
 proposed State continued a part of our territory, 
 upon the footing of a Territorial government, it 
 would have been competent for us, under the 
 power expressly given, to make needful rules 
 and regulations to have established the princi- 
 ple now proposed ; yet, the question assumes a 
 totally different aspect when that principle is 
 intended to apply to a State. This term State 
 has a fixed and determinate meaning; in itself 
 it imports the existence of a political communi- 
 ty, free and independent, and entitled to exer- 
 cise all the rights of sovereignty, of every 
 description whatever. As it stands hi the con- 
 stitution, it is to be defined with some limitation 
 upon that principle of construction which has 
 reference to the subject-matter. The extent of 
 the limitation, according to this rule, is obviously 
 this, that it shall enjoy all those rights of sov- 
 ereignty which belong to the original States
 
 342 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 Missouri State Government Restriction on (he State. 
 
 [FEBRUARY, 1819. 
 
 which composed the Federal family, and into 
 a union with which it is to be admitted. Now, 
 sir, although the original States are shorn of 
 many of their beams of sovereignty such, for 
 example, as that of declaring war, of regulating 
 commerce, &c. ; yet we know that, even by an 
 express amendment to the constitution, all pow- 
 ers not expressly delegated are reserved to the 
 States respectively ; and of course the power in 
 question, of deciding whether slavery shall or 
 shall not exist. Gentlemen had said that sla- 
 very was prohibited in many of the original 
 States. Does not the House, said Mr. B., at the 
 first glance, perceive the answer to this remark? 
 It is an argument from fact to principle, and in 
 this its utter fallacy consists. It is true that 
 slavery does not exist in many of the original 
 States ; but why does it not ? Because they 
 themselves, in the exercise of their legislative 
 power, have willed that it shall be so. But, 
 though it does not now exist, it is competent 
 for them, by a law of their own enactment, to 
 authorize it- to call it into existence whenever 
 they shall think fit. Sir, how different would 
 be the situation of Missouri, if the proposed 
 amendment be adopted. We undertake to say 
 that slavery never shall be introduced into that 
 State. The State of Missouri, then, would ob- 
 viously labor under this disadvantage in rela- 
 tion to the other States; that, though for the 
 time being the fact might be the same in it as 
 in them that is to say, slavery might be alike 
 prohibited, and not at all exist, yet, as the pro- 
 hibition of it in other States was repealable at 
 their own will, it might be altered whensoever 
 they chose ; whereas, if this prohibition were 
 enacted by Congress, and were required as a 
 sine qua non to their admission into the Union, 
 that State could not repeal it, unless, indeed, 
 another opinion was correct, which had been 
 advanced, that, though we did require this pro- 
 vision in their constitution, as indispensable to 
 their admission, yet they might forthwith 
 change their constitution, and get rid of the 
 difficulty. If that be the case, sir, as has been 
 justly remarked, we were doing worse than 
 nothing to legislate upon the subject. But, sir, 
 this provision would be in violation of another 
 principle of the constitution, to be found in the 
 first clause of the second section of the fourth 
 article ; by which it is declared that " the citi- 
 zens of each State shall be entitled to all privi- 
 leges and immunities of citizens in the several 
 States." Now, he would ask, whether a citizen 
 of the State of Missouri, who (if this amendment 
 prevail) cannot hold a slave, could, in the lan- 
 guage of the section which he had just quoted, 
 be said to enjoy the same privileges with a citi- 
 zen of Virginia who now may hold a slave, or 
 even with a citizen of Pennsylvania, who, 
 though he cannot now hold one, yet may be 
 permitted by the Legislature of his own State. 
 Sir, it would be a solecism in language, a con- 
 tradiction in terms. This part of the constitu- 
 tion, then, also forbids the adoption of the 
 amendment under discussion. 
 
 But, said he, if we pursue this reasoning still 
 further, and follow it up to all the consequences 
 to which it will lead, we shall be more forcibly 
 struck with its impropriety. If we have a ri<rht 
 to go one step in relation to a new State, be- 
 yond the footing upon which the original States 
 stand; if we have a right to shear them of one 
 beam more of sovereignty, we have the same 
 right to take from them any other attribute of 
 sovereign power. Thus, sir, we should equally 
 possess the power to require as an indispensable 
 condition of their admission, that the depart- 
 ments of their Government should be organized 
 in a particular way; for example, that their 
 Chief Executive Magistrate should or should 
 not have either a complete or a qualified veto 
 upon the acts of their Legislature; that their 
 Legislature should consist either of one or two 
 chambers, as in our discretion we thought right. 
 Would gentlemen advocate this doctrine? If 
 they did not, they must abandon this amend- 
 ment. Again, if we had the power to say that 
 their constitution should provide that there 
 should not be slavery, we had the same power 
 over the converse of the proposition, and to re- 
 quire them to provide that there should be sla- 
 very; he believed this latter principle would 
 not be contended for. 
 
 Gentlemen had, on this occasion, as on many 
 others, quoted precedents of former Congresses 
 upon this subject. He would enter his most 
 solemn protest now, and at all times, against 
 the force of legislative precedent. But let us 
 examine them. It is said that the like prohibi- 
 tion has been enacted as it respects Ohio and 
 the other States northwest of the river Ohio. 
 In the first place, the House would recollect 
 that an ordinance was passed by the old Con- 
 gress, at a period anterior to the present consti- 
 tution, ordaining that as a fundamental article 
 in relation to all the northwest territory, and 
 therefore the precedent, if it would otherwise 
 have any weight, failed in its application. But, 
 he said, he did not hesitate to express it as his 
 decided opinion, that the ordinance which he 
 had just mentioned was utterly void, and, con- 
 sequently, that those States might introduce 
 slavery amongst them, if they so willed, because 
 the territory which composes them originally 
 belonged to Virginia. She had conquered it by 
 her arms; she ceded it to the United States 
 upon the express condition that it should be 
 formed into States as free, sovereign, and inde- 
 pendent as the other States. The prohibition 
 of slavery was ordained by the Continental 
 Congress, after the cession had been made, 
 which would unquestionably render those States 
 less sovereign than the original States of the 
 Federal Union. But it has been said that we 
 imposed conditions on the admission of the 
 State of Louisiana into the Union. What were 
 those conditions ? That civil and religious lib- 
 erty should be established, and the trial by jury 
 secured. It cannot be necessary to remind the 
 House, that these several provisions attached 
 also to the original States, by the most explicit
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 343 
 
 FEBRUARY, 1819.] 
 
 Missouri State Government Restriction on the State. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 declaration to that effect, in the first, fifth, and 
 seventh amendments to the Constitution of the 
 United States. These requisitions, then, were 
 in perfect consistency with his principle. All 
 that he contended for was, that we could im- 
 pose no condition upon the new States which 
 the constitution had not imposed upon the old 
 ones ; as those which were imposed upon Lou- 
 isiana were clearly of that description, they were 
 within our power ; but, as the prohibition of 
 slavery was not of that description, he thought 
 it was as clearly beyond our power. The gen- 
 tleman from Massachusetts had said that it was 
 competent to the State Legislatures to declare 
 that the progeny of all slaves should be free 
 when they attained a given age ; and hence he 
 inferred that Congress might do the same in 
 relation to the proposed State. Sir, said Mr. 
 B., there is no sort of analogy between the 
 cases ; the State Legislatures can do it, because 
 to them appertains the whole business of mu- 
 nicipal legislation, and this regulation would be 
 embraced within it ; and Congress could do the 
 same, in relation to its Territorial governments, 
 because over them we possess the whole power 
 of municipal legislation ; not so in the present 
 case; for the question now before us, is not 
 what regulation we shall prescribe for a terri- 
 tory which is to continue as such, but upon 
 what forms and conditions we will admit a 
 State into the Union. Our business is, then, to 
 create a political community of a particular 
 character, as prescribed by the constitution; 
 to itself it will belong to regulate its interior 
 concerns, and, amongst others, to decide 
 whether it will or .will not admit involuntary 
 servitude. 
 
 Mr. B. said he had endeavored to show that 
 we had no power to require the condition em- 
 braced in this amendment ; he would now beg 
 leave to present to the House some other views 
 of the subject, for the purpose of showing that, 
 if it were within our power, we were forbidden 
 from exercising it, by every consideration of 
 humanity, of justice, and sound policy. Upon 
 the subject of humanity, he had scarcely any 
 thing to add to what had been said by the 
 Speaker ; he had shown, in the most satisfac- 
 tory manner, that the condition of the slaves 
 would be greatly improved by their being spread 
 over a greater surface, and by being carried to 
 a country whose fertility was such as to furnish 
 food and every thing necessary for their main- 
 tenance in a much more abundant, and, conse- 
 quently, cheaper degree, than could be produced 
 in the Atlantic States. 
 
 But, as it respected the justice of the measure, 
 he would beg leave to submit some remarks to 
 the House. Throughout all the Southern 
 States, it was well known a very large portion 
 of the population consisted of slaves, who, at 
 the same tune, stood towards the white popu- 
 lation of the same States in the relation of 
 property ; although they were held as property, 
 yet they were considered and treated as the 
 most valuable, as the most favored property; 
 
 their masters remembered that they were men, 
 and although certainly degraded in the scale of 
 society, by reason of their servitude, we felt for 
 them those sympathies which bind one man to 
 another, though that other may be our inferior. 
 We were attached to them, too, by our preju- 
 dices, by our education and habits ; in short, 
 such were the feelings of the Southern people 
 towards their slaves, that nothing scarcely but 
 the necessity of the master, or the crime of the 
 slave, would induce him to sell his slave. If 
 the master emigrated, he would carry his slaves 
 with him, not only for the various reasons 
 which he had already stated, but because, going 
 into a wilderness, where much labor was neces- 
 sary to clear the country, they were, on that 
 account, peculiarly necessary. Under these 
 circumstances, a prohibition of the importation 
 of slaves would, in almost every instance, be 
 tantamount to a prohibition of the emigration 
 of the Southern people to the State of Missouri. 
 He asked whether it could be just to adopt such 
 a regulation as would open an illimitable tract 
 of the most fertile land to the northern part of 
 the United States, and, in effect, entirely shut 
 out the whole Southern people? If it were 
 correct in relation to Missouri, it would be 
 equally so as to the whole tract of country lying 
 west of the Mississippi. He hoped, from this 
 view of the subject, the House would be struck 
 with its monstrous injustice. 
 
 But he came now to the question of policy, 
 and he thought he should be able to show that, 
 in this respect, the amendment would meet as 
 decided reprobation as in any other aspect in 
 which he had presented it. 
 
 Let it be remembered that we are not now 
 called upon to decide whether slavery shall be 
 introduced into this country ; it existed at the 
 formation of the constitution, and was recog- 
 nized by that instrument, in reference both to 
 representation and taxation. Nor, sir, are we 
 called upon to decide whether there shall be an 
 increase of the number of our slaves by importa- 
 tion from abroad. The constitution authorized 
 Congress to prohibit the importation of them 
 after the year 1808, and Congress, accordingly, 
 have actually passed a law to that effect. But 
 the real question is, what disposition shall we 
 make of those slaves who are already in the 
 country? Shall they be perpetually confined 
 on this side of the Mississippi, or shall we spread 
 them over a much larger surface by permitting 
 them to be carried beyond that river? The 
 consequences which would flow from the differ- 
 ent systems would furnish a satisfactory answer 
 to these inquiries. The slaves, in the Southern 
 States, bear a very considerable proportion to 
 the whole population. He believed that by the 
 last census, they were, in Virginia, as about 
 three hundred and ninety thousand to about five 
 hundred thousand. He did not mean to be 
 arithmetically correct, but ho was sufficiently 
 so, for the conclusion which he meant to draw. 
 Now, sir, in relation to the physical force of the 
 country, if ever the time shall come when we
 
 344 
 
 ABKIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R] 
 
 Missouri State Government Restriction on the State. 
 
 [FEBRUARY, 1819. 
 
 shall bo engaged in war, and they should be ex 
 cited to insurrection, it is obvious that there 
 must be an immense subduction from the effi- 
 ciency of the slaveholding section of our coun- 
 try ; its actual efficiency would consist only, or 
 nearly so, in the excess of the white beyond the 
 black population; by spreading them over a 
 more extended surface, you secure these advan- 
 tages ; first, by diminishing the proportion 
 which the slaves bear in point of numbers to 
 the whites, you diminish their motives to in- 
 surrection; secondly, that if that event ever 
 should occur, it would obviously be much more 
 easily and certainly suppressed, because, upon 
 the supposition which he had made, they would 
 have a much smaller relative proportion of 
 physical force. He thanked God he felt no 
 alarm upon that subject at present ; and that he 
 slept quietly in his bed, notwithstanding the 
 apprehension which some gentlemen seemed to 
 entertain. But, in making the remarks which 
 he did, he looked along the line of time, and 
 wished that our measures should be adapted to 
 the future circumstances of our country. Again, 
 he would ask if it can be good policy to perpet- 
 uate fixed boundaries, either natural or artifi- 
 cial, between the slaveholding and non-slave- 
 holding States ? He had thought that the great 
 object of our Federal compact was union. The 
 surest possible mode of securing our political 
 union, next to promoting the common defence 
 and general welfare, is to give, as far as possi- 
 ble, every facility to the intercourse between 
 the different sections of this extensive Eepublic ; 
 that, by the attrition which will be the result 
 of that intercourse, the asperities of our mutual 
 prejudices and jealousies may be rubbed off; 
 that the face of our society may present the 
 smooth surface of harmony and good will ; and, 
 in short, that we may be knit together by a 
 sympathy of feelings, by a community of habits 
 and manners which ought to bind us together 
 as brothers of the same great political family. 
 Already is the northern part of our country, to- 
 gether with that northwest of the river Ohio, 
 divided from us by those distinguishing names 
 of slaveholding and nou-slaveholding. Let us 
 not make the Mississippi another great natural 
 boundary, for the purpose of perpetuating the 
 same distinctions, and dividing our country into 
 castes. Gentlemen mistake when they suppose 
 that, if slaves be permitted to be carried to Mis- 
 souri, the Northern people will not emigrate to 
 that State. Look at the fact in the Southern 
 States ; the Northern hive is continually pour- 
 ing forth its swarms of emigrants, and many of 
 them, especially of the mercantile class, alight 
 and settle amongst us ; they soon become fa- 
 miliar with our habits and modes of life, pros- 
 per in an eminent degree, far beyond our own 
 people, and. indeed, he hesitated not to say, 
 were entirely satisfied and happy, although 
 they were in a slaveholding State. Gentlemen 
 equally mistake, when they suppose that their 
 countrymen of the North, who are obliged to 
 labor, would be degraded to a level with the 
 
 slaves. Sir, our experience proves the contrary. 
 We, too, have some of our citizens who are un- 
 able to purchase slaves, and who, therefore, till 
 the ground with their own hands. But, sir, 
 notwithstanding this, they have all that erect- 
 ness of character which belongs to them as free- 
 men, conscious of their political and civil rights ; 
 and he who should dare to treat them with dis- 
 respect, because fortune had not poured as 
 much wealth into their laps as into his, would 
 draw down upon him the execration of all good 
 men. 
 
 Another effect of this amendment would be, 
 in an essential degree, to affect the value of the 
 countless millions of public lands beyond the 
 Mississippi. He said he had already endeav- 
 ored to show that it would obstruct the emigra- 
 tion from the Southern States. Precisely in 
 proportion as it produced this effect, it would, 
 of course, lessen the number of purchasers, and 
 diminish the competition. Now, if the quan- 
 tity of land in the market be the same, and the 
 number of purchasers be diminished, the conse- 
 quence must certainly be a reduction of the 
 price of the public lands below what would 
 otherwise be their natural level ; and to place 
 this in a more striking point of view, he would 
 further remark, that the loss which the whole 
 people of the United States would sustain by 
 the reduction in the price of the public lands, 
 would be profit to that portion of the people 
 who should emigrate there, and who, by the 
 operation of the proposed amendment, if it 
 should prevail, would have monopoly in the 
 purchase. A gentleman from Massachusetts 
 had objected, that, if slaves, were permitted to 
 be carried into this country, there would be a 
 much, greater increase than if they were re- 
 tained in the States In which they now are. 
 Does the gentleman, said Mr. B., perceive to 
 what point this objection will carry him? The 
 only reason why they will multiply more on 
 the western than on the eastern side of the 
 Mississippi is, that food is more abundant. 
 Surely it cannot be the object of the gentleman, 
 who is one of the most zealous advocates of hu- 
 manity towards this unhappy class of people, to 
 prevent their increase, even by shutting them 
 out from food. If this cannot be the gentle- 
 man's intention, and he was sure it could not, 
 then he must abandon his objection. Mr. B. 
 said there was one other objection which he 
 would urge against the proposed amendment 
 either it would be an act of supererogation or 
 of downright injustice, to the people of Missou- 
 ri ; if they were themselves opposed to slavery, 
 then it would be an act of supererogation, be- 
 cause they would prohibit it by their own legis- 
 ation ; if they were disposed to establish 
 slavery, then it would be an act of injustice, 
 Because we should be legislating directly against 
 ;he wishes of a people who were competent to 
 .egislate for themselves ; and who must better 
 understand their own happiness and welfare 
 han we can possibly do. Upon the whole, said 
 Mi\ B., I believe, that we have no power to
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 345 
 
 FEBRUARY, 
 
 Missouri State Government Restriction on the State. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 enact the proposed amendment; and that, if 
 we had, it would be highly impolitic and unjust. 
 I am, therefore, decidedly opposed to its adop- 
 tion. 
 
 Mr. LIVERMOKE spoke as follows : Mr. Chair- 
 man, I am in favor of the proposed amendment. 
 The object of it is to prevent the extension of 
 slavery over the territory ceded to the United 
 States by France. It accords with the dictates 
 of reason, and the best feelings of the human 
 heart, and is not calculated to interrupt any 
 legitimate right arising either from the consti- 
 tution or any other compact. I propose to 
 show what slavery is, and to mention a few of 
 the many evils which follow in its train ; and I 
 hope to evince that we are not bound to toler- 
 ate the existence of so disgraceful a state of 
 things beyond its present extent, and that it 
 would be impolitic and very unjust to let it 
 spread over the whole face of our Western ter- 
 ritory. Slavery in the United States is the con- 
 dition of man subjected to the will of a master, 
 who can make any disposition of him short of 
 taking away his life. In those States where it 
 is tolerated, laws are enacted, making it penal 
 to instruct slaves in the art of reading, and they 
 are not permitted to attend public worship, or 
 to hear the Gospel preached. Thus the light 
 of science and of religion is utterly excluded 
 from the mind, that the body may be more 
 easily bowed down to servitude. The bodies 
 of slaves may, with impunity, be prostituted to 
 any purpose, and deformed in any manner by 
 their owners. The sympathies of nature in 
 slaves are disregarded; mothers and children 
 are sold and separated ; the children wring 
 their little hands and expire hi agonies of grief, 
 while the bereft mothers commit suicide in de- 
 spair. How long will the desire of wealth ren- 
 der us blind to the ski of holding both the bod- 
 ies and souls of our fellow-men in chains! But, 
 sir, I am admonished of the constitution, and 
 told that we cannot emancipate slaves. I know 
 we may not infringe that instrument, and there- 
 fore do not propose to emancipate slaves. The 
 proposition before us goes only to prevent our 
 citizens from making slaves of such as have a 
 right to freedom. In the present slaveholding 
 States let slavery continue, for our boasted con- 
 stitution connives at it; but do not, for the 
 sake of cotton and tobacco, let it be told to fu- 
 ture ages that, while pretending to love liberty, 
 we have purchased an extensive country to dis- 
 grace it with the foulest reproach of nations. 
 Our constitution requires no such thing of us. 
 The ends for which that supreme law was made 
 are succinctly stated in its preface. They are, 
 first, to form a more perfect union, and insure 
 domestic tranquillity. Will slavery efiect this ? 
 Can we, sir, by mingling bond with free, black 
 spirits with white, like Shakspeare's witelns in 
 Macbeth, form a more perfect union, and insure 
 doiiK-.-tic tranquillity? Secondly, to establish 
 justice. Is justice to be established by subject- 
 ing half mankind to the will of the other half? 
 Justice, sir, is blind to coloj-s, and weighs in 
 
 equal scales the rights of all men, whether 
 white or black. Thirdly, to provide for the 
 common defence, and secure the blessings of 
 liberty. Does slavery add any thing to the 
 common defence ? Sir, the strength of a Re- 
 public is in the arm of freedom. But, above all 
 things, do the blessings of liberty consist in 
 slavery ? If there is any sincerity in our pro- 
 fession, that slavery is an ill, tolerated only 
 from necessity, let us not, while we feel that ill, 
 shun the cure which consists only in an honest 
 avowal that liberty and equal rights are the end 
 and aim of all our institutions, and that to tol- 
 erate slavery beyond the narrowest limits pre- 
 scribed for it by the constitution, is a perversion 
 of them all. 
 
 Slavery, sir, I repeat, is not established by 
 our constitution ; but a part of the States are 
 indulged in the commission of a sin from which 
 they could not at once be restrained, and which 
 they would not consent to abandon. But, sir, 
 if we could, by any process of reasoning, be 
 brought to believe it justifiable to hold others 
 to involuntary servitude, policy forbids that we 
 should increase it. Even the present slavehold- 
 ing States have an interest, I think, in limiting 
 the extent of involuntary servitude ; for, should 
 slaves become much more numerous, and, con- 
 scious of their strength, draw the sword against 
 their masters, it will be to the free States that 
 the masters must resort for an efficient power 
 to suppress servile insurrection. But we have 
 made a treaty with France, which, we are told, 
 can only be preserved by the charms of slavery. 
 
 Sir, said Mr. L., until the ceded territory 
 shall have been made into States, and the new 
 States admitted into the Union, we can do what 
 we will with it. We can govern it as a prov- 
 ince, or sell it to any other nation. A part of 
 it is probably at this time sold to Spain, and 
 the inhabitants of it may soon not only enjoy 
 the comforts of slavery, but the blessings of the 
 holy inquisition along with them. The question 
 is on the admission of Missouri as a State into 
 the Union. Surely it will not be contended 
 that we are bound by the treaty to admit it. 
 The treaty-making power does not extend so 
 far. Can the President and Senate, by a treaty 
 with Great Britain, make the province of Lower 
 Canada a State of this Union? To be received 
 as a State into this Union, is a privilege which 
 no country can claim as a right. It is a favor 
 to be granted or not, as the United States may 
 choose. When the United States think proper 
 to grant a favor, they may annex just and rea- 
 sonable terms ; and what can be more reasona- 
 ble than for these States to insist that a new 
 Territory, wishing to have the benefits of free- 
 dom extended to it should renounce a principle 
 that militates with justice, morality, religion, 
 and every essential right of mankind ? Louisi- 
 ana was admitted into the Union on terms. 
 The conditions, I admit, were not very impor- 
 tant, but still they recognize the principles for 
 which I contend. 
 
 An opportunity is now presented, if not to
 
 346 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 Admission of Missouri Restriction on the State. 
 
 [FDBTJABT, 1819. 
 
 diminish, at least to prevent, the growth of a 
 sin which sits heavy on the soul of every one 
 of us. By embracing this opportunity, we may 
 retrieve the national character, and, in some 
 degree, our own. But if we suffer it to pass 
 unimproved, let us at least be consistent, and 
 declare that our constitution was made to im- 
 pose slavery, and not to establish liberty. Let 
 us no longer tell idle tales about the gradual 
 abolition of slavery; away with colonization 
 societies, if their design is only to rid us of free 
 blacks and turbulent slaves; have done also 
 with Bible societies, whose views are extended 
 to Africa and the East Indies, while they over- 
 look the deplorable condition of their sable 
 brethren within our own borders; make no 
 more laws to prohibit the importation of slaves, 
 for the world must see that the object of such 
 laws is alone to prevent the glutting of a pro- 
 digious market for the flesh and blood of man, 
 which we are about to establish in the West, 
 and to enhance the price of sturdy wretches, 
 reared like black cattle and horses for sale on 
 our own plantations. 
 
 The question being put on the motion of Mr. 
 TALLMADGE to amend the bill, the vote was 
 for the amendment 79, against it 67. 
 
 So the amendment was agreed to. 
 
 TUESDAY, February 16. 
 
 Admission of Missouri Restriction on the 
 State. 
 
 The House proceeded to the consideration 
 of the amendments reported by the Committee 
 of the Whole, to the bill authorizing the people 
 of the Territory of Missouri to form a constitu- 
 tion and State government, and for the admis- 
 sion of the same into the Union. 
 
 The whole of the amendments made in Com- 
 mittee of the Whole were agreed to, with the 
 exception of that which prohibits slavery or in- 
 voluntary servitude in the proposed State. 
 
 On this question, the debate which com- 
 menced yesterday was renewed, and prosecu- 
 ted with considerable spirit Mr. SCOTT, Mr. 
 COLSTON, Mr. TALLMADGE, Mr. STORES, Mr. 
 TATLOE, Mr. SIMPKTKS, Mr. MILLS, Mr. SPEN- 
 CER, Mr. HOLMES, Mr. BABBOUR, Mr. CAMPBELL 
 of Ohio, Mr. BUTLER of Louisiana, Mr. TEEET, 
 and Mr. BEECHER, taking part in it. 
 
 Mr. SCOTT, of Missouri, said, he trusted that 
 his conduct, during the whole of the time in 
 which he had the honor of a seat in the House, 
 had convinced gentlemen of his disposition not 
 to obtrude his sentiments on any other subjects 
 than those in which the interest of his constitu- 
 ents, and of the Territory he represented, were 
 immediately concerned. But when a question, 
 such as the amendments proposed by the gen- 
 tlemen from New York, (Messrs. TALLMADGE 
 and TAYLOR,) was presented for consideration, 
 involving constitutional principles to a vast 
 amount, pregnant with the future fate of the 
 Territory, portending destruction to the liber- 
 ties of that people, directly bearing on their 
 
 rights of property, their State rights, their all, 
 he should consider it as a dereliction of his 
 duty, as a retreating from his post, nay, double 
 criminality, did he not raise his voice against 
 their adoption. After the many able and lu- 
 minous views that had been taken of this sub- 
 ject, by the Speaker of the House and other 
 honorable gentlemen, he had not the vanity to 
 suppose that any additional views which he 
 could offer, or any new dress in which he could 
 clothe those already advanced, would have the 
 happy tendency of inducing any gentleman to 
 change his vote. But, if he stood single on the 
 question, and there was no man to help him, 
 yet, while the laws of the land and the rules of 
 the House guaranteed to him the privilege of 
 speech, he would redeem his conscience from 
 the imputation of having silently witnessed a 
 violation of the constitution of his country, and 
 an infringement on the liberties of the people 
 who had intrusted to his feeble abilities the 
 advocation of their rights. He desired, at this 
 early stage of his remarks, in the name of the 
 citizens of Missouri Territory, whose rights on 
 other subjects had been too long neglected and 
 shamefully disregarded, to enter his solemn 
 protest against the introduction, under the in- 
 sidious form of amendment, of any principle in 
 this bill, the obvious tendency of which would 
 be to sow the seeds of discord in, and perhaps 
 eventually endanger, the Union. 
 
 Mr. S. entertained the opinion that, under 
 the constitution, Congress had not the power 
 to impose this or any other restriction, or to 
 require of the people of Missouri their assent to 
 this condition, as a prerequisite to their admis- 
 sion into the Union. He contended this from 
 the language of the constitution itself; from the 
 practice in the admission of new States under 
 that instrument; and from the express terms 
 of the treaty of cession. The short view he in- 
 tended to take of those points, would, he trust- 
 ed, be satisfactory to all those who were not 
 so anxious to usurp power as to sacrifice to its 
 attainment the principles of our Government, 
 or who were not desirous of prostrating the 
 rights and independence of a State to chimeri- 
 cal views of policy or expediency. The au- 
 thority to admit new States into the Union, 
 was granted in the third section of the fourth 
 article of the constitution, which declared that 
 " new States may be admitted by the Congress 
 into the Union." The only power given to the 
 Congress by this section, appeared to him to be 
 that of passing a law for the admission of the 
 new State, leaving it in possession of all the 
 rights, privileges, and immunities, enjoyed by 
 the other States ; the most valuable and prom- 
 inent of which was that of forming and modi- 
 fying their own State constitution, and over 
 which Congress had no superintending control, 
 other than that expressly given in the fourth 
 section of the same article, which read, " the 
 United States shall guarantee to every State in 
 this Union, a republican form of government. 7 " 
 This end accomplished, the guardianship of the
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 347 
 
 FEBRUARY, 1819.] 
 
 Admission of Missouri Restriction on the State. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 United States over the constitution of the sev- 
 eral States was fulfilled; and all restrictions, 
 limitations, and conditions, beyond this, was so 
 much power unwarrantably assumed. In illus- 
 tration of this position, he would read an ex- 
 tract from one of the essays, written by the 
 late President Madison, contemporaneously 
 with the Constitution of the United States, 
 and from a very celebrated work : 
 
 " In a confederacy founded on republican princi- 
 ples, and composed of republican members, the su- 
 perintending government ought clearly to possess 
 authority to defend the system against aristocratic or 
 monarchical innovations. The more intimate the 
 nature of such a union may be, the greater interest 
 have the members hi the political institutions of each 
 other, and the greater right to insist that the forms 
 of government, under which the compact was entered 
 into, should be substantially maintained. But this 
 authority extends no farther than to a guarantee of 
 a republican form of government, which supposes a 
 pre-existing government of the form which is to be 
 guaranteed. As long, therefore, as the existing re- 
 publican forms are continued by the States, they are 
 guaranteed by the Federal Constitution. Whenever 
 the States may choose to substitute other republican 
 forms, they have a right to do so, and to claim the 
 federal guarantee for the latter. The only restriction 
 imposed on them is, that they shall not exchange re- 
 publican for anti-republican constitutions ; a restric- 
 tion which, it is presumed, will hardly be considered 
 as a grievance." 
 
 Mr. S. thought that those two clauses, when 
 supported by such high authority, had they 
 been the only ones in the constitution which 
 related to the powers of the General Govern- 
 ment over the States, and particularly at their 
 formation and adoption into the Union, could 
 not but be deemed satisfactory to a reasonable 
 extent ; but there were other provisions in the 
 constitution, to which he would refer, that be- 
 yond all doubt, to his mind, settled the ques- 
 tion. One of those was the tenth article in the 
 amendments, which said that " the powers not 
 delegated to the United States by the constitu- 
 tion, nor prohibited by it to the States, are re- 
 served to the States, respectively, or to the 
 people." He believed that, by common law 
 and common usage, all grants giving certain 
 defined and specific privileges or powers, were 
 to be so construed as that no others should be 
 intended to be given but such as were particu- 
 larly enumerated in the instruments themselves, 
 or indispensably necessary to carry into effect 
 those designated. In no part of the constitu- 
 tion was the power proposed to be exercised, 
 of imposing conditions on a new State, given, 
 either in so many words, or by any justifiable 
 or fair inference; nor in any portion of the 
 constitution was the right prohibited to the re- 
 spective States, to regulate their own internal 
 police, of admitting such citizens as they pleased, 
 or of introducing any description of property 
 that they should consider as essential or neces- 
 sary to their prosperity ; and the framers of 
 that instrument seem to have been zealous lest, 
 by implication or by inference, powers might 
 
 be assumed by the General Government over 
 the States and people, other than those express- 
 ly given ; hence they reserve, in so many terms, 
 to the States and the people, all powers not 
 delegated to the Federal Government. The 
 ninth article of the amendments to the consti- 
 tution, still further illustrated the position he 
 had taken ; it read, that " the enumeration in 
 the constitution of certain rights shall not be 
 construed to deny or disparage others retained 
 by the people." Mr. S. believed it to be a just 
 rule of interpretation, that the enumeration of 
 powers delegated to Congress weakened their 
 authority in all cases not enumerated; and 
 that- beyond those powers enumerated, they 
 had none, except they were essentially neces- 
 sary to carry into effect those that were given. 
 The second section of the fourth article of the 
 constitution, which declared that u the citizens 
 of each State shall be entitled to all the privi- 
 leges and immunities of citizens in the several 
 States," was satisfactory, to his judgment, that 
 it was intended the citizens of each State, form- 
 ing a part of one harmonious whole, should 
 have, in all things, equal privileges ; the neces- 
 sary consequence of which was, that every 
 man, in his own State, should have the same 
 rights, privileges, and powers, that any other 
 citizen of the United States had in his own 
 State; otherwise, discontent and murmurings 
 would prevail against the General Government, 
 who had deprived him of this equality. 
 
 For example, if the citizens of Pennsylvania 
 or Virginia enjoyed the right, in their own 
 State, to decide the question whether they 
 would have slavery or not, the citizens of Mis- 
 souri, to give them the same privileges, must 
 have the same right to decide whether they 
 would or would not tolerate slavery in their 
 State ; if it were otherwise, then the citizens of 
 Pennsylvania and Virginia would have more 
 rights, privileges, and powers, in their respec- 
 tive States, than the citizens of Missouri would 
 have in theirs. Mr. S. said he would make 
 another quotation from the same work he had 
 before been indebted to, which he believed had 
 considerable bearing on this question : " The 
 powers delegated by the proposed constitution 
 to the Federal Government are few and defined ; 
 those which are to remain in the State govern- 
 ments are numerous and indefinite ; the former 
 will be exercised principally on external objects, 
 as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign com- 
 merce with which last the powers of taxation 
 will* for the most part, be connected. The 
 powers reserved to the several States, will ex- 
 tend to all the objects which, in the ordinary 
 course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, 
 and properties of the people, and the internal 
 order, improvement, and prosperity of the 
 State." The applicability of this doctrine to 
 the question under consideration was so obvi- 
 ous, that he would not detain the House to 
 give examples, but leave it for gentlemen to 
 make the application. He would, however, 
 make one other reference to the constitution
 
 348 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OP R.] 
 
 Admission of Missouri Restriction on the State. 
 
 [FEBRUARY, 1819. 
 
 before he proceeded to speak of the practice 
 under it ; in the second section of that instru- 
 ment, it was provided that "representatives 
 and direct taxes shall be apportioned among 
 the several States, which may be included with- 
 in this Union, according to their respective 
 numbers, which shall be determined by adding 
 
 those bound to service for a term of years, an 
 excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all 
 other persons." This provision was not re- 
 stricted to the States then formed, and about 
 to adopt the constitution, but to all those States 
 which might be included within this Union, 
 clearly contemplating the admission of new 
 States thereafter, and providing that to them 
 also should this principle of representation and 
 taxation equally apply. Nor could he subscribe 
 to the construction, that, as this part of the 
 constitution was matter of compromise, it was 
 to be limited, in its application, to the original 
 States only, and not to be extended to all those 
 States that might, after its adoption, become 
 members of the Federal Union ; and a practical 
 exposition had been made by Congress of this 
 part of the constitution, in the admission of 
 Kentucky, Louisiana, and Mississippi, as States, 
 all of whom were slaveholding States, and to 
 each of them this principle had been extended. 
 Mr. S. believed that the practice under the 
 constitution had been different from that now 
 contended for by gentlemen; he was unap- 
 prised of any similar provision having ever 
 been made, or attempted to be made, in relation 
 to any other new State heretofore admitted. 
 The argument drawn from the States formed 
 out of the territory northwest of the Ohio Eiver 
 he did not consider as analogous ; that restric- 
 tion, if any, was imposed in pursuance of a 
 compact, and only, so far as Congress could do, 
 carried into effect the disposition of Virginia in 
 reference to a part of her own original terri- 
 tory, and was, in every respect more just, be- 
 cause that provision was made and published 
 to the world at a time when but few, if any, 
 settlements were formed within that tract of 
 country ; and the children of those people of 
 color belonging to the inhabitants then there 
 have been, and still were, held in bondage, and 
 were not free at a given age, as was contem- 
 plated by the amendment under consideration ; 
 nor did he doubt but that it was competent for 
 any of those States, admitted in pursuance of 
 the ordinance of 1787, to caU a convention,, and 
 so alter their constitution as to allow of the in- 
 troduction of slaves, if they thought proper to 
 do so. To those gentlemen who had in their 
 arguments, in support of the amendments, ad- 
 verted to the instance where Congress had, by 
 the law authorizing the people of Louisiana, to 
 form a constitution and State government, ex- 
 ercised the power of imposing the terms and 
 conditions on which they should be permitted 
 to do so, he would recommend the careful ex- 
 amination and comparison of those terms with 
 the Constitution of the United States, when, he 
 
 doubted not, they would be convinced that 
 these restrictions were only such as were in 
 express and positive language defined in the 
 latter instrument, and would have been equally 
 binding on the people of Louisiana, had they 
 not have been enumerated in the law giving 
 them authority to form a constitution for them- 
 
 Mr. S. said he considered the contemplated 
 conditions and restrictions, contained in the 
 proposed amendments, to be unconstitutional 
 and unwarrantable, from the provisions of the 
 treaty of cession, by the third article of which 
 it was stipulated, that " the inhabitants of the 
 ceded territory shall be incorporated in the 
 union of the United States, and admitted, as 
 soon as possible, according to the -principles of 
 the Federal Constitution, to the enjoyment of 
 all the rights, advantages, and immunities, 
 of citizens of the United States, and, in the 
 mean time, they shall be maintained and pro- 
 tected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, 
 property, and the religion which they profess." 
 
 This treaty having been made by the com- 
 petent authority of Government, ratified by the 
 Senate, and emphatically sanctioned by Con- 
 gress in the acts making appropriations to carry 
 it into effect, became a part of the supreme law 
 of the land, and its bearings on the rights of 
 the people had received a practical exposition 
 by the admission of the State of Louisiana, part 
 of the same territory, and acquired by the same 
 treaty of cession, into the Union. It was in 
 vain for gentlemen to tell him that, by the 
 terms of the treaty of cession, the United States 
 were not bound to admit any part of the ceded 
 territory into the Union as a State; the evi- 
 dence of the obligation Congress considered 
 they were under, to adopt States formed out 
 of that territory, is clearly deducible from the 
 fact, that they had done so in the instance of 
 Louisiana. But had no State been admitted, 
 formed of a part of the territory acquired by 
 that treaty, the obligation of the Government 
 to do so would not be the less apparent to him. 
 * The inhabitants of the ceded territory shall 
 be incorporated in the Union of the United 
 States." The people were not left to the way- 
 ward discretion of this, or any other Govern- 
 ment, by saying that they may be incorporated 
 in the Union. The language was different and 
 imperative : "they shall be incorporated." Mr. 
 S. understood by the term incorporated, that 
 they were to form a constituent part of this 
 Republic ; that they were to become joint part- 
 ners in the character and councils of the country, 
 and in the national losses and national gains ; 
 as a territory, they were not an essential part 
 of the Government ; they were a mere prov- 
 ince, subject to the acts and regulations of the 
 General Government in all cases whatsoever. 
 As a territory, they had not all the rights, ad- 
 vantages, and immunities, of citizens of the 
 United States. Mr. S. himself furnished an ex- 
 ample, that, in their present condition, they 
 had not all the rights of the other citizens of
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 349 
 
 FEBKCAKY, 1819.] 
 
 Admission of Missouri Restriction on the State. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 the Union. Had he a vote in this House? 
 and yet these people were, during the war, 
 subject to certain taxes imposed by Congress. 
 Had those people any voice to give in the im- 
 position of taxes to which they were subject, or 
 in the disposition of the funds of the nation, 
 and particularly those arising from the sales of 
 the public lands to which they already had, 
 and still would largely contribute? Had they 
 a voice to give in selecting the officers of this 
 Government, or many of their own? In short 
 in what had they equal rights, advantages, and 
 immunities with the other citizens of the United 
 States, but in the privilege to submit to a pro- 
 crastination of their rights, and in the advan- 
 tage to subscribe to your laws, your rules, your 
 taxes, and your powers, even without a hear- 
 ing ? Those people were also " to be admitted 
 into the Union as soon as possible." 
 
 Mr. S. would infer from this expression, that 
 it was the understanding of the parties, that so 
 soon as any portion of the territory, of sufficient 
 extent to form a State, should contain the num- 
 ber of inhabitants required by law to entitle 
 them to a Representative on the floor of this 
 House, that they then had the right to make 
 the call for admission, and this admission, when 
 made, was to be, not on conditions that gentle- 
 men might deem expedient not on conditions 
 referable to future political views, not on con- 
 ditions that the constitution' the people should 
 form, should contain a clause that would par- 
 ticularly open the door for emigration from the 
 North or from the South, not on condition that 
 the future population of the State should come 
 from a slaveholding or non-slaveholding State 
 "but according to the principles of the Fed- 
 eral Constitution," and none other. The people 
 of Missouri were, by solemn treaty stipulation, 
 when admitted, to enjoy all the rights, advan- 
 tages, and immunities, of citizens of the United 
 States. Can any gentleman contend, that, 
 laboring under the proposed restriction, the 
 citizens of Missouri would have all the rights, 
 advantages, and immunities, of other citizens 
 of the Union ? Have not other new States, in 
 their admission, and have not all the States in 
 the Union, now, privileges and rights beyond 
 what was contemplated to be allowed to the 
 citizens of Missouri ? Have not all other States 
 in this Government the right to alter, modify, 
 amend, and change their State constitution, 
 having regard alone to a republican form? 
 And was there any existing law, or any clause 
 in the Federal Constitution, that prohibited a 
 total change from a slaveholding to a non- 
 slaveholding State, or from a non-slaveholding 
 to a slaveholding State ? Mr. S. thought, that, 
 if this provision was proper, or -within the 
 powers of Congress, they also had the correla- 
 tive right to say, that the people of Missouri 
 should not be admitted as a State, unless they 
 provided, in the formation of their State con- 
 stitution, that slavery should be tolerated. 
 Would not those conscientious gentlemen startle 
 at this, and exclaim, What, impose on those 
 
 people slaves, when they do not want them ! 
 This would be said to be a direct attack on the 
 State independence. Was it in the power of 
 Congress to annex the present condition, Mr. 
 S. deemed it equally within the scope of their 
 authority to say, what color the inhabitants of 
 the proposed State should be, what description 
 of property, other than slaves, those people 
 should or should not possess, and the quantity 
 of property each man should retain, going upon 
 the Agrarian principle. He would even go fur- 
 ther, and say, that Congress had an equal pow- 
 er to enact to what religion the people should 
 subscribe ; that none other should be professed, 
 and to provide for the excommunication of all 
 those who did not submit. 
 
 The people of Missouri were, if admitted into 
 the Union, to come in on an equal footing with 
 the original States. That the people of the 
 other States had the right to regulate their own 
 internal police, to prescribe the rules of their 
 own conduct, and, in the formation of their 
 constitutions, to say whether slavery was or 
 was not admissible, he believed was a point 
 conceded by all. How, then, were the citizens 
 of Missouri placed on an equal footing with the 
 other members of the Union? Equal in some 
 respects a shameful discrimination in others. 
 A discrimination not warranted by the consti- 
 tution, or justified by the treaty of cession, but 
 founded on mistaken zeal, or erroneous policy. 
 They were to be bound down by onerous con- 
 ditions, limitations, and restrictions, to which 
 he knew they would not submit. That people 
 were brave and independent in spirit, they were 
 intelligent, and knew their own rights; they 
 were competent of self-government, and willing 
 to risk their own happiness and future prosper- 
 ity on the legitimate exercise of then- own judg- 
 ment and free will. Mr. S. protested against 
 such a guardianship as was contemplated now 
 to be assumed over his constituents. The spirit 
 of freedom burned La the bosoms of the freemen 
 of Missouri, and if admitted into the national 
 family, they would be equal, or not come in at 
 all. With what an anxious eye have they look- 
 ed to the East, since the commencement of this 
 session of Congress, for the good tidings, that on 
 them you had conferred the glorious privilege 
 of self-government and independence. What 
 seeds of discord will you sow, when they read 
 this suspicious, shameful, unconstitutional inhi- 
 bition in their charter ? Will they not compare 
 it with the terms of the treaty of cession that 
 bill of their rights, emphatically their magnet 
 chcvrta ? And will not the result of that com- 
 parison be a stigma on the faith of this Govern- 
 ment? It had been admitted by some gentle- 
 men in debate, that, were the people of Missouri 
 to form a constitution conforming to this pro- 
 vision, so soon as they were adopted into the 
 Union it would be competent for them to call a 
 convention and alter their constitution on this 
 subject. Why, then, he would ask gentlemen, 
 would they legislate, when they could produce 
 no permanent practical effect? Why expose
 
 350 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 Admission of Missouri Restriction on the State. 
 
 [FEBRUARY, 1819. 
 
 the imbecility of the General Government, to 
 tie up the hands of the State, and induce the 
 people to an act of chicanery, which he knew 
 from principle they abhorred, to get clear of an 
 odious restriction on their rights? Mr. S. had 
 trusted that gentlemen who professed to be ac- 
 tuated by motives of humanity and principle 
 would not encourage a course of dissimulation, 
 or, by any vote of theirs, render it necessary 
 for the citizens of Missouri to act equivocally to 
 obtain their right. He was unwilling to be- 
 lieve, that political views alone led gentlemen 
 on this or any other occasion ; but, from the lan- 
 guage of the member from New York, (Mr. 
 TAYLOB,) he was compelled to suspect that they 
 had their influence upon him. That gentleman 
 has told us, that if ever he left his present resi- 
 dence, it would be for Illinois or Missouri ; at 
 all events, he wished to send out his brothers 
 and his sons. Mr. S. begged that gentleman to 
 relieve him from the awful apprehension ex- 
 cited by the prospect of this accession of popu- 
 lation. He hoped the House would excuse him 
 while he stated, that he did not desire that 
 gentleman, his sons, or his brothers, in that 
 land of brave, noble, and independent freemen. 
 The member says that the latitude is too far 
 north to admit of slavery there. "Would the 
 gentleman cast his eye on the map before him, 
 he would there see, that a part of Kentucky, 
 Virginia, and Maryland, were as far north as 
 the northern boundary of the proposed State of 
 Missouri. Mr. S. would thank the gentleman 
 if he would condescend to tell him what precise 
 line of latitude suited his conscience, his hu- 
 manity, or his political views, on this subject 
 Could that member be serious when he made 
 the parallel of latitude the measure of his good 
 will to those unfortunate blacks ? Or was he 
 trying how far he could go in fallacious argu- 
 ment and absurdity without creating one blush, 
 even on his own cheek, for inconsistency? 
 What, starve the negroes, pen them up in the 
 swamps and morasses, confine them to southern 
 latitudes, to long scorching days of labor and 
 fatigue, until the race becomes extinct, that the 
 feu- land of Missouri may be tenanted by that 
 gentleman, his brothers, and his sons? He ex- 
 pected from a majority of the House a more 
 liberal policy, and better evidence that they 
 really were actuated by humane motives. 
 
 Mr. S. said he would trouble the House no 
 longer ; he thanked them for the attention and 
 indulgence already bestowed ; but he desired to 
 apprise gentlemen, before he sat down, that 
 they were sowing the seeds of discord in this 
 Union, by attempting to admit States with un- 
 equal privileges and unequal rights ; that they 
 were signing, sealing, and delivering their own 
 death warrant; that the weapon they were so 
 unjustly wielding against the people of Missouri, 
 was a two-edged sword. From the cumulative 
 nature of power, the day might come when the 
 General Government might, in turn, undertake 
 to dictate to them on questions of internal 
 policy ; Missouri, now weak and feeble, whose 
 
 fate and murmurs would excite but little alarm 
 or sensibility, might become an easy victim to 
 motives of policy, party zeal, or mistaken ideas 
 of power; but other times and other men 
 would succeed ; a future Congress might come, 
 who, under the sanctified forms of constitution- 
 al power, would dictate tp them odious condi- 
 tions; nay, inflict on their internal independ- 
 ence a wound more deep and dreadful than 
 even this to Missouri. The House had seen the 
 force of the precedent, in the mistaken appli- 
 cation of the conditions imposed on the people 
 of Louisiana anterior to their admission into 
 the Union. And, whatever might be the ulti- 
 mate determination of the House, Mr. S. con- 
 sidered this question big with the fate of Caesar 
 and of Rome. 
 
 Mr. TALLMADGE, of New York, rose. Sir, 
 said he, it has been my desire and my intention 
 to avoid any debate on the present painful and 
 unpleasant subject. When I had the honor to 
 submit to this House the amendment now un- 
 der consideration, I accompanied it with a de- 
 claration, that it was intended to confine its 
 operation to the newly acquired territory across 
 the Mississippi ; and I then expressly declared 
 that I would in no manner intermeddle with 
 the slaveholding States, nor attempt manumis- 
 sion in any one of the original States in the 
 Union. Sir, I even went further, and stated 
 that I was aware of the delicacy of the subject, 
 and that I had learned from Southern gentle- 
 men the difficulties and the dangers of having 
 free blacks intermingling with slaves ; and, on 
 that account, and with a view to the safety of 
 the white population of the adjoining States, I 
 would not even advocate the prohibition of 
 slavery in the Alabama Territory; because, 
 surrounded as it was by slaveholding States, 
 and with only imaginary lines of division, the 
 intercourse between slaves and free blacks could 
 not be prevented, and a senile war might be 
 the result. While we deprecate and mourn 
 over the evil of slavery, humanity and good 
 morals require us to wish its abolition, under 
 circumstances consistent with the safety of the 
 white population. Willingly, therefore, will I 
 submit to an evil which we cannot safely rem- 
 edy. I admitted all that had been said of the 
 danger of having free blacks visible to slaves, 
 and therefore did not hesitate to pledge myself 
 that I would neither advise nor attempt coer- 
 cive manumission. But, sir, all these reasons 
 cease when we cross the banks of the Missis- 
 sippi, a newly acquired territory, never con- 
 templated in the formation of our Government, 
 not included within the compromise or mutual 
 pledge in the adoption of our constitution, a 
 new territory acquired by our common fund, 
 and ought justly to be subject to our common 
 legislation. 
 
 Sir, when I submitted the amendment now 
 under consideration, accompanied with these 
 explanations, and with these avowals of my in- 
 tentions and of my motives, I did expect that 
 gentlemen who might differ from me in opin-
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 351 
 
 FEBRUARY, 1819.] 
 
 Admission of Missouri Restriction on the State. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 ion would appreciate the liberality of my views, 
 and would meet me with moderation, as upon 
 a fair subject for general legislation. Sir, I did 
 expect at least that the frank declaration of my 
 views would protect me from harsh expressions, 
 and from the unfriendly imputations which have 
 been cast out on this occasion. But, sir, such 
 has been the character and the violence of this 
 debate, and expressions of so much intemper- 
 ance, and of an aspect so threatening have been 
 used, that continued silence on my part would 
 ill become me, who had submitted to this House 
 the original proposition. While this subject was 
 under debate before the Committee of the 
 Whole, I did not take the floor, and I avail my- 
 self of this occasion to acknowledge my obliga- 
 tions to my friends, (Messrs. TAYLOR and MILLS,) 
 for the manner in which they supported my 
 amendment, at a time when I was unable to 
 partake in the debate. I had only on that day 
 returned from a journey long in its extent, and 
 painful in its occasion ; and, from an affection 
 of my breast, I could not then speak ; I cannot 
 yet hope to do justice to the subject, but I do 
 hope to say enough to assure my friends that I 
 have not left them in the controversy, and to 
 convince the opponents of the measure, that 
 their violence has not driven me from the de- 
 bate. 
 
 Sir, the honorable gentleman from Missouri, 
 (Mr. SCOTT,} who has just resumed his seat, has 
 told us of the ides of March, and has cautioned 
 us to " beware of the fate of Caesar and of Rome." 
 Another gentleman, (Mr. COBB,) from Georgia, 
 in addition to other expressions of great warmth, 
 has said, " that, if we persist, the Union will 
 be dissolved ; " and, with a look fixed on me, 
 has told us, " we had kindled a fire which all 
 the waters of the ocean cannot put out, which 
 seas of blood can only extinguish." 
 
 Sir, language of this sort has no effect on me ; 
 my purpose is fixed, it is interwoven with my 
 existence, its durability is limited with my life, 
 it is a great and glorious cause, setting bounds 
 to a slavery the most cruel and debasing the 
 world ever witnessed; it is the freedom of 
 man ; it is the cause of unredeemed and unre- 
 generated human beings. 
 
 Sir, if a dissolution of the Union must take 
 place, let it be so ! If civil war, which gentle- 
 men so much threaten, must come, I can only 
 say, let it come 1 My hold on life is probably 
 as frail as that of any man who now hears me ; 
 but, while that hold lasts, it shah 1 be devoted to 
 the service of my country to the freedom of 
 man. If blood is necessary to extinguish any 
 fire which I have assisted to kindle, I can assure 
 gentlemen, while I regret the necessity, I shall 
 not forbear to contribute my mite. Sir, the 
 violence to which gentlemen have resorted 
 on this subject will not move my purpose, nor 
 drive me from my place. I have the fortune 
 and the honor to stand Hero as the representa- 
 tive of freemen, who possess intelligence to 
 know their rights, who have the spirit to main- 
 tain them. Whatever might be my own pri- 
 
 vate sentiments on this subject, standing here 
 as the representative of others, no choice is left 
 me. I know the will of my constituents, and, 
 regardless of consequences, I will avow it ; as 
 their representative, I will proclaim their hatred 
 to slavery in every shape ; as their representa- 
 tive, here will I hold my stand, until this floor, 
 with the constitution of my country which 
 supports it, shall sink beneath me. If I am 
 doomed to fall, I shall at least have the painful 
 consolation to believe that I fall, as a fragment, 
 in the ruins of my country. 
 
 Sir, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. COL- 
 STON) has accused my honorable friend, from 
 New Hampshire, (Mr. LIVERMOBE,) of " speak- 
 ing to the galleries, and, by his language, en- 
 deavoring to excite a servile war ; " and has 
 ended by saying, "he is no better than Arbuth- 
 not or Ambrister ; and deserves no better fate." 
 Sir, when I hear such language uttered upon 
 this floor, and within this House, I am con- 
 strained to consider it as hasty and unintended 
 language, resulting from the vehemence of de- 
 bate, and not really intending the personal in- 
 decorum the expressions would seem to indi- 
 cate. [Mr. COLSTON asked to explain, and said 
 he had not distinctly understood Mr. T. Mr. 
 LrvEKMOBE called on Mr. C. to state the expres- 
 sions he had used. Mr. 0. then said he had no 
 explanation to give.] Mr. TALLMADGE said he 
 had none to ask ; he continued to say, he would 
 not believe any gentleman on this floor would 
 commit so great an indecorum against any mem- 
 ber, or against the dignfty of the House, as to 
 use such expressions, really intending the mean- 
 ing which the words seemed to import, and 
 which had been uttered against the gentleman 
 from New Hampshire. [Mr. NELSON, of Vir- 
 ginia, in the chair, called to order, and said no 
 personal remarks would be allowed.] Mr. T. 
 said he rejoiced that the Chair was at length 
 aroused to a sense of its duties. The debate 
 had, for several days, progressed with unequal- 
 led violence, and all was in order; but now, 
 when at length this violence on one side is to be 
 resisted, the Chair discovered it is out of order. 
 I rejoice, said Mr. T., at the discovery, approve 
 of the admonition, while I am proud to say, it 
 has no relevancy to me. It is my boast that I 
 never uttered an unfriendly personal remark on 
 this floor, but I wish it distinctly understood 
 that the immutable laws of self-defence will 
 justify going to great lengths, and that, in the 
 future progress of this debate, the rights of de- 
 fence would be regarded. 
 
 Sir. has it already come to this, that in the 
 Congress of the United States that, in the 
 legislative councils of republican America, the 
 subject of slavery has become a subject of so 
 much feeling of such delicacy of such danger, 
 that it cannot safely be discussed? Are mem- 
 bers who venture to express their sentiments 
 on this subject to be accused of talking to the 
 galleries, with intent to excite a servile war; 
 and of meriting the fate of Arbuthnot and Am- 
 brister ? Are we to be told of the dissolution
 
 352 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 Admission of Missouri Restriction on the State. 
 
 [FEBRUARY, 1819. 
 
 of the Union ; of civil war, and of seas of blood ? 
 And yet, with such awful threatenings before 
 us, do gentlemen, in the same breath, insist 
 upon the encouragement of this evil ; upon the 
 extension of this monstrous scourge of the hu- 
 man race ? An evil so fraught with such dire 
 calamities to us as individuals, and to our na- 
 tion, and threatening, in its progress, to over- 
 whelm the civil and religious institutions of 
 the country, with the liberties of the nation, 
 ought at once to be met, and to be controlled. 
 If its power, its influence, and its impending 
 dangers have already arrived at such a point 
 that it is not safe to discuss it on this floor, and 
 it cannot now pass under consideration as a 
 proper subject for general legislation, what will 
 be the result when it is spread through your 
 widely extended domain ? Its present threat- 
 ening aspect, and the violence of its supporter^ 
 so far from inducing me to yield to its progress, 
 prompts me to resist its march. Now is the 
 time. It must now be met, and the extension 
 of the evil must now be prevented, or the occa- 
 sion is irrecoverably lost, and the evil can never 
 be contracted. 
 
 Sir, extend your view across the Mississippi, 
 over your newly acquired territory ; a territory 
 so far surpassing in extent the limits of your 
 present country, that that country which gave 
 birth to your nation, which achieved your 
 Revolution, consolidated your Union, formed 
 your constitution, and has subsequently acquir- 
 ed so much glory, hangs but as an appendage to 
 the extended empire over which your republi- 
 can Government is now called to bear sway. 
 Look down the long vista of futurity. See 
 your empire, in extent unequalled; in advan- 
 tageous situation without a parallel ; and occu- 
 pying all the valuable part of our continent. 
 Behold this extended empire, inhabited by the 
 hardy sons of American freemen knowing 
 their rights, and inheriting the will to protect 
 them owners of the soil on which they live, 
 and interested in the institutions which they 
 labor to defend with two oceans laving your 
 shores, and tributary to your purposes, bearing 
 on their bosoms the commerce of your people. 
 Compared to yours, the Governments of Eu- 
 rope dwindle into insignificance, and the whole 
 world is without a parallel. But, sir, reverse 
 this scene ; people this fair dominion with the 
 slaves of your planters ; extend slavery this 
 bane of man, this abomination of heaven over 
 your extended empire, and you prepare its dis- 
 solution ; you turn its accumulated strength 
 into positive weakness; you cherish a canker 
 in your breast ; you put poison in your bosom ; 
 you place a vulture on your heart nay, you 
 whet the dagger and place it in the hands of a 
 portion of your population, stimulated to use it, 
 by every tie, human and divine. The envious 
 contrast between your happiness and their 
 misery, between your liberty and their slavery, 
 must constantly prompt them to accomplish 
 your destruction.. Your enemies will learn the 
 source and the cause of your weakness. As 
 
 often as internal dangers shall threaten, or in- 
 ternal commotions await you, you will then 
 realize, that, by your own procurement, you 
 have placed amidst your families, and in the 
 bosom of your country, a population producing 
 at once the greatest cause of individual danger 
 and of national weakness. With this defect, 
 your Government must crumble to pieces, and 
 your people become the scoff of the world. 
 
 Sir, we have been told, with apparent confi- 
 dence, that we have no right to annex condi- 
 tions to a State on its admission into the Union; 
 and it has been urged that the proposed amend- 
 ment, prohibiting the further introduction of 
 slavery, is unconstitutional. This position, as- 
 serted with so much confidence, remains un- 
 supported by any argument, or by any authori- 
 ty derived from the constitution itself. The 
 constitution strongly indicates an opposite con- 
 clusion, and seems to contemplate a difference 
 between the old and the new States. The 
 practice of the Government has sanctioned this 
 difference in many respects. 
 
 The third section of the fourth article of the 
 constitution says, " new States may be admit- 
 ted by the Congress into this Union," and it is 
 silent as to the terms and conditions upon 
 which the new States may be so admitted. 
 The fair inference from this silence is, that the 
 Congress which might admit should prescribe 
 the time and the terms of such admission. The 
 tenth section of the first article of the constitu- 
 tion says, " the migration or importation of such 
 persons as any of the States now existing shah 1 
 think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited 
 by the Congress prior to the year 1808." The 
 words "now existing" clearly show the dis- 
 tinction for which we contend. The word 
 slave is nowhere mentioned in the constitution, 
 but this section has always been considered as 
 applicable to them, and unquestionably reserved 
 the right to prohibit their importation into any 
 new State before the year 1808. 
 
 Congress, therefore, have power over the 
 subject, probably as a matter of legislation, but 
 more certainly has a right, to prescribe the 
 time and the condition upon which any new 
 State may be admitted into the family of the 
 Union, Sir, the bill now before us proves the 
 correctness of my argument. It is filled with 
 conditions and limitations. The territory is re- 
 quired to take a census, and is to be admitted 
 only on condition that it have forty thousand 
 inhabitants. I have already submitted amend- 
 ments preventing the State from taxing the 
 lands of the United States, and declaring all 
 navigable waters shall remain open to the 
 other States, and be exempt from any tolls or 
 duties. And my friend (Mr. TATLOE) has sub- 
 mitted amendments prohibiting the State from 
 taxing soldiers' lands for the period of five 
 years. And to all these amendments we have 
 heard no objection; they have passed unani- 
 mously. But now, when an amendment pro- 
 hibiting the further introduction of slavery is 
 proposed, the whole House is put in agitation,
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 353 
 
 FEBRUARY, 1819.] 
 
 Admission of Missouri Restriction on the State. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 and we are confidently told that it is unconsti- 
 tutional to annex conditions on the admission 
 of a new State into the Union. The result of 
 all this is, that all amendments and conditions 
 are proper, which suit a certain class of gentle- 
 men, but whatever amendment is proposed, 
 which does not comport Avith their interest or 
 their views, is unconstitutional, and a flagrant 
 violation of this sacred charter of our rights. 
 In order to he consistent, gentlemen must go 
 back and strike out the various amendments to 
 which they have already agreed. The constitu- 
 tion applies equally to all, or to none. 
 
 Sir, we have been told that this is a new 
 principle for which we contend, never before 
 adopted, or thought of. So far from this being 
 correct, it is due to the memory of our ances- 
 tors to say, it is an old principle, adopted by 
 them, as the policy of our country. Whenever 
 the United States have had the right and the 
 power, they have heretofore prevented the 
 extension of slavery. The States of Kentucky 
 and Tennessee were taken off from other States, 
 and were admitted into the Union without con- 
 dition, because their lands were never owned 
 by the United States. The Territory north- 
 west of the Ohio is all the land which ever be- 
 longed to them. Shortly after the cession of 
 those lands to the Union, Congress passed, in 
 1Y87, a compact which was declared to be un- 
 alterable, the sixth article of which provides 
 that " there shall be neither slavery nor invol- 
 untary servitude in the said territory, otherwise 
 than in the punishment of crimes, whereof the 
 party shall have been duly convicted." In pur- 
 suance of this compact, all the States formed 
 from that territory have been admitted into the 
 Union upon various considerations, and among 
 which the sixth article of this compact is in- 
 cluded as one. 
 
 Let gentlemen also advert to the law for the 
 admission of the State of Louisiana into the 
 Union : they will find it filled with conditions. 
 It was required not only to form a constitution 
 upon the principles of a republican government, 
 but it was required to contain the "fundamental 
 principles of civil and religious liberty." It 
 was even required, as a condition of its admis- 
 sion, to keep its records and its judicial and 
 legislative proceedings in the English language; 
 and also to secure the trial by jury, and to sur- 
 render all claim to unappropriated lands in the 
 territory, with the prohibition to tax any of 
 the United States lands. 
 
 After this long practice and constant usage to 
 annex conditions to the admission of a State 
 into the Union, will gentlemen yet tell us it is 
 unconstitutional, and talk of our principles be- 
 ing novel and extraordinary? It has been said 
 that, if this amendment prevails, we shall have 
 a union of States possessing unequal rights. 
 And we have been asked, whether we wished 
 to see such a " chequered union ? " Sir, we have 
 already such a Union. If the prohibition of 
 slavery is the denial of a right, and constitutes 
 a chequered union, gladly would I behold such 
 VOL. VI. 23 
 
 rights denied, and such a chequer spread over 
 every State in the Union. It is now spread 
 over the States northwest of the Ohio, and 
 forms the glory and the strength .of those 
 States. I hope it will be extended from the 
 Mississippi Kiver to the Pacific Ocean. 
 
 Sir, we have been told that the proposed 
 amendment cannot be received, because it is 
 contrary to the treaty and cession of Louisiana. 
 " Article 3. The inhabitants of the ceded terri- 
 tory shall be incorporated in the union of the 
 United States, and admitted as soon as possible, 
 according to the principles of the Federal Con- 
 stitution, to the enjoyment of all the rights, 
 advantages, and immunities of citizens of the 
 United States ; and, in the mean time, they 
 shall be maintained and protected in the free 
 enjoyment of then- liberty, property, and the 
 religion which they profess." I find nothing, 
 said Mr. T., in this article of the treaty, incom- 
 patible with the proposed amendment. The 
 rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens 
 of the United States are guaranteed to the in- 
 habitants of Louisiana. If one of them should 
 choose to remove into Virginia, he conld take 
 his slaves with him ; but if he removes to In- 
 diana, or any of the States northwest of the 
 Ohio, he cannot take his slaves with him. If 
 the proposed amendment prevails, the inhab- 
 itants of Louisiana or the citizens of the United 
 States can neither of them take slaves into the 
 State of Missouri. All, therefore, may enjoy 
 equal privileges. It is a disability, or what I 
 cah 1 a blessing, annexed to the particular dis- 
 trict of country, and in no manner attached to 
 the individual. But, said Mr. T., while I have 
 no doubt that the treaty contains no solid ob- 
 jection against the proposed amendment, yet if 
 it did, it would not alter my determination 
 on the subject. The Senate, or the treaty- 
 making power of our Government, have neither 
 the right nor the power to stipulate, by a treaty, 
 the terms upon which a people shall be admitted 
 into the Union. This House have a right to be 
 heard on the subject. The admission of a State 
 into the Union is a legislative act, which re- 
 quires the concurrence of all the departmenta 
 of legislative power. It is an important pre- 
 rogative of this House, which I hope will never 
 be surrendered. The zeal and the ardor of 
 gentlemen, in the course of this debate, has in- 
 duced them to announce to this House, that, if 
 we persist and force the State of Missouri to ac- 
 cede to the proposed amendment, as the condi- 
 tion of her admission into the Union, she will 
 disregard it, and, as soon as admitted, will alter 
 her constitution, and introduce shivery into 
 her territory. Sir, I am not now prepared, nor 
 is it necessary to determine what would be the 
 consequence of such a violation of faith of 
 such a departure from the fundamental condi- 
 tion of her admission into the Union. I would 
 not cast upon a people so foul an imputation as to * 
 believe they would be guilty of such fraudulent 
 duplicity. The States northwest of the Ohio 
 have all regarded the faith and the condition
 
 354 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 Admission of Missouri Restriction. on the State. 
 
 [FEBRI 
 
 1819. 
 
 of their admission ; and there is no reason to 
 believe the people of Missouri will not also re- 
 gard theirs. But, sir, whenever a State, ad- 
 mitted into the Union, shall disregard and set 
 at naught the fundamental condition of its ad- 
 mission, and shall, in violation of all faith, under- 
 take to levy a tax upon the lands of the United 
 States, or a toll upon their navigable waters, or 
 introduce slavery, where Congress have pro- 
 hibited it, then it will be in time to determine 
 the consequence. But, sir, if the threatened 
 consequences were known to be the certain re- 
 sult, yet would I insist upon the proposed 
 amendment. The declaration of this House, 
 the declared will of the nation, to prohibit 
 slavery, would produce its moral effect, and 
 stand as one of the brightest ornaments of our 
 country. Sir, it has been urged, with great 
 plausibility, that we should spread the slaves 
 now in our country, and thus spread the evil, 
 rather than confine it to its present districts. 
 It has been said, we should thereby diminish 
 the dangers from them, while we increase the 
 means of their living, and augment their com- 
 forts. But, sir, you may rest assured that this 
 reasoning is fallacious, and that, while slavery 
 is admitted, the market will be supplied. Our 
 coast, and its contiguity to the West Indies and 
 the Spanish possessions, render easy the intro- 
 duction of slaves into our country. Our laws 
 are already highly penal against their introduc- 
 tion, and yet it is a well-known fact, that about 
 fourteen thousand slaves have been brought 
 into our country this last year. 
 
 Sir, since we have been engaged in this de- 
 bate, we have witnessed an elucidation of this 
 argument, of bettering the condition of slaves 
 by spreading them over the country. A slave 
 driver, a trafficker in human flesh, as if sent by 
 Providence, has passed the door of your Capi- 
 tol, on his way to the "West, driving before him 
 about fifteen of these wretched victims of his 
 power. The males, who might raise the arm 
 of vengeance, and retaliate for their wrongs, 
 were handcuffed, and chained to each other, 
 while the females and children were marched 
 in their rear, under the guidance of the dri- 
 ver's whip ! Yes, sir, such has been the 
 scene witnessed from the windows of Con- 
 gress Hall, and viewed by members who com- 
 pose the legislative councils of Republican 
 America! 
 
 Sir, in the course of the debate on this sub- 
 ject, we have been told that, from the long 
 habit of the Southern and Western people, the 
 possession of slaves has become necessary to 
 them, and an essential requisite in their living. 
 It has been urged, from the nature of the cli- 
 mate and soil of the Southern countries, that 
 the lands cannot be occupied or cultivated with- 
 out slaves. It has been said that the slaves 
 prosper in those places, and that they are much 
 -better off there than in their own native coun- 
 try. We have even been told that, if we suc- 
 ceed, and prevent slavery across the Mississippi, 
 we shall greatly lessen the value of property 
 
 there, and shall retard, for a long series of years, 
 the settlement of that country. 
 
 Sir, said Mr. T., if the Western country can- 
 not be settled without slaves, gladly would I 
 prevent its settlement till time shall be no more. 
 If this class of arguments is to prevail, it sets 
 all morals at defiance, and we are called to leg- 
 islate on the subject, as a matter of mere per- 
 sonal interest. If this is to be the case, repeal 
 all your laws prohibiting the slave trade ; throw 
 open this traffic to the commercial States of the 
 East; and. if it better the condition of these 
 wretched beings, invite the dark population of 
 benighted Africa to be translated to the shores 
 of Republican America, But, sir, I will not 
 cast upon this, or upon that gentleman an im- 
 putation so ungracious as the conclusion to 
 which their arguments would necessarily tend. 
 I do not believe any gentleman on this floor 
 could here advocate the slave trade, or main- 
 tain, in the abstract, the principles of slavery. 
 I will not outrage the decorum, nor insult the 
 dignity of this House, by attempting to argue 
 in this place, as an abstract proposition, the 
 moral right of slavery. How gladly would the 
 " legitimates of Europe chuckle " to find an 
 American Congress in debate on such a ques- 
 tion! 
 
 As an evil brought upon us without our own 
 fault, before the formation of our Government, 
 and as one of the sins of that nation from which 
 we have revolted, we must of necessity legislate 
 upon this subject. It is our business so to legis- 
 late, as never to encourage, but always to con- 
 trol this evil ; and, while we strive to eradicate 
 it, we ought to fix its limits, and render it sub- 
 ordinate to the safety of the white population, 
 and the good order of civil society. / 
 
 Sir, on this subject the eyes of Europe are 
 turned upon you. You boast of the freedom of 
 your constitution and your laws ; you have pro- 
 claimed, in the Declaration of Independence, 
 " That all men are created equal ; that they are 
 endowed by their Creator with certain inalien- 
 able rights ; that amongst these are life, liberty, 
 and the pursuit of happiness ;" and yet you have 
 slaves in your country. The enemies of your 
 Government, and the legitimates of Europe, 
 point to your inconsistencies, and blazon your 
 supposed defects. If you allow slavery to pass 
 into Territories where you have the lawful power 
 to exclude it, you will justly take upon yourself 
 all the charges of inconsistency ; but, confine it 
 to the original slaveholding States, where you 
 found it at the formation of your Government, 
 and you stand acquitted of all imputation. 
 
 Sir, this is a subject upon which I have great 
 feeling for the honor of my country. In a former 
 debate upon the Illinois constitution, I men- 
 tioned that our enemies had drawn a picture of 
 our country, as holding in one hand the Declara- 
 tion of Independence, and with the other bran- 
 dishing a whip over our affrighted slaves. I 
 then made it my boast that we could cast back 
 upon England the accusation, and that she had 
 committed the original sin of bringing slaves
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 355 
 
 FEBRUAKT, 1819.] 
 
 Admission of Missouri Restriction on the State. 
 
 [H. OF K. 
 
 into our country. Sir, I have since received, 
 through the post office, a letter, post marked in 
 South Carolina, and signed "A native of Eng- 
 land" desiring that, when I again had occasion 
 to repeat my boast against England, I would 
 also state that she had atoned for her original 
 sin, by establishing in her slave colonies a sys- 
 tem of 'humane laws, ameliorating their con- 
 dition, and providing for their safety, while 
 America had committed the secondary sin of 
 , and had even pro- 
 it was not murder to kill 
 a slave. Sir, "I felt the severity of the reproof; 
 I felt for my country. I have inquired on the 
 subject, and I find such were formerly the laws 
 in some of the slaveholding States; and that 
 even now, in the State of South Carolina, by 
 law, the penalty of death is provided for steal- 
 ing a slave, while the murder of a slave is pun- 
 
 disregarding their condition 
 vided laws by which it was 
 
 suits the object of my present argument, I will, 
 on this occasion, admit them to the fullest ex- 
 tent. And what is the result ? Southern gen- 
 tlemen, by their superior liberality in contribu- 
 tions to moral institutions, justly stand in the 
 first rank, and hold the first place in the brightest 
 page of the history of the country. But, turn 
 over this page, and what do you behold ? You 
 behold them contributing to teach the doctrines 
 of Christianity in every quarter of the globe. 
 You behold them legislating to secure the igno- 
 rance and stupidity of their own slaves I You 
 behold them prescribing, by law, penalties 
 against the man that dares teach a negro to 
 read. Such, sir, is the statute law of the State 
 of Virginia. [Mr. BASSETT and Mr. TYLEB said 
 that there was no such law in Virginia.] No, 
 sir, said Mr. T., I have mis-spoken myself; I 
 ought to have said, such is the statute law of the 
 
 ished by a trivial fine. Such, sir, is the contrast ! State of Georgia. Yes, sir, while we hear of a 
 and the relative value which is placed, in the liberality which civilizes the savages of all conn- 
 opinion of a slaveholding State, between the tries, and carries the Gospel alike to the Hot- 
 property of the master and the life of a slave. tentot and the Hindoo, it has been reserved for 
 Sir, gentlemen have undertaken to criminate the Republican State of Georgia, not content 
 and to draw odious contrasts between different | with the care of its overseers, to legislate to se- 
 sections of our country ; I shall not combat such \ cure the oppression and the ignorance of their 
 arguments ; I have made no pretence to exclu- 1 slaves. The man who there teaches a negro to 
 sive morality on this subject, either for myself I read is liable to a criminal prosecution. The 
 or my constituents ; nor have I cast any irnpu- j dark benighted beings of all creation profit by 
 
 tations on others. On the contrary, I hold, that 
 mankind under like circumstances are alike, the 
 world over. The vicious and the unprincipled 
 are confined to no district of country ; and it is 
 for this portion of the community we are bound 
 to legislate. When honorable gentlemen inform 
 us we overrate the cruelty and the dangers of 
 slavery, and tell us that their slaves are happy 
 
 our liberality save those on our own planta- 
 tions. Where is the missionary who possesses 
 sufficient hardihood to venture a residence to 
 teach the slaves of a plantation ? Here is the 
 stain! Here is the stigma ! Which fastens upon 
 the character of our country ; and which, in 
 the appropriate language of the gentleman from 
 Georgia, (Mr. COBB,) all the waters of the ocean 
 
 and contented, and would even contribute to | cannot wash out ; which seas of blood can only 
 their safety, they tell us but very little ; they take away. 
 
 do not tell us, that while their slaves are happy, Sir, there is yet another and an important 
 the slaves of some depraved and cruel wretch, | point of view in which this subject ought to bo 
 in their neighborhood, may not be stimulated to j considered. We have been told by those who 
 
 revenge, and thus involve the country in ruin. 
 If we had to legislate only for such gentlemen 
 as are now embraced within my view, a law 
 against robbing the mail would be a disgrace 
 upon the nation ; and, as useless, I would tear it 
 from the pages of your statute book ; yet sad 
 experience has taught us the necessity of such 
 laws ; and honor, justice, and policy teach us 
 the wisdom of legislating to limit the extension 
 of slavery. 
 
 Sir, in the zeal to draw sectional contrasts, we 
 have been told by one gentleman, that gentle- 
 men from one district of country talk of their 
 religion and their morality, while those of an- 
 other practise it. And the superior liberality 
 has been asserted of Southern gentlemen over 
 those of the North, in all contributions to moral 
 institutions, for Bible and missionary societies. 
 Sir, I understand too well the pursuit of my 
 purpose to be decoyed and drawn off into the 
 
 advocate the extension of slavery into the Mis- 
 souri, that any attempt to control this subject by 
 legislation is a violation of that faith and mutual 
 confidence upon which our Union was formed 
 and our constitution adopted. This argument 
 might be considered plausible, if the restriction 
 was attempted to be enforced against any of the 
 slaveholding States, which had been a party 
 in the adoption of the constitution. But it can 
 have no reference or application to a new dis- 
 trict of country recently acquired, and never 
 contemplated in the formation of the Govern- 
 ment, and not embraced in the mutual conces- 
 sions and declared faith upon which the consti- 
 tution was adopted. The constitution provides 
 that the Representatives of the several States 
 to this House shall be according to their num- 
 bers, including three-fifths of the slaves in the 
 respective States. This is an important benefit 
 yielded to the slaveholding States, as one of the 
 
 discussion of a collateral subject. I have no in- I mutual sacrifices for the Union. On this subject, 
 clination to controvert these assertions of com- 1 1 consider the faith of the Union pledged, and I 
 parativo liberality. Although I have no idea : never would attempt coercive manumission in 
 they are founded in fact, yet, because it better I a slaveholding State.
 
 356 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 Arkansas Territory Restriction of Slavery. 
 
 [FEBRUABY, 1819. 
 
 But none of the causes which induced the 
 sacrifice of this principle, and which now pro- 
 duce such an unequal representation of the free 
 population of the country, exist as between us 
 and the newly acquired territory across the 
 Mississippi. That portion of country has no 
 claims to such an unequal representation, unjust 
 in its results upon the other States. Are the 
 numerous slaves in extensive countries, which 
 we may acquire by purchase, and admit as States 
 into the Union, at once to be represented on 
 this floor, under a clause of the constitution, 
 granted as a compromise and a benefit to the 
 Southern States which had borne part in the 
 Kevolution ? Such an extension of that clause 
 in the constitution would be unjust in its opera- 
 tions, unequal in its results, and a violation of 
 its original intention. Abstract from the moral 
 effects of slavery, its political consequences in 
 the representation under this clause of the con- 
 stitution demonstrate the importance of the 
 proposed amendment. 
 
 Sir, I shall bow in silence to the will of the 
 majority, on whichever side it shall be ex- 
 pressed; yet I confidently hope that majority 
 will be found on the side of an amendment, so 
 replete with moral consequences, so pregnant 
 with important political results. 
 
 After a long debate on the subject, the ques- 
 tion was taken on agreeing to the first member 
 of the proposed amendment, in the following 
 words : 
 
 " That the further introduction of slavery or invol- 
 untary servitude be prohibited, except for the punish- 
 ment of crimes, whereof the party shall have been 
 duly convicted." 
 
 Which question was determined in the affirm- 
 ative yeas 87, nays 76, as follows : 
 
 YEAS. Messrs. Adams, Allen, Anderson of Penn- 
 sylvania, Barber of Ohio, Bateman, Beecher, Bennett, 
 Boden, Campbell, Clagett, Comstock, Crafts, Cash- 
 man, Darlington, Drake, Ellicott, Folger, Fuller, 
 Gage, Gilbert, Hale, Hall of Delaware, Hasbrouck, 
 Hendricks, Herkimer, Herrick, Heister, Hitchcock, 
 Hopkinson, Hostetter, Hubbard, Hunter, Huntington, 
 Irving of New York, Kinsey, Kirtland, Lawyer, Lin- 
 coln, Linn, Livermore, W. Maclay, W. P. Maclay, 
 Marchand, Mason of R. Island, Merrill, Mills, Robert 
 Moore, Samuel Moore, Morton, Mosely, Murray, 
 Jeremiah Nelson, Ogle, Orr, Palmer, Patterson, Paw- 
 ling, Pitkin, .Rice, Rich, Richards, Rogers, Ruggles, 
 Sampson, Savage, Schuyler, Scudder, Sergeant, Sher- 
 wood, Silsbee, Southard, Spencer, Talltnadge, Taylor, 
 Terry, Tompkins, Townsend, Upham, Wallace, Wend- 
 over, Westerlo, Whiteside, Wilkin, Williams of Con- 
 necticut, Williams of New York, Wilson of Massa- 
 chusetts, and Wilson of Pennsylvania 87. 
 
 NAYS. Messrs. Abbott, Anderson of Kentucky, 
 Austin, Ball, Barbour of Virginia, Bassett, Bayley, 
 Bloomfield, Blount, Bryan, Burwell, Butler of Louis- 
 iana, Cobb, Colston, Cook, Cruger, Culbreth, David- 
 son, Desha, Edwards, Ervin of South Carolina, Fisher, 
 Garnett, Hall of North Carolina, Harrison, Holmes, 
 Johnson of Virginia, Johnson of Kentucky, Jones, 
 Lewis, Little, Lowndes, McLane of Delaware, McLean 
 of Illinois, McCoy, Marr, Mason of Massachusetts, 
 Middleton, H. Nelson, T. M. Nelson, Nesbitt, New, 
 
 Newton, Ogden, Owen, Parrott, Pegram, Peter, Pin- 
 dall, Pleasants, Poindexter, Reed, Rhea, Ringgold, 
 Robertson, Sawyer, Settle, Shaw, Simians, Slocumb, 
 S. Smith, Bal. Smith, Alex. Smyth, J. S. Smith, 
 Speed, Stewart of N. Carolina, Stewart of Maryland, 
 Storrs, Terrell, Trimble, Tucker of Virginia, Tucker 
 of South Carolina, Tyler, Walker of North Carolina, 
 Walker of Kentucky, and Williams of North Caro- 
 lina 76. 
 
 The question was then taken on agreeing to 
 the second member of the said amendment, 
 which is in the following words : 
 
 "And that all children born within the said State, 
 after the admission thereof into the Union, shall be 
 free at the age of twenty-five years." 
 
 On which question the vote was, by yeas and 
 nays for the second part 82 ; against it 78. 
 
 So the whole of the amendments, as proposed 
 by Mr. TALLMADGE, were agreed to. 
 
 Some other amendments having been made 
 to the bill- 
 Mr. STOKES moved to strike out so much of 
 the bill as says that the new State shall be ad- 
 mitted into the Union " on an equal footing with 
 the original States." After the vote just taken, 
 Mr. S. said, there was a manifest inconsistency 
 in retaining this provision. 
 
 The motion was negatived. 
 
 The question on ordering the bill to be en- 
 grossed for a third reading was then decided in 
 the affirmative yeas 97, nays 56. 
 
 The bill was then ordered to be read a third 
 time to-morrow. 
 
 WEDNESDAY, February 17. 
 
 Arkansas Territory Restriction of Slavery. 
 
 The House then resolved itself into a Com- 
 mittee of the Whole, on the bill to provide a 
 Territorial government for the southern part 
 (the Arkansas country) of the Missouri Terri- 
 tory.* 
 
 Mr. TAYLOR, of N/ew York, moved to amend 
 the bill by inserting a clause (similar to that in- 
 corporated, on the motion of Mr. TALLMADGE, 
 in the Missouri bill) to prohibit the existence of 
 slavery in the new Territory. 
 
 This motion gave rise to a wide and long- 
 continued debate, covering part of the ground 
 previously occupied on this subject, but differ- 
 ing in part, as the present proposition was to 
 impose" a condition on a Territorial government, 
 instead of, as in the former case, to enjoin the 
 
 * The territory of Missouri had included the Arkansas 
 country, besides extending north and west to the Ecky 
 Mountains and the British line. In erecting a State govern- 
 ment for Missouri, it was necessary to curtail these great 
 boundaries, and Arkansas having some population, and re- 
 quiring some government, was to bo formed into a separate 
 Territory. For this purpose the Arkansas bill was brought 
 in at the same time with the Missouri State bill, and that 
 bill being lost between the two Houses on account of the 
 proposed restriction on the State, the same was now attempt- 
 ed on the Arkansas territorial bill.
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 357 
 
 FEBRCAKT, 1819.] 
 
 Arkansas Territory Restriction of Slavery. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 adoption of the principle in the constitution of 
 a State, and as it applied to a more southern 
 Territory. 
 
 Mr. TAYLOR, of New York, in rising, said he 
 regretted being obliged to vote on this bill with 
 so scanty information. The select committee 
 which reported it, had laid on our table no 
 statement of facts no census showing the dif- 
 ferent kinds of population in the territory, nor 
 even the aggregate of all descriptions. The 
 situation and condition of existing settlements 
 are as little known. It, however, is generally 
 understood that the climate and soil are suited 
 to the culture of wheat, corn, cotton, and to- 
 bacco. The delegate from Missouri now informs 
 me that the number of inhabitants, exclusive 
 of Indians, may be estimated at 20,000, of which 
 one-tenth are probably slaves. Mr. T. said he 
 was unwilling to allow the introduction of any 
 more slaves : it could not be necessary for agri- 
 cultural purposes. All the productions before 
 mentioned, could be brought to perfection, and 
 raised in abundance, by freemen. Cotton, and 
 tobacco, for exportation, had been chiefly pro- 
 duced by the slaveholding States. But is it not 
 reasonable, asked Mr. T., that at least one small 
 portion of our country, capable of growing these 
 staples, should be left open to the enterprise 
 and industry of the North and East. He saw 
 no good reason why that portion of the Union 
 which he had the honor, in part, to represent, 
 should be excluded from participating in this 
 valuable species of agriculture. That such would 
 be the effect of allowing a free introduction of 
 slaves, he had fully demonstated to the commit- 
 tee when the bill for the admission of Missouri 
 into the Union was under consideration. Mr. 
 T. said it must be evident from the present 
 ratio of population, as stated by the delegate 
 from Missouri, that the labor of the territory 
 was now performed chiefly by freemen. He 
 hoped this state of things might not only con- 
 tinue, but improve. He, therefore, could not 
 consent to render labor disgraceful to connect 
 it in public sentiment, with servility, and there- 
 by degrade the condition of laboring men. 
 
 The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. CLAY) 
 has asked, said Mr. T., what the people of the 
 South have done, that they are to be proscribed, 
 and had expressed his deep regret at the intro- 
 duction of this amendment. We, sir, said Mr. 
 T., do not proscribe them ; we leave them in the 
 full enjoyment of all their rights ; we only for- 
 bid them to practise wrongs : we invite them to 
 the territory in question, but we forbid their 
 bringing into it a population which cannot but 
 prove its misfortune and curse; a population 
 which, if once introduced, will fasten like an 
 incubus upon all its energies, and from which it 
 can never be relieved. 
 
 I regret, said Mr. T., the pertinacity with 
 which gentlemen maintain their opposition. To 
 my mind the amendment is both reasonable and 
 necessary ; and, if the welfare of the territory 
 were alone consulted, I should entertain no 
 doubt of its adoption by an almost universal 
 
 vote. But other interests are to be protected ; 
 and it is said that, as the country was purchased 
 with our common fund, it ought to inure to the 
 common benefit. This, said Mr. T., may be 
 considered a truism ; but, unfortunately for the 
 argument of the gentleman who adduced it, it 
 has no application to the case before us. If it 
 were proposed that the proceeds of the public 
 lands in Arkansas should be appropriated to the 
 use of the commonwealth of Massachusetts, the 
 objection would have weight. But, said Mr. 
 T., nothing like it is contemplated. The money 
 to arise from the sale of lands in that territory, 
 as in all others, will go into the National Treas- 
 ury, and be expended on national objects. 
 
 The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. CLAY) 
 has charged us, said Mr. T., with being under 
 the influence of negrophobia. Sir, he mistook 
 his mark. I thank God that the disease men- 
 tioned by that gentleman, is unknown to my 
 constituents ; and it is because I wish to exclude 
 it from Arkansas, that I have moved this amend- 
 ment. But, sir, the excitement which this mo- 
 tion has produced, too clearly shows that the 
 negrophobia does unhappily prevail in another 
 section of this country ; that it haunts its sub- 
 jects in their dreams, and disturbs their waking 
 hours. You, sir, have lately seen its influence 
 on one honorable gentleman, (Mr. COLSTON,) 
 who considered the appearance of a black face 
 in the gallery, pending yesterday's discussion, 
 of sufficient importance to justify a grave ad- 
 dress to the committee, and an animated philip- 
 pic upon the impropriety of this debate. To 
 such gentlemen it maybe " a delicate subject;" 
 but to me I confess it is not. In my estimation, 
 said Mr. T., the delicacy of the subject is lost, 
 and ought to be forgotten in its immense im- 
 portance. "A delicate subject! "in which is 
 involved the security and happiness of unborn 
 millions ; a subject too delicate for discussion ! 
 because our debate may be overheard by a 
 negro in the gallery. Sir, it is a subject vastly 
 important to my children, and the children of 
 my constituents, who shall hereafter emigrate 
 to Arkansas ; and, while I have the honor of a 
 seat on this floor, I will discuss it freely when- 
 ever public duty, in my judgment, requires it 
 
 The honorable Speaker, said Mr. TAYLOB, has 
 asked, if we wish to coop up our brethren of 
 the slaveholding States, and prevent the exten- 
 sion of their population and wealth. Mr. Chair- 
 man, cast your eye on that map; survey the 
 immense and fertile regions which stretch from 
 the Sabine to Georgia ; count, if you can, the 
 millions of rich acres in Louisiana, Mississippi, 
 and Alabama, lying uncultivated and waste. If 
 gentlemen wish to disperse their slaves, here is 
 an abundant opening. In all these States, new 
 as they are, slavery has already planted its roots 
 too deep, I fear, to be ever eradicated. With 
 this opening I hope gentlemen will be content. 
 Let them not carry the pestilence beyond the 
 Mississippi, into a country where its existence, 
 as yet, is but little known. Let them agree to 
 the amendment, and every vestige of slavery
 
 358 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 Arkansas Territory Restriction of Slavery. 
 
 [FEBRUARY, 1819 
 
 will soon disappear from the territory in ques- 
 tion. 
 
 A gentleman from Virginia (Mr. TYLEE) has 
 added his lamentations on the existence of sla- 
 very in this country to those of his colleagues 
 who preceded him. He informed us, too, that 
 the Legislature of that State had passed resolu- 
 tions, now in this House, requesting the aid of 
 Congress to mitigate its evils. He nevertheless 
 took care to give notice that he too should vote 
 against the exclusion of slavery from Arkansas. 
 It is not my province, said Mr. T., to question 
 the consistency of any honorable member of 
 this committee, but certainly, Mr. Chairman, I 
 should not have anticipated such a conclusion, 
 from the evidence before him. If Virginia has 
 found slavery an intolerable burden ; if she seek 
 the aid of Congress to alleviate its evils, con- 
 fessedly too great, and too inveterate for cure ; 
 if she deplore the policy by which it was intro- 
 duced, I should not have expected to find a rep- 
 resentative from Virginia legislating for the 
 prosperity of Arkansas, and unwilling to ex- 
 clude it from that territory. 
 
 Another gentleman from Virginia (Mr. HUGH 
 NELSON) has charged us with fighting behind a 
 masked battery. He considers this amendment 
 as an entering wedge to prepare the way for an 
 attack by Congress on the property of masters 
 in their slaves, in the several States. The charge 
 is unfounded. We know too well the constitu- 
 tional powers of this House, and the constitu- 
 tional rights of the States, to entertain an idea 
 of such flagrant usurpation. Nay, sir, said Mr. 
 T., we do not propose, even in this territory, 
 over which we have full and undisputed sover- 
 eignty, to take from the master his property in 
 a slave so far from it, that if it be fact that the 
 labor of slaves is there in demand, by prohibit- 
 ing their further introduction into the territory, 
 that demand will be increased, and the value of 
 such property now there, will be greatly en- 
 hanced. The same gentleman, said Mr. T., has 
 expressed an opinion that if our ancestors had 
 maintained the doctrince embraced in the amend- 
 ment, the Federal Constitution would never 
 have been formed, and he has thought proper 
 to warn us that, if it be persisted in, the confed- 
 eration will be dissolved. Has it then come to 
 this ? Is the preservation of our Union made to 
 depend on the admission of slavery into a terri- 
 tory not belonging to the States when the con- 
 stitution was adopted? A territory purchased 
 by Congress, and for which Congress are bound 
 to legislate, with a faithful regard to the public 
 welfare. Are we to be terrified from doing our 
 duty, by threats of disunion and dismemberment ? 
 If the day ever arrive when the Representatives 
 of one section of the country shall legislate in 
 this hall under the influence of threats from 
 another, it will be high time for a dissolution 
 of the Union. No, sir, said Mr. T., that honor- 
 able gentleman greatly mistakes the people of 
 this country, if he supposes this Union cement- 
 ed by so strong interests, necessary to all, and 
 especially to the slaveholding States consecra- 
 
 ted by so much glorious achievement sanctified 
 by the blood of so many heroes endeared by 
 victories won with the exertions and treasures 
 of all that this Union, the preservation of 
 which is the first lesson of lisping infancy, and 
 the last prayer of expiring age that this Union 
 can ever be destroyed or in the least impaired 
 by promoting the cause of humanity and free- 
 dom in America. 
 
 But, sir, said Mr. T., the honorable gentle- 
 man has mentioned a fact which shows how 
 Virginia herself felt and acted on the subject of 
 slavery, in the Convention of 1787. It was, he 
 informs us, a Representative from Virginia who 
 drew the ordinance excluding slavery from the 
 Northwest Territory. This, said Mr. T., was a 
 noble act worthy to immortalize the name of 
 Grayson. But alas ! His zeal for the rights of 
 man, his love for future generations, his active 
 philanthropy and manly eloquence no longer 
 animate this assembly. Would to God his man- 
 tle had fallen on some one of his successors. 
 Then that successor, and not the humble indi- 
 vidual who now addresses you, would have intro- 
 duced this amendment to the consideration of 
 the committee. He would have supported it by 
 eloquence so powerful, by argument so unan- 
 swerable, by pathos so irresistible, that instead 
 of the meagre majority for which I hope, it would 
 be carried by the united voice of every member. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, said Mr. T., I too sensibly feel 
 the value of your time, to proceed in this discus- 
 sion. I have touched, but with the utmost brev- 
 ity, the most prominent objections which have 
 been urged against the amendment : less I could 
 not say in justice to myself much more I ought 
 to say in justice to the subject. The general 
 considerations which I had the honor to sug- 
 gest, when in committee on the Missouri bill, 
 are equally applicable on the present occasion. 
 I will not repeat them they are fresh in your 
 recollection. May the future inhabitants of 
 Arkansas approve the decision we now shall 
 make I ask no more. Let their interests be 
 our guide, and the further introduction of sla- 
 very will not contaminate their borders. 
 
 Mr. WALKER, of North Carolina, spoke as fol- 
 lows : Mr. Chairman, in taking a view of this 
 subject, let it not be forgotten, that we are 
 legislating in a free country, and for a free peo- 
 ple ; the importance of the principle now con- 
 tested, demands our utmost attention and vigi- 
 lance to the great principles of the constitution, 
 and particularly to that friendly compromise 
 entered into by the worthy framers of that in- 
 strument. It was then conceded that the slave- 
 holding States were to hold an equal portion of 
 policy, and to be entitled to the same advan- 
 tages as other States in the Union. But it ap- 
 pears by the prohibition and restriction attempt- 
 ed to be made as a condition of admitting new 
 States into the Union, a direct violation of that 
 sacred compact is attempted. The amendment 
 proposed by the gentleman from New York, 
 (Mr. TAYLOB,) which prohibits slaves from be- 
 ing taken into the territory of the Arkansas, 

 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 359 
 
 FEBRTJAHY, 1819.] 
 
 Arkansas Territory Restriction of Slavery. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 completely deprives the citizens of the Southern 
 section of the Union from any advantages aris- 
 ing in the Government, or from having either 
 part or lot, or any inheritance, on the west side 
 of the Mississippi. Sir, was it not purchased 
 by the whole United States ? Did not the South- 
 ern States contribute their full share for that 
 purchase ? And are they not morally and polit- 
 ically entitled to equal advantages of the soil ? 
 It is to be presumed that a great portion of the 
 population of that territory will be emigrants 
 from the Southern States ; they will be disposed 
 to remove to that climate suited to their consti- 
 tution and habits, or the culture of rice and 
 cotton. Shall they be proscribed, and prohib- 
 ited from taking their slaves ? Sir, if so, your 
 land will be an uncultivated waste a fruitless 
 soil ; it is further south than the 35th degree of 
 latitude, a low and warm country, that will not 
 support a laboring white population. 
 
 But, sir, I contend that we have no legitimate 
 power to legislate on the property of the citi- 
 zens, only to levy taxes. We might, with the 
 same right, prohibit other species of property 
 from crossing the Mississippi. Have not the 
 Southern States yielded to the Eastern States 
 so much of their favorite system of free white 
 population, as to give up, and relinquish the 
 new States of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and all the 
 vast territory north of the river Ohio? and 
 shall the slaveholding States be withheld from 
 a small share of the prospective advantages 
 arising in the settlement of this new territory ? 
 Gentlemen seem to think that they are serving 
 the cause of humanity effectively, in prohibiting 
 slaves to cross the Mississippi, 'in this they are 
 mistaken ; they are withholding from them the 
 means of all the comfort and happiness their 
 condition affords ; that is, food and raiment. It 
 is well known that in the frontier country the 
 servant feeds as his master, and is sufficiently 
 clothed ; while in the interior of the old States 
 the means of subsistence is scanty and improvi- 
 dent. 
 
 But, sir, the great and radical objection to 
 the amendment proposed, is taking away from 
 the people of this territory the natural and con- 
 stitutional right of legislating for themselves, 
 and imposing on them a condition which they 
 may not willingly accept. In organizing a 
 territorial government, and forming a constitu- 
 tion, they, and they alone, have the right, and 
 are the proper judges of that policy best adapted 
 to their genius and interest, and it ought to be 
 exclusively left to them. If they wish to ex- 
 clude slaves from being taken into their terri- 
 tory, they cun prohibit them by their own act. 
 If they think proper to admit the emigration of 
 slaves, they can say so. Let them be their own 
 judges, and not force upon them a yoke they 
 may not bo willing to bear. The people of the 
 Arkansas and of the West are competent judges 
 of their constitutional rights, and well know 
 how to appreciate their privileges as freemen ; 
 and be assured, the further from your metro- 
 polis, the greater the enthusiasm for liberty. 
 
 Slavery is an evil we have long deplored, but 
 cannot cure ; it was entailed upon us by our an- 
 cestors ; it was not our original sin, and we can- 
 not, hi our present situation, release ourselves 
 from the embarrassment ; and, as it is an evil, 
 the more diffusive, the lighter it will be felt, and 
 the wider it is extended the more eqpal the 
 proportion of inconvenience. We know, we 
 felt yesterday on the Missouri bill, you have the 
 power ; you are the majority ; but do not bear 
 us down on this question. I trust that gentle- 
 men will exercise on this vote a spirit of concil- 
 iation, and give the Southern States an inher- 
 itance among their brethren, by suffering such 
 of us as are disposed to become citizens of the 
 Arkansas to take our slave property with us. 
 Then your lands will be sold ; your soil will be 
 cultivated ; and your country will flourish. 
 
 Mr. MOLANE, of Delaware, said he regretted 
 very much the discussion of this subject in its 
 present form, with regard to these territories, 
 calculated as it was to arouse feelings which had 
 long slumbered, and which could never be re- 
 suscitated without great danger to that humane 
 object we all had in view. He regretted it the 
 more, because it never was without pain that 
 he found himself compelled to assume even the 
 appearance of opposition to the most enthusias- 
 tic notion for the abolition of slavery. With 
 such impressions, he should not have taken any 
 part in the discussion, if the question had not 
 been treated by the gentleman who has just 
 resumed his seat, (Mr. CUSHMAN,) as one of lib- 
 erty and slavery, an idea he utterly disclaimed ; 
 and, with a view of preventing any misconcep- 
 tion of the course he felt it his duty to take, he 
 would detain the committee a short time while 
 he explained the reasons by which he was in- 
 fluenced. Mr. McL. said he would yield to no 
 gentleman in the House, in his love of freedom, 
 or in his abhorrence of slavery in its mildest 
 form. His earliest education, and the habits of 
 his life, were opposed to the holding of slaves, 
 and the encouragement of slavery. At the same 
 time, he would yield to no gentleman in the 
 House in his regard for the constitution of his 
 country, and for the peace, safety, and preserva- 
 tion of the Union of these States. To these 
 great objects all minor considerations should 
 give way. He would unite with gentlemen in 
 any course within the pale of the constitution, 
 for the gradual abolition of slavery in the Unit- 
 ed States. Beyond this, the oath he had taken 
 as a member of the House, forbade him to go. 
 The fixing of a line on the west of the Missis- 
 sippi,* north of which slavery should not be 
 
 This is the first suggestion of the policy which led to 
 the adoption of the Missouri compromise. In the conclud- 
 ing part of his speech Mr. McLane returns to this idea en- 
 forces it embodies it ; and, in fact, foreshadows the meas- 
 ure which allayed the portentous storm of 1819, '20, '21. 
 He was firmly against the restriction on the State of Mis- 
 souri as being unconstitutional and impolitic : ho was against 
 the restriction on the Territory of Arkansas as being Im- 
 politic, unjust to the Southern States, and against the treaty 
 with France, lie was for a division of Louisiana between the
 
 360 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 Arkansas Territory Restriction of Slavery. 
 
 [FEBRUARY, 1819. 
 
 tolerated, had always been with him a favorite 
 policy, and he hoped the day was not distant 
 when, upon principles of fair compromise, it 
 might constitutionally be effected. He was 
 apprehensive, however, that the present pre- 
 mature attempt, and the feelings it had elicited, 
 would interpose new and almost insuperable ob- 
 stacles to the attainment of the end. 
 
 Mr. McL. said, that gentlemen had lost sight 
 of the real questions under consideration. They 
 had treated the subject as if we were now delib- 
 erating upon the expediency of increasing the 
 slavery in the United States from abroad ; or, as 
 if we were to decide whether there should or 
 should not be slavery among us. Sir, if this 
 were the question, there is no gentleman on 
 this floor from the North or South who would 
 hesitate in his opinion. He believed there was 
 no quarter of the country in which slavery is 
 more seriously deplored than in the South. 
 But, it was an evil which existed it had been 
 unfortunately entailed upon us, and it required 
 the united and dispassionate wisdom of the na- 
 tion to mitigate its horrors and soften its cala- 
 mities. The farther increase of slavery from 
 abroad had been prohibited by very severe laws, 
 and we were at this session about to pass others, 
 enforcing their provisions, and repairing their 
 defects. The present question regarded merely 
 the disposition of the slaves among us, and that 
 only in a limited extent. Sir, said Mr. McL., 
 what is the question now before the committee ? 
 
 France, by the treaty of April, 1803, ceded to 
 the United States the territory of Louisiana 
 by certain limits, within which are contained 
 the territories of Missouri and Arkansas, and 
 upon the terms therein specified. At the time 
 of this cession there were a number of slaves 
 in both places, belonging to the people inhabit- 
 ing those territories, and from that time until 
 now, there has been no inhibition of the trans- 
 portation of slaves to these territories from those 
 States whose municipal regulations permitted 
 their exportation. From these causes, the num- 
 ber has been increasing daily to the present tune, 
 and it is admitted that there is at present a 
 very considerable slave population. 
 
 The restrictions which are now proposed, 
 amount, in fact, first, to the emancipation of 
 the present slaves and their issue ; and, sec- 
 ondly, to a condition precedent to the admis- 
 sion of these Territories into the Union, as 
 States, that they shall prohibit the introduction 
 of slavery in future from any part of the United 
 States. Under these provisions, persons re- 
 moving thither with their families, and with 
 the bona fide intention of residing permanently 
 therein, are prohibited from carrying with, them 
 this species of property, should they be the 
 owners of any. 
 
 free and the slave States, by an equitable compromise line 
 in the spirit in which the territory east of the Mississippi 
 was divided by the ordinance of '87, and which harmonized 
 the States and enabled the constitution to be made. And 
 these views prevailed, and enabled the Union to be saved. 
 
 I have no doubt that these propositions pro- 
 ceed from the most humane, philanthropic mo- 
 tives, and nothing can more gladden the heart 
 than the contemplation of a portion of territory 
 consecrated to freedom, whose soil should never 
 be moistened by the tear of the slave, or de- 
 graded by the step of the oppressor or the op- 
 pressed. It is a theory which we should be 
 very apt to reduce to practice, without even 
 consulting the condition of the present miser- 
 able race of slaves in many parts of the United 
 States, if we had the power to do so. But, 
 although Mr. McL. desired the result as sin- 
 cerely as any man, he was bound to say, that, 
 after a deliberate investigation of the subject, 
 he did not believe that Congress possessed the 
 power to impose the restriction. As it regarded 
 the unfortunate beings now held in slavery in 
 those Territories, he said, he had no more right 
 to provide for their liberation than he had to 
 invade any other species of property whatso- 
 ever. Their owners had acquired the legal 
 title to their labor and services, it had become 
 a vested right, and we had no power to dis- 
 turb it. "VVe had no greater power to take 
 from them their property in these slaves, than 
 we had to deprive them of any chattel or other 
 object of ownership. He did not mean to con- 
 sider the slave as a mere chattc j l ; he viewed 
 him as an ill-fated member of the human race, 
 doomed by a hard and cruel fortune to devote 
 his labor and services to another ; he was the 
 subject of the protecting arm of the law, and 
 his life and person were sacred from those out- 
 rages which might be committed with impunity 
 upon other articles of property. But, after all, 
 his services and his person belonged to his 
 owner; he was the property of his owner. 
 The man who steals a slave is guilty of felony 
 this shows him to be property. But, the con- 
 stitutions of the States in which slavery is 
 tolerated, and the Constitution of the United 
 States recognize the interest of the owner in his 
 slave as property. The union of the States is 
 founded upon this principle ; and the owner is 
 authorized to reclaim his slave on the ground 
 of property, when he shall have absconded from 
 his service. In many of the States they are 
 liable to be taken in execution and sold for debt, 
 considering them as property. This is the law 
 in the State which I have the honor in part to 
 represent. If we treat them, therefore, as prop- 
 erty, and if we even consider it in a limited 
 sense, that the owner has property in, or right 
 to, the service merely, it is, nevertheless, a 
 right, and we cannot interfere with that right 
 by a mere act of legislation. 
 
 "What would be said of the Legislature of the 
 State of Delaware, or Maryland, if, by law, 
 they were to declare all the slaves within their 
 territory to be free? Could it be pretended 
 for a moment that they would have any right 
 to do so ? The utmost any State has done, has 
 been to say, that, after a certain day, some time 
 in prospective, the issue of all persons held to 
 slavery shall be free. He would not now dis-
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 361 
 
 FEBRUARY, 1819.] 
 
 Arkansas Territory Restriction of Slavery. 
 
 [H. OP R. 
 
 cuss this right, though he could not discern 
 how the right to the usufruct of this property 
 could be at all impaired, and, at any rate, in the 
 case alluded to, the owner would be allowed 
 the privilege of removing his slave before the 
 day arrived when the law was to take effect. 
 As it regarded the slaves, at present existing, 
 therefore, we certainly had no power to inter- 
 fere ; and the question was of consequence nar- 
 rowed down to the simple propositions to pro- 
 hibit the introduction of slaves in future, and 
 to denying to the inhabitants of those Terri- 
 tories about to become States, the right and 
 privilege of deciding for themselves in this par- 
 ticular. It by no means follows that they will 
 not decide to exclude slavery in future ; it is 
 quite probable they will find it^heir interest to 
 do so ; but have we the right of taking from 
 them the privilege of judging of their own in- 
 terest and policy in this respect ? To our power 
 to do this, either as regarded the State now to 
 be admitted, or the territory hereafter to be- 
 come a State, he conscientiously believed the 
 constitution, and the national compact, to which 
 he would hereafter refer more particularly, op- 
 posed an insuperable barrier. 
 
 Mr. McL. said he denied that Congress had 
 power to impose any condition upon the admis- 
 sion of a State into the Union impairing its 
 sovereignty. "We had a right to require the 
 form and spirit of its constitution to be Kepnb- 
 lican, and we had the right to say that we 
 would or would not admit, but we could go no 
 further. We could impose no terms in abridg- 
 ment of its rights of sovereignty whatsoever, 
 and he protested against the opposite doctrine 
 as leading to the most pernicious consequences. 
 " New States may be admitted by the Congress 
 into this Union." When so admitted they be- 
 come members of the Union, as the others who 
 have been admitted before them ; it is but an 
 addition of another link to the old chain ; in- 
 curring the same obligations to contribute to 
 the common defence and general welfare, and 
 therefore entitled to the same rights and privi- 
 leges with the other Confederates. The term 
 "State" imports sovereignty, and the term 
 " State," in relation to the federative system of 
 the United States, imports the same degree of 
 sovereignty as is enjoyed by the States of that 
 Union. It is of the very essence of our Gov- 
 ernment^ that all the States composing the 
 Union should have equal sovereignty. It is the 
 great principle on which the Union reposes 
 the germ of its duration. How long would this 
 empire be held together, composed as it is of 
 many parts united together for a common in- 
 terest, if all these parts were unequal in their 
 privileges, unequal in their rights, but com- 
 pelled to make an equal contribution to the 
 support of the others ? It would be a motley 
 tribe of sovereign and demi-sovereign States 
 a congregated mass of incoherent particles 
 disorder and dismemberment would be the in- 
 evitable consequence. Besides, sir, a consti- 
 tution is the charter containing the principles 
 
 by which men are to be governed in then* per- 
 sons and property it is the charter of rights of 
 a free people in its formation, deliberation and 
 freedom of deliberation are necessary ingre- 
 dients ; but, if we are to make their constitu- 
 tion, or prescribe the terms of it, what becomes 
 of the right of deliberation ? We dictate the 
 terms ourselves to suit our views, without 
 regard to their interests or condition. In effect, 
 we agree to admit them to be a State if they 
 will consent to be less than a State to consti- 
 tute them a member of the Union, if they will 
 agree to give up the right of judging of the 
 form of government best adapted to their con- 
 dition. But, sir, what are the limits of this 
 power ? If we have the right to impose this 
 condition, what condition have we not a right 
 to impose ? The power must be general, or it 
 does not exist. If we have the right to insist 
 upon a stipulation on the part of the new State, 
 not to admit slaves, because it is humane and 
 politic to do so, we would have an equal right 
 to insist upon a stipulation of another kind, if 
 it should also appear to us to be wise and pol- 
 itic ; we might prescribe, as a condition, that 
 their right of suffrage should be regulated 
 as we should direct ; that their representation 
 should not be as large, in proportion to their 
 population, as other States ; that they should 
 not have the benefit of the equality of taxation ; 
 that they should surrender to the General Gov- 
 ernment greater powers, and retain fewer rights 
 .than the other States of the Union had done ; 
 or that they should encourage this or that reli- 
 gion, or no religion at all. And, sir, at some 
 future day, when the slaveholding interest, as 
 it has been called, predominates in this body, it 
 might be made a condition, upon the admission 
 of a new State, that slavery should not only be 
 tolerated, but that it should never afterwards 
 be interdicted. Let gentlemen remember, too. 
 that the predominance of this interest is by no 
 means improbable, and that there yet remains 
 avast, unsettled region, which the future growth 
 of this mighty empire is destined to people and 
 improve. Sir, it is the undoubted right of 
 every people, when admitted to be a State, to 
 become free, sovereign, and independent free 
 to make their own constitution and laws to be 
 the judges of their own policy, and free to 
 alter or amend them at pleasure. The moment 
 they are constituted a State, they would have 
 these rights, notwithstanding the condition im- 
 posed ; and, if they were to present you with 
 a constitution, containing this provision, it 
 would be matter of form only; they could 
 change it immediately afterwards, and abolish 
 the very feature you would desire to retain. 
 The condition, therefore, would not only be un- 
 constitutional, but useless. We do not possess 
 the political power to enforce it ; an attempt to 
 do so, would, no doubt, prove abortive as to its 
 object ; but it might leave behind it a deep and 
 lasting wound, rankling in the bosom of the 
 State, and finally alienate all their respect for 
 your authority.
 
 362 
 
 ABKIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 Arkansas Territory Restriction of Slavery. 
 
 [FEBRUARY, 1819. 
 
 But, Mr. Chairman, said Mr. McL., besides 
 the general principles already adverted to, we 
 are not at liberty, as respects this Territory, to 
 consult our power, if we possessed it. We are 
 bound to these people by a compact which for- 
 bids us to impose the condition, and we cannot, 
 without a breach of faith, violate that compact. 
 The third article of the treaty of cession pro- 
 vides, that, " The inhabitants of the ceded ter- 
 ritory shall be incorporated in the union of the 
 United States, and admitted as soon as possible, 
 according to the principles of the Federal Con- 
 stitution, to the enjoyment of all the rights, ad- 
 vantages, and immunities of citizens of the 
 United States and, in the mean time, they snail 
 be maintained and protected in the free enjoy- 
 ment of their liberty, property, and the re- 
 ligion they profess." 
 
 This article applies both to Missouri and Ar- 
 kansas ; and, in fact, so do all the arguments 
 already used ; for, though the law now to be 
 passed refers to Arkansas as a Territory, yet it 
 will shortly become a State, and the principles 
 derivable from its sovereignty would then apply 
 with equal force. By this treaty, then, we 
 have stipulated to protect the inhabitants of 
 this Territory in the enjoyment of their proper- 
 ty, of which their slaves unquestionably formed 
 a part, until they can be incorporated in the 
 union of the United States, that is, until their 
 population shall amount to the number always 
 required to authorize the admission of a State, 
 "or until Congress shall pass a law authorizing 
 them to form a constitution. As soon as this 
 is the case, they are to be " incorporated in the 
 union of the United States," and admitted, 
 "according to the principles of the Federal 
 Constitution," to the enjoyment of all the rights, 
 advantages, and immunities of " citizens of the 
 United States." What are these "rights, ad- 
 vantages, and immunities," "according to the 
 principles of the Federal Constitution ? " That 
 they shall have the right of holding slaves if 
 they please to do so ; that they shall form State 
 governments, with the same rights and immu- 
 nities of all other State governments; that 
 they shall have the same power to make their 
 municipal laws as any other States, and the 
 same advantages as citizens of the United States. 
 As such, as citizens of the United States, the 
 right to possess slaves is unquestionable. It 
 cannot be doubted that all the States possess 
 this right of admitting or excluding slavery 
 within their jurisdiction, as they may think fit. ( 
 Pennsylvania and New York possess this right ; 
 and, though it is their present policy to exclude 
 slavery, no one can doubt that they would have 
 the right to-morrow, if they thought proper to 
 do so, to alter their policy, and permit the in- 
 troduction of slavery. The right to hold slaves, 
 and, which is more important as it respects 
 their freedom and sovereignty, the right to de- 
 cide whether they will or will not hold them, 
 is as much an immunity and advantage, under 
 our constitution, as the right to be represented 
 in Congress, or the right to a freedom of re- 
 
 ligious opinion, or the right to have the slaves 
 accounted a part of their population, in the 
 manner prescribed by the constitution. We 
 have no more power to impair one than an- 
 other of these rights. 
 
 Sir, we cannot attach too much importance 
 to this treaty, and the rights secured by it. It 
 was the condition'of the transfer of the original 
 inhabitants of this Territory, and their posses- 
 sions, from their former Government to ours. 
 They enjoyed these rights under their old Gov- 
 ernment, and in the exchange of allegiance they 
 were assured that it should not be lost ; that 
 the United States would guarantee them these 
 rights, and protect them in their enjoyment. 
 Strangers as these people were to us and to 
 our institutions, the solemn obligations of the 
 treaty should, oil this account, be sacredly ob- 
 served. We are to win their affections for our 
 Government and constitution, which can only 
 be done by a sacred regard for their rights and 
 our own obligations. The inhabitants' who 
 have since emigrated to this Territory, have 
 gone under the faith of this treaty, relying 
 upon the known good faith of the American 
 Government, for the strict fulfilment of its stip- 
 ulations. Sir, the prosperity and union of the 
 United States depend upon the honest perform- 
 ance of all the engagements on the part of the 
 Government. The protection to all its mem- 
 bers of the people, of the country in the en- 
 joyment of their rights, of every description, is 
 the object of the Union. When the disposition 
 to do this effectually ceases, the great chain by 
 which we are connected will cease to bind us. 
 And, sir, if any one or more of the States have 
 a deeper interest in the faithful execution of the 
 principles of our compact, it is the small States, 
 who should be the last to relax the most rigid 
 enforcement of their true spirit and intention. 
 
 It does therefore appear to me, Mr. Chair- 
 man, said Mr. McL., that we are prevented, 
 both by the principles of our constitution and 
 the terms of our solemn compact, from impos- 
 ing this restriction ; that, without considering 
 the expediency of the measure, it becomes a 
 conscientious duty (though to some, and to me 
 among others, a painful one) to resist it. And 
 yet, sir, a view of the question of expediency 
 would go very far to mitigate the pain which 
 we might otherwise feel at being unable to 
 gratify our wishes. We have now in the Unit- 
 ed States a large slave population. It is cer- 
 tain that it cannot be increased by importations 
 from abroad. Their sudden emancipation is 
 utterly impracticable. In their present situa- 
 tion, even a gradual one is almost hopeless. To 
 meliorate their sufferings, and soften the rigors 
 of their servitude, is the most that can be done 
 in many parts of the country. But while they 
 are confined exclusively to the Southern^ States, 
 owned in large numbers by a single individual, 
 and limited to a single farm, even this change is 
 scarcely to be expected. If, however, they 
 were permitted to be carried by the children 
 of the Southern planter, when emigrating to the
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 FEBRUARY, 1819.] 
 
 Arkansas Territory Restriction of Slavery. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 Western country in pursuit of the riches which 
 that fruitful territory holds out to an indus- 
 trious enterprise and I would not permit them 
 to be sold by traders, or become the objects of 
 profit they would by this means become dis- 
 persed over a wider field ; their condition 
 would necessarily be improved, (for they al- 
 ways thrive and do better when held in small 
 numbers;) and the chances of emancipation 
 would certainly be multiplied in both countries ; 
 the number would be less in the South and the 
 West; they would be less formidable to the 
 white population ; and in the course of tune 
 gradually acquire ease and freedom. In the 
 State from which I have the honor to come, 
 the work of emancipation is rapidly progress- 
 ing, and, I believe, principally owing to the 
 sparseness of this description of population. 
 Their condition is also better than those further 
 South, from the same cause. There is, how- 
 ever, one view of this part of the subject so 
 nearly allied to the right of Congress to impose 
 the contemplated restriction, that I cannot 
 avoid adverting to it. It is said by the gentle- 
 men from the South, that this Territory was 
 purchased with the common fund of the nation, 
 to whose benefits all have an equal right ; and 
 that, by preventing the Southern planter from 
 carrying his slaves with him when he goes to 
 settle in this Territory, you interdict the emi- 
 gration from that quarter altogether. Although 
 it is clear that any one State might frame its 
 municipal regulations so as to exclude the in- 
 troduction of slaves, even by persons removing 
 into it, yet it can scarcely be doubted that the 
 exercise of this right ought to be left to the 
 sound discretion of each State ; and we know 
 the policy of different States varies in this par- 
 ticular. In Delaware, persons removing from 
 or into the State are permitted to carry their 
 slaves with them : their introduction and ex- 
 portation is prohibited only for the purposes of 
 sale. In Pennsylvania it is otherwise. Con- 
 gress would certainly have no power to inter- 
 dict the emigration from one State to another ; 
 and it is worthy of consideration how far they 
 can do the same by indirect means. I cannot 
 admit the construction of the honorable gentle- 
 man from New York, (Mr. SPENCER,) of the 
 clause of the constitution which provides that 
 the emigration or importation of such persons 
 as any of the States now existing shall think 
 proper to admit shall not be prohibited prior to 
 the year 1808. This clause was designed to 
 embrace all classes of people freemen as well 
 as slaves coming from abroad. It could not 
 mean to authorize Congress to prohibit the mi- 
 gration from one State to another, because it 
 would conflict with another provision, that cit- 
 izens of one State shall be entitled to all the 
 privileges of free citizens in another, which se- 
 cures the right of emigration ; and because, if 
 it wore designed to vest the power in Congress, 
 it would of necessity, to be available at all, be 
 an exclusive power ; but we all see the States 
 constantly exercising it, and they have been in 
 
 the habit of exercising it ever since the adop- 
 tion of the constitution. 
 
 On the whole, Mr. Chairman, said Mr. McL., 
 it seems to me that we have no right to impose 
 this restriction ; and that, if we had, it would 
 be useless, impracticable, and unavailing. At 
 the same time, I do not mean to abandon the 
 policy to which I alluded in the commencement 
 of my remarks. I think it but fair that both 
 sections of the Union should be accommodated 
 on this subject, with regard to which so much 
 feeling has been manifested. The same great 
 motives of policy which reconciled and harmo- 
 nized the jarring and discordant elements of our 
 system, originally, and which enabled the fram- 
 ers of our happy constitution to compromise 
 the different interests which then prevailed 
 upon this and other subjects, if properly cherish- 
 ed by ns, will enable us to achieve similar ob- 
 jects. If we meet upon principles of recipro- 
 city, we cannot fail to do justice to all. It has 
 already been avowed by gentlemen on this 
 floor, from the South and the West, that they 
 will agree upon a line which shall divide the 
 slaveholding from the non-slaveholding States. 
 It is this proposition I am anxious to effect; 
 but I wish to effect it by some compact which 
 shall be binding upon all parties, and all subse- 
 quent Legislatures ; which cannot be changed, 
 and will not fluctuate with the diversity of feel- 
 ing and of sentiment to which this Empire in 
 its march must be destined. There is a vast 
 and immense tract of country west of the Mis- 
 sissippi yet to be settled, and intimately con- 
 nected with the northern section of the Union, 
 upon which this compromise can be effected. 
 Believing as I do that the constitution and the 
 compact before mentioned will not permit us to 
 extend pur policy over the whole, I will be very 
 willing to take as great a part as I can obtain: 
 and in so doing though I may lament that the 
 humane policy of those who are so anxious to 
 effect this end cannot be more widely diffused 
 I shah 1 at least enjoy the consciousness of hav- 
 ing conformed to the constitution of the coun- 
 try, and executed the national compacts in good 
 faith. 
 
 The motion was advocated by Messrs. TALL- 
 MADGE, LIVEEMORE, SPEXOEB, and CUSHMAN; 
 and was opposed by Messrs. CLAY*, ROBERTSON, 
 TYLEB, Hron NELSON, STORKS, JOHNSON, of 
 Virginia, BARBOUR, of Virginia, and KIXSEY. 
 Several of the gentlemen spoke more than once, 
 and the debate was maintained, with much ani- 
 mation, until near 4 o'clock. 
 
 The question was finally taken on the first 
 part of the motion (it having been divided) in 
 the following words: 
 
 " That the further introduction of slavery or invol- 
 untary servitude be prohibited, except for the punish- 
 ment of crimes, of which the party shall have been 
 convicted." 
 
 And it was decided in the negative : For the 
 motion 68 ; against it 80. 
 The remaining part of the proposition, to de-
 
 364 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 Arkansas Territory Restriction of Slavery. 
 
 [FEBRUARY, 1819. 
 
 claro all the children free after twenty-five 
 years of age, who shall be hereafter born in the 
 Territory, was negatived without a division. 
 
 The committee then proceeded with the bill, 
 and having gone through it, next took up the 
 
 Alabama State Government Bill, 
 for enabling the people of that Territory to 
 form a constitution and State government, and 
 for the admission of the same into the Union on 
 an equal footing with the original States. 
 
 Much time was busily employed by the com- 
 mittee in receiving and disposing of various 
 amendments proposed to the details of this bill, 
 and in considering and deciding on its provi- 
 sions. Messrs. CEOWELL, POINDEXTEB, COBB, 
 arid others, entered into the discussion. The 
 committee negatived one or two motions to rise, 
 and persevered through the bill; when the 
 committee rose, and reported both bills to the 
 House, with the amendments made thereto; 
 and at near five o'clock the House adjourned. 
 
 THUBSDAY, February 18. 
 A new member, to wit, EGBERT RAYMOND 
 REED, from Georgia, elected to supply the va- 
 cancy occasioned by the resignation of John 
 Forsyth, appeared, produced his credentials, was 
 qualified, and took his seat. 
 
 Arkansas Territory Restriction of Slavery. 
 
 The House then proceeded to the considera- 
 tion of the report of the committee on the bill 
 to establish a separate Territorial government 
 in the southern part of the present Missouri 
 Territory. 
 
 Mr. TAYLOE moved to amend the same by in- 
 serting the following proviso in the bill: 
 
 " That the further introduction of slavery, or in- 
 voluntary servitude, be prohibited, except for the 
 punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have 
 been fully convicted. 
 
 " And that all children born within the said State, 
 after the admission thereof into the Union, shall be 
 free at the age of twenty-five years." 
 
 The question on this motion being divided, 
 was first taken on agreeing to the first clause 
 thereof, in the following words : 
 
 " That the further introduction of slavery, or in- 
 voluntary servitude, be prohibited, except for the 
 punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have 
 been fully convicted." 
 
 And decided in the negative yeas 70, nays 
 71, as follows: 
 
 YEAS. Messrs. Adams, Allen of Massachusetts, 
 Anderson of Pennsylvania, Barber of Ohio, Bateman, 
 Bennett, Boden, Boss, Comstock, Crafts, Cushman, 
 Darlington, Drake, Folger, Fuller, Hall of Delaware, 
 Hasbrouck, Hendricks, Herrick, Heister, Hitchcock, 
 Hostetter, Hnbbard, Hunter, Huntington, Irving of 
 New York, Lawyer, Lincoln, Linn, Livermore, W. 
 Maclay, W. P. Maclay, Marchand, Mason of Rhode 
 Island, Merrill, Robert Moore, Samuel Moore, Mor- 
 ton, Mosely, Murray, Jeremiah Nelson, Ogle, Orr, 
 Palmer, Patterson, Pawling, Rice, Rich, Richards, 
 Rogers, Ruggles, Sampson, Savage, Scudder, Seybert, 
 
 Sherwood, Spencer, Southard, Tallmadge, Tarr, Tay- 
 lor, Terry, Tompkins, Townsend, Wallace, Wendover, 
 Whiteside, Williams of Connecticut, Williams of New 
 York, and Wilson of Pennsylvania. 
 
 NAYS. Messrs. Anderson of Kentucky, Austin, 
 Ball, Barbour of Virginia, Bassett, Bayley, Beecher, 
 Bloomfield, Blount, Bryan, Burwell, Butler of Louisi- 
 ana, Cobb, Cook, Crawford, Cnlbreth, Desha, Earle, 
 Edwards, Garnett, Hall of North Carolina, Harrison, 
 Hogg, Holmes, Johnson of Virginia, Johnson of Ken- 
 tucky, Jones, Kinsey, Lewis, Little, Lowndes, Mc- 
 Lane of Delaware, McLean of Illinois, McCoy, Marr, 
 Mason of Massachusetts, H. Nelson, T. M. Nelson, 
 New, Newton, Ogden, Owen, Parrott, Pegram, Pe- 
 ter, Pindall, Pleasants, Porter, Quarles, Reed of 
 Georgia, Rhea, Robertson, Sawyer, Settle, Shaw, 
 Simkins, Slocumb, S. Smith, Alex. Smyth, J. S. 
 Smith, Speed, Stewart of North Carolina, Storrs, 
 Stuart of Maryland, Terrell, Trimble, Tucker of 
 Virginia, Tucker of South Carolina, Tyler, Walker of 
 North Carolina, and Williams of North Carolina. 
 
 So that part of Mr. TAYLOB'S motion was de- 
 cided in the negative. 
 
 The question was then taken on the remain- 
 ing clause of said proposed amendment, in the 
 following words : 
 
 " And all children born of slaves within the said 
 Territory, shall be free, but may be held to service 
 until the age of twenty-five years." 
 
 And decided in the affirmative yeas 75, nays 
 73, as follows : 
 
 YEAS. Messrs. Adams, Anderson of Pennsylvania, 
 Barber of Ohio, Bateman, Bennett, Boden, Boss, 
 Comstock, Crafts, Cushman, Darlington, Drake, El- 
 licott, Folger, Fuller, Gilbert, Hall of Delaware, 
 Hasbrouck, Hendricks, Herrick, Heister, Hitchcock, 
 Hostetter, Hubbard, Hunter, Huntington, Irving of 
 New'York, Kirtland, Lawyer, Lincoln, Linn, Liver- 
 more, W. Maclay, W. P. Maclay, Marchand, Merrill, 
 Mills, Robert Moore, Samuel Moore, Morton, Mose- 
 ly, Murray, J. Nelson, Ogle, Orr, Palmer, Patter- 
 son, Pawling, Rice, Rich, Richards, Rogers, Ruggles, 
 Sampson, Savage, Schuyler, Scudder, Seybert, Sher- 
 wood, Southard, Spencer, Tallmadge, Tarr, Taylor, 
 Terry, Tompkins, Townsend, Wallace, Wendover, 
 Westerlo, Whiteside, Williams of Connecticut, Wil- 
 liams of North Carolina, Williams of New York, 
 and Wilson of Pennsylvania. 
 
 NAYS. Messrs. Abbott, Anderson of Kentucky, 
 Austin, Ball, Barbour of Virginia, Bassett, Bayley, 
 Beecher, Bloomfield, Blount, Bryan, Burwell, But- 
 ler of Louisiana, Cobb, Cook, Crawford, Cruger, 
 Culbreth, Desha, Earle, Edwards, Garnett, Hall of 
 North Carolina, Harrison, Hogg, Holmes, Johnson 
 of Virginia, Johnson of Kentucky, Jones, Kinsey, 
 Lewis, Little, Lowndes, McLane of Delaware, McLean 
 of Illinois, McCoy, Marr, Mason of Massachusetts, 
 Middleton, H. Nelson, T. M. Ntlson, Nesbitt, New, 
 Ogden, Owen, Parrott, Pegram, Peter, Pindall, 
 Pleasants, Quarles, Reed of Maryland, Reed of 
 Georgia, Rhea, Robertson, Sawyer, Settle, Shaw, 
 Simkins, Slocumb, S. Smith, Alexander Smyth, J. S. 
 Smith, Speed, Stewart of North Carolina, Storrs, 
 Stuart of Maryland, Terrell, Trimble, Tucker of 
 Virginia, Tucker of South Carolina, Tyler, and 
 Walker of North Carolina. 
 
 So that part of Mr. TAYLOB'S motion was 
 agree to.
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 365 
 
 FEBRUARY, 1819.] 
 
 Arkansas Territory Restriction of Slavery. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 Mr. WILLIAMS, of North Carolina, then moved 
 to reconsider the vote just taken. He had 
 voted with the majority, for the purpose of ob- 
 taining for himself the privilege of moving a 
 reconsideration, wishing for a full expression of 
 the opinion of the House on this important 
 question, which could not now be obtained, as 
 many members were out of the House. 
 
 The question was taken on reconsidering the 
 vote, and decided in the negative yeas 77, 
 nays 79. 
 
 The question being then stated on ordering 
 the bill to be engrossed for a third reading 
 
 Mr. BASSETT, deeming every effort called for 
 on the part of the minority on this subject, to 
 sustain their constitutional rights, which he con- 
 sidered to be assailed in the amendment just 
 adopted, moved that the bill be recommitted to 
 a select committee. 
 
 Some conversation took place between Messrs. 
 PINDALL, COLSTON, EDWABDS, SOOTT, LOWNDES, 
 and MILLS, as to the course now most expedient 
 to give the bill ; in the course of which, 
 
 Mr. LOWNDES moved that the bill be laid on 
 the table, stating at the same time that, to pre- 
 vent its being called up, and decided by surprise, 
 he should, at 12 o'clock to-morrow, move for a 
 call of the House, and take up the bill for a de- 
 cision. This motion prevailed, and 
 
 The bill was laid on the table. 
 
 Alabama State Government. 
 
 The House next took up the amendments re- 
 ported by the Committee of the Whole to the 
 bill from the Senate, to authorize a State gov- 
 ernment in the Territory of Alabama, and for 
 its admission into the Union. 
 
 The amendments were concurred in by the 
 House, and, after an ineffectual attempt by Mr. 
 CEO WELL further to amend one of the sections, 
 were ordered to be engrossed, and, with the bill, 
 read a third time. 
 
 FRIDAY, February 19. 
 
 Arkansas Territory Restriction of Slavery. 
 
 The House then proceeded to the considera- 
 tion of the bill to establish a separate Territorial 
 government in the southern part of the Missouri 
 Territory. 
 
 A motion was made by Mr. ROBEBTSON, of 
 Kentucky, with the view of obtaining the 
 erasure of the amendment yesterday adopted, to 
 recommit the bill to a select committee, with 
 instructions to strike out these words : " And 
 all children born of slaves within the said Ter- 
 ritory, shall be free, but may be held to service 
 until the age of twenty-five years." 
 
 And the question being taken thereon, was 
 decided as follows : For the recommitment 88, 
 against it 88. 
 
 YEAS. Messrs. Abbott, Anderson of Kentucky, 
 Austin, Baldwin, Ball, Barbour of Virginia, Bassett, 
 Bayley, Beecber, Bloomfield, Blount, Bryan, Bnr- 
 well, Butler of Louisiana, Campbell, Cobb, Colston, 
 Cook, Craw-ford, Cruger, Davidson, Desha, Earle, 
 
 Edwards, Ervin of South Carolina, Fisher, Floyd, 
 Garnett, Hall of North Carolina, Harrison, Hogg, 
 Holmes, Johnson of Virginia, Johnson of Kentucky, 
 Jones, Kinsey, Lewis, Little, Lowndes, McLane of 
 Delaware, McLean of Illinois, McCoy, Marr, Mason 
 of Massachusetts, Mercer, Middleton, H. Nelson, T. 
 M. Nelson, Nesbitt, New. Newton, Ogden, Owen, 
 Parrott, Pegram, Peter, Pindall, Pleasants, Poindex- 
 ter, Quarles, Eeed of Md., Reed of Georgia, Rhea, 
 Ringgold, Robertson, Sawyer, Settle, Shaw, Simkins, 
 Slocumb, S. Smith, Ballard Smith, Alexander Smyth, 
 J. S. Smith, Speed, Stewart of North Carolina, 
 Storrs, Strother, Stuart of Maryland, Terrell, Trim- 
 ble, Tucker of Virginia, Tucker of South Carolina, 
 Tyler, Walker of North Carolina, Walker of Ken- 
 tucky, Whitman, and Williams of North Carolina. 
 
 NAYS. Messrs. Adams, Allen of Massachusetts, 
 Anderson of Pennsylvania, Barber of Ohio, Bateman, 
 Bennett, Boden, Boss, Clagett, Comstock, Crafts, 
 Cushman, Darlington, Drake, Ellicott, Folger, Fuller, 
 Gage, Gilbert, Hale, Hall of Delaware, Hasbrouck, 
 Hendricks, Herkimer, Herrick, Heister, Hitchcock, 
 Hopkinson, Hostetter, Hubbard, Hunter, Huntington, 
 Irving of New York, Kirtland, Lawyer, Lincoln, Linn, 
 Livermore, W. Maclay, W. P. Maclay, Marchand, Ma- 
 son of Rhode Island, Merrill, Mills, Robert Moore, 
 Samuel Moore, Morton, Mosely, Murray, Jeremiah 
 Nelson, Ogle, Orr, Palmer, Patterson, Pawling, Pit- 
 kin, Porter, Rice, Rich, Richards, Rogers, Ruggles, 
 Sampson, Savage, Schuyler, Scudder, Sergeant, Sey- 
 bert, Sherwood, Silsbee, Southard, Spencer, Tall- 
 madge, Tarr, Taylor, Terry, Tompkins, Townsend, 
 Upham, Wallace, Wendover, Westerlo, Whiteside, 
 Wilkins, Williams of Con., Williams of New York, 
 Wilson of Massachusetts, and Wilson of Pennsylvania. 
 
 There being an equal division, the SPEAKEB 
 declared himself in the affirmative ; and so the 
 said motion was carried ; and Messrs. ROBEBT- 
 son, SILSBEE, BTJRWELL, MILLS, and LOWNDES, 
 were appointed the said committee. 
 
 Mr. ROBERTSON, from the committee to whom 
 was this day referred the bill establishing a 
 separate Territorial government for the south- 
 ern part of the Territory of Missouri, with in- 
 structions to amend the same by striking out 
 these words : " And all children born of slaves 
 within the said Territory, shall be free, but may 
 be held to service until the age of twenty-five 
 years," reported the same, amended agreeably 
 to the said instructions. 
 
 Mr. MEEOEE expressed his views of this ques- 
 tion in a short speech. 
 
 The question was then taken to concur with 
 the select committee in striking out the said 
 words, and passed in the affirmative yeas 89, 
 nays 87, as follows : 
 
 YEAS. Messrs. Abbott, Anderson of Kentucky, 
 Austin, Baldwin, Ball, Barbour of Virginia, Bassett, 
 Bayley, Beecher, Bloomfield, Blount, Bryan, Burwell, 
 Butler of Louisiana, Campbell, Cobb, Colston, Cook, 
 Crawford, Crnger, Culbreth, Davidson, Desha, Earle, 
 Edwards, Ervin of South Carolina, Fisher, Floyd, 
 Garnett, Hall of North Carolina, Harrison, Hogg, 
 Holmes, Johnson of Virginia, Johnson of Kentucky, 
 Jones, Kinsey, Lewis, Little, Lowndes, McLane of 
 Delaware, McLean of Illinois, McCoy, Marr, Ma- 
 son of Miissai'lin-ftK Mercer, Middleton, H. Nelson, 
 T. M. Nel.-un. Nesbitt, New, Newton, Ogden, Owen,
 
 366 
 
 ABKIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 Arkansas Territory Restriction of Slavery. 
 
 [FEBRUARY, 1819. 
 
 Parrott, Pegram, Peter, Pindall, Pleasants, Poindex- 
 ter, Quarles, Reed of Maryland, Reed of Georgia, 
 Rhea, Ringgold Robertson, Sawyer, Settle, Shaw, 
 Simkins, Slocumb, S. Smith, Ballard Smith, Alex. 
 Smyth, J. S. Smith, Speed, Stewart of North Caro- 
 lina, Storrs, Strother, Stuart of Maryland, Terrell, 
 Trimble, Tucker of Virginia, Tucker of South Caro- 
 lina, Tyler, Walker of North Carolina, Walker of 
 Kentucky, Whitman, and Williams of North Caro- 
 lina. 
 
 NAYS. Messrs. Adams, Allen of Massachusetts, 
 Anderson of Pennsylvania, Barber of Ohio, Bateman, 
 Bennett, Boden, Boss, Clagett, Comstock, Crafts, 
 Cushman, Darlington, Drake, Ellicott, Folger, 
 Fuller, Gage, Gilbert, Hale, Hasbrouck, Hen- 
 dricks, Herkimer, Herrick, Heister, Hitchcock, 
 Hopkinson, Hostetter, Hubbard, Hunter, Hunt- 
 ington, Irving of New York, Kirtland, Lawyer, Lin- 
 coln, Linn, Livermore, W. Maclay, W. P. Maclay, 
 Marchand, Mason of Rhode Island, Merrill, Mills, 
 Robert Moore, Samuel Moore, Morton, Mosely, Mur- 
 ray, Jeremiah Nelson, Ogle, Orr, Palmer, Patterson, 
 Pawling, Pitkin, Porter, Rice, Rich, Richards, 
 Rogers, Ruggles, Savage, Schuyler, Scudder, Ser- 
 geant, Seybert, Sherwood, Silsbee, Southard, Spencer, 
 Tallmadge, Tarr, Taylor, Terry, Tompkins, Town- 
 send, Upham, Wallace, Wendover, Westerlo, White- 
 side, Wilkin, Williams of Connecticut, Williams of 
 New York, Wilson of Massachusetts, and Wilson of 
 Pennsylvania. 
 
 So the House determined, by a majority of 
 two votes, to strike out the clause imposing a 
 restriction on slavery in the proposed new Ter- 
 ritory of Arkansas. 
 
 Mr. TAYLOR then moved to amend the bill by 
 inserting a provision " that, during the existence 
 of the Territorial government of Arkansas, no 
 slaves shall be brought into the said Territory, 
 to remain therein for a longer time than nine 
 months from the date of their arrival." 
 
 Mr. PITKIN supported, at some length, the 
 amendment. 
 
 Mr. WHITMAN, of Massachusetts, spoke at 
 some length, to explain the reason why he 
 should vote against imposing the slavery re- 
 striction on the Territory of Arkansas, while in 
 favor of imposing it on the State of Missouri. 
 The more southern position of Arkansas was 
 the reason. 
 
 Mr. TAYLOR, then, for reasons which he 
 stated, modified the amendment, to read as fol- 
 lows : 
 
 " That neither slavery nor involuntary servitude 
 shall hereafter be introduced into the said Territory, 
 otherwise than for the punishment of crimes, whereof 
 the party shall have been duly convicted." 
 
 Mr. MERCER, after earnestly, and at some 
 length, supporting his views on this subject, 
 moved to amend the proposed amendment, by 
 adding thereto the following proviso : 
 
 "Provided, That nothing herein shall divest the 
 inhabitants of Arkansas of their rights of property in 
 the slaves which they now hold, or the natural in- 
 crease thereof; nor to entitle to his freedom any 
 slave carried therein, and held there for a period not 
 exceeding nine months." 
 
 This motion was negatived without a divi- 
 sion; and, 
 
 The question being then taken on Mr. TAY- 
 LOR'S amendment, was determined in the nega 
 tive yeas 86, nays 90, as follows : 
 
 YEAS. Messrs. Adams, Allen, Anderson of Penn- 
 sylvania, Barber of Ohio, Bateman, Bennett, Boden, 
 Boss, Clagett, Comstock, Crafts, Cushman, Darling- 
 ton, Drake, Ellicott, Folger, Fuller, Gage. Gilbert, 
 Hale, Hall of Delaware, Hasbrouck, Hendricks, 
 Herkimer, Herrick, Heister, Hitchcock, Hopkinson. 
 Hostetter, Hubbard, Hunter, Huntington, Irving of 
 New York, Kirtland, Lawyer, Lincoln, Linn, Liver- 
 more, W. Maclay, W. P. Maclay, Marchand, Ma- 
 son of Rhode Island, Merrill, Mills, Robert Moore, 
 Samuel Moore, Morton, Mosely, Murray, Jer. Nel- 
 son, Ogle, Orr, Palmer, Patterson, Pawling, Pitkin, 
 Rice, Rich, Richards, Rogers, Ruggles, Sampson, 
 Savage, Schuyler, Scudder, Sergeant, Seybert, Sher- 
 wood, Silsbee, Southard, Spencer, Tallmadge, Tarr, 
 Taylor, Terry, Tompkins, Townsend, Upham, Wal- 
 lace, Wendover, Westerlo, Whiteside, Wilkin, Wil- 
 liams of Connecticut, Williams of New York, and 
 Wilson of Pennsylvania. 
 
 NAYS. Messrs. Abbott, Anderson of Kentucky, 
 Austin, Baldwin, Ball, Barbour of Virginia, Bassett, 
 Bayley, Beecher, Bloomfield, Blount, Bryan, Bur- 
 well, Butler of Louisiana, Campbell, Cobb, Colston, 
 Cook, Crawford, Cruger, Culbreth, Davidson, Desha, 
 Earle, Edwards, Ervin of South Carolina, Fisher, 
 Floyd, Garnett, Hall of North Carolina, Harrison, 
 Hogg, Holmes, Johnson of Virginia, Johnson of Ken- 
 tucky, Jones, Kinsey, Lewis, Little, Lowndes, Mc- 
 Lane of Delaware, McLean of Illinois, McCoy, Marr, 
 Mason of Massachusetts, Mercer, Middleton, Hugh 
 Nelson, Thomas N. Nelson, Nesbitt, New, Newton, 
 Ogden, Owen, Parrott, Pegram, Peter, Pindall, Pleas- 
 ants, Poindexter, Porter, Quarles, Reed of Maryland, 
 Reed of Georgia, Rhea, Ringgold, Robertson, Sawyer, 
 Settle, Shaw, Simkins, Slocumb, Samuel Smith, BaL 
 Smith, Alexander Smyth, J. S. Smith, Speed, Stew- 
 art of North Carolina, Storrs, Strother, Stuart of 
 Maryland, Terrell, Trimble, Tucker of Virginia, 
 Tucker of South Carolina, Tyler, Walker of North 
 Carolina, Walker of Kentucky, Whitman, and Wil- 
 liams of North Carolina. 
 
 Mr. TAYLOR, then, after stating that he 
 thought it important that some line shoxild be 
 designated beyond which slavery should not be 
 permitted, &c., moved the following amend- 
 ment as an additional section to the bill : 
 
 " That neither slavery nor involuntary servitude 
 shall hereafter be introduced into any part of the 
 Territories of the United States, lying north of 36 
 degrees and 30 minutes of north latitude."* 
 
 Mr. LIVERMORE conceived this proposition to 
 be made in the true spirit of compromise, which 
 ought to be met, but suggested a different line. 
 
 Mr. RHEA opposed this amendment, and 
 spoke against any amendment or restriction of 
 the sort, as unconstitutional, and inconsistent 
 with the treaty with France, which transferred 
 to us the territory west of the Mississippi. 
 
 * TMs proposed line, while exempting Arkansas from th 
 restriction, would haye included the State of Missouri in it, 
 as it followed the latitude of 86 80 through its whole course 
 in Louisiana.
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 367 
 
 FEBRUARY, 1819.] 
 
 Deaf and Dumb Asylum. 
 
 [H. OP R. 
 
 Mr. OGLE was against the amendment, because 
 opposed to any compromise by which slavery in 
 any of the Territories should be recognized or 
 sanctioned by Congress. 
 
 Mr. STEOTHER thought it would be better to 
 withdraw the amendment, and bring forward 
 the principle in a separate bill, and argued in 
 support of his view of the question. 
 
 Mr. HARRISON' assented to the expediency of 
 establishing some such line of discrimination ; 
 but, for reasons which he explained at large, 
 proposed a different one, by way of amendment 
 to the amendment, as follows : 
 
 " That all that part of the present Territory of Mis- 
 souri, lying north of a line to he run due west from 
 the mouth of the river Des Moines to the territorial 
 boundary of the United States, shall form a part of 
 the Territory of Michigan ; and the laws now in 
 force in the said Territory as well as the ordinance of 
 Congress prohibiting slavery or involuntary servitude 
 in said Territory of Michigan, shall be in force in that 
 part of the Missouri Territory lying north of the said 
 east and west line." 
 
 Mr. BARBOUR, of Virginia, was opposed to 
 Mr. TAYLOR'S amendment, and to all others of a 
 similar character ; and spoke with much ear- 
 nestness against the proposition at some length, 
 as partial and inexpedient ; arguing that, if the 
 principle was wrong in itself, (and the question 
 had been discussed on principle alone,) it ought 
 not to be withheld from one part of the Terri- 
 tory and applied to another ; that it was legis- 
 lating partially, by applying a rule to one por- 
 tion and a different rule to another portion of 
 citizens, having equal rights, and placed under 
 similar circumstances. If the rule was wrong 
 at the 25th degree of latitude, it was equally so 
 at the 40th. He argued that it was as impolitic 
 as it was unjust to draw this line ; it was proper 
 to let a future Congress act on it, as should then 
 appear expedient ; and this opinion, as well as 
 others which he advanced, he maintained at 
 some length. 
 
 Mr. ANDEBSOX, of Kentucky, gave the amend- 
 ment his unqualified disapprobation. It was no 
 compromise its friends asked every thing and 
 gave nothing what they got now was insured 
 to them, and what they conceded now would 
 not be binding on a future Congress, and the 
 same principle might be extended, by hereafter 
 inserting it in the constitution of Arkansas, 
 when it should become a State. Furthermore, 
 the principle was contrary to the Treaty of 
 Cession with France, and he could not agree to 
 any compromise, even if it were fairly proposed ; 
 all of which views he strenuously enforced. 
 
 Mr. LIVERMORE replied, and argued at length 
 to show that the compromise was fair and liber- 
 al ; also that the Treaty of Cession could not 
 bind Congress in this case, as it was out of the 
 power of the Government to admit States into 
 the Union by treaty ; that the Territory was 
 purchased, and it was now competent for the 
 Government to dispose of ft in any manner 
 whatsoever, either to sell it, recede, &c. 
 
 Mr. BEECHER followed in a speech of near an 
 
 hour in length, entering into an inquiry into 
 the whole subject presented by the various pro- 
 positions brought forward. 
 
 Mr. COBB rose to put an end at once to a de- 
 bate, which he said was disagreeable to one 
 part of the House, however agreeable it might 
 be to the other ; and the end of which, if un- 
 checked, could not be seen, as it was impossible 
 to foretell what number of amendments might 
 be presented. He therefore called for the pre- 
 vious question, to obtain at once a decision on 
 the engrossment of the bill. 
 
 The previous question was refused by the 
 House ayes 67, noes 74 ; when 
 
 Mr. TAYLOR, having stated that he perceived 
 from the debate, as well as from conversation, 
 that it was not probable any line would be 
 agreed on by the House, or any compromise of 
 opinion be effected, withdrew his amendment 
 
 The bill was then ordered to be engrossed, 
 and read a third time.* 
 
 MONDAY, February 22. " 
 Deaf and Dumb Asylum. 
 
 Mr. TERRY, from the committee to which 
 was referred the petition of the Connecticut 
 Asylum, for the education and instruction of 
 deaf and dumb persons, made a report, which 
 was read ; when Mr. T. reported a bill in be- 
 half of the Connecticut Asylum for teaching 
 the deaf and dumb ; which was twice read, and 
 ordered to lie on the table. The report is as 
 follows : 
 
 That an association of a number of citizens of the 
 State of Connecticut was formed in the year 1815, for 
 the purpose of estahb'shing a school for the instruc- 
 tion of the deaf and dumb. Finding great numbers 
 of this unfortunate description of persons in our 
 country without education, and without any attempts 
 being made to give them the education which they 
 are capable of receiving, and actuated by a benevo- 
 
 * This was the first debate in Congress on the subject of 
 prohibiting slavery in a territory, and was brought on in a 
 way to excite the highest feeling and to provoke the strong- 
 est opposition. The Missouri State bill had just been lost 
 under the attempt to prevent it in that State. Passing 
 further south, here was an attempt to prohibit in a territory 
 which extended to the State of Louisiana and to Texas 
 that is to say, to the whole of the province of Louisiana 
 south of Missouri equivalent to an attempt to exclude it 
 from the whole province : for, if excluded from the southern 
 half of the province, the exclusion would follow of itself in 
 the northern half. It was a settled territory settled under 
 the French Government had an actual slave population- 
 and was in the latitude of Southern products : cotton, to- 
 bacco. It was the most obnoxious case in which the at- 
 tempt could be made, and calculated to bring forward the 
 strongest objections to it The strongest objection would 
 have been constitutional inability to impose the prohibi- 
 tion ; yet such an inability was not even hinted at by any 
 member. Able men from the slave States were there, and 
 jealous of the rights of their section ; but no one raised a 
 constitutional question. Expedient objections only were 
 used, and the treaty obligation to protect the inhabitants in 
 their property.
 
 368 
 
 ABKIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 Bank of the United States. 
 
 [FEBRUARY, 1819. 
 
 lent desire to rescne them, as far as was practicable, 
 from their state of ignorance and degradation, and 
 to fit them for social intercourse and happiness, the 
 associates, by voluntary contribution, raised a sum of 
 money sufficient to defray the expense of sending the 
 reverend Thomas H. Gallaudet to Europe, for the 
 purpose of learning the modes of instruction practised 
 there. Mr. Gallaudet went to England, to Scotland, 
 and to France. In London, he did not find a dispo- 
 sition in the teachers to communicate instruction so 
 readily as the benevolence of his mission seemed to 
 entitle him to expect ; but he had the good fortune 
 to meet there the Abbe Sicard, the principal of the 
 institution for the instruction of the deaf and dumb 
 at Paris, a gentleman distinguished for talents, bene- 
 volence, and devotion to the interests of these unfor- 
 tunate persons. The Abbe assured him that, if he 
 would go to Paris, every facility should be afforded 
 him of acquiring a knowledge of their modes of in- 
 struction ; which assurances he found fully realized 
 upon going there. The Abbe kindly took him into 
 the school, and explained to him every thing relating 
 to their modes of instruction and management ; but 
 Mr. Gallaudet found that the time which his arrange- 
 ments would permit him to spend in Paris would be 
 much too short to enable him to acquire the knowl- 
 edge necessary for an accomplished instructor ; and 
 having become acquainted with Laurent Clerc, a 
 pupil of the Abbe, and for eight years an assistant 
 instructor, he engaged him to come to this country 
 as an instructor in the school about to be established 
 in Connecticut. They arrived here in August, 1816, 
 and Mr. Clerc is still an assistant to Mr. Gallaudet in 
 the Connecticut Asylum. The Legislature of Con- 
 necticut, in May, 1816, incorporated the said associ- 
 ates by their aforesaid name. There are at present 
 in the school more than fifty pupils, from the States 
 of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Vermont, Rhode 
 Island, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, Mary- 
 land, Virginia, and Kentucky, who are taught by five 
 instructors, and who pay $200 per annum, each, for 
 tuition, board, washing, and lodging. The institu- 
 tion is open for the reception of pupils from every 
 part of the Union ; but its funds (which have arisen 
 almost entirely from voluntary contribution) are too 
 small to admit of its becoming extensively useful ; 
 they are not sufficient even to erect the buildings ne- 
 cessary for the accommodation of the present number 
 of pupils. 
 
 Considering that this institution is calculated not 
 only to afford instruction to the deaf and dumb, who 
 are to be found in all parts of our country, but also 
 to qualify teachers for other schools which may be 
 established in other parts of the Union, and consider- 
 ing that it is the first attempt of the kind in the 
 United States, and that it has been raised to its pres- 
 ent condition by the care and at the expense of chari- 
 table individuals, most of whom had no particular 
 interest in its success, the committee are of opinion 
 that it is worthy of the patronage of Congress, and 
 that the prayer of the petition ought to be granted ; 
 and for that purpose they report a bilL 
 
 THURSDAY, February 25. 
 Bank of the United States. 
 The House took up and proceeded to consider 
 the report of the Committee of the Whole on 
 the state of the Union, made yesterday, on sev- 
 eral subjects referred to it in relation to the 
 Bank of the United States ; when 
 
 Mr. SPENCEE withdrew his motion to lay the 
 said report upon the table. 
 
 The question was then taken to concur with 
 the Committee of the Whole in their disagree- 
 ment to the resolution submitted by Mr. Joiix- 
 SON, of Virginia, in the following words, to wit : 
 
 " Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary 
 be instructed to report a bill to repeal the act, en- 
 titled ' An act to incorporate the subscribers to the 
 Bank of the United States,' approved April 10, 1816." 
 
 And passed in the affirmative yeas 121, nays 
 30.' 
 
 The question was then taken, also, to concur 
 with the Committee of the Whole, in their dis- 
 agreement to the resolution submitted by Mr. 
 TEIMBLE, in the following words, to wit : 
 
 " Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representa- 
 tives of the United States of America in Congress as- 
 sembled, That the Attorney-General of the United 
 States, in conjunction with the District Attorney of 
 the State of Pennsylvania, shall immediately cause a 
 scire facias to be issued, according to the 23d section 
 of the ' Act to incorporate the subscribers to the Bank 
 of the United States ;' calling on the corporation cre- 
 ated by the said act to show cause wherefore the 
 charter thereby granted shall not be declared for- 
 feited, and that it shall be the duty of the said officers 
 to cause such proceedings to be had in the premises 
 as shall be necessary to obtain a final judgment there- 
 on ; for the expenses of which Congress will here- 
 after provide :" 
 
 And passed in the affirmative yeas 116, nays 
 39, as follows : 
 
 YEAS. Messrs. Abbott, Adams, Allen, Anderson of 
 Pennsylvania, Anderson of Kentucky, Baldwin, Bate- 
 man, Bayley, Bennett, Bloomfield, Boss, Bryan, Cla- 
 get, Cobb, Colston, Comstock, Crafts, Cruger, Gush- 
 man, Darlington, Davidson, Earle, Edwards, Fisher, 
 Folger, Fuller, Gage, Garnett, Gilbert, Hale, Herki- 
 mer, Holmes, Hopkinson, Hubbard, Hunter, Hunt- 
 ington, Jones, Kinsey, Kirtland, Lawyer, Lewis, Lin- 
 coln, Linn, Little, Lowndes, McLane of Del, W, 
 Maclay, W. P. Maclay, McCoy, Mason of Massachu- 
 setts, Mason of Rhode Island, Mercer, Merrill, Mid- 
 dleton, Mills, Samuel Moore, Morton, Mosely, Mur- 
 ray, Jeremiah Nelson, H. Nelson, Newton, Ogden, 
 Orr, Owen, Parrott, Pawling, Peter, Pitkin, Pleas- 
 ants, Poindexter, Porter, Quarles, Reed of Maryland, 
 Reed of Georgia, Rice, Rich, Ringgold, Robertson, 
 Ruggles, Sampson, Savage, Sawyer, Scudder, Ser- 
 geant, Settle, Shaw, Sherwood, Silsbee, Simkins, 
 Slocumb, S. Smith, Ballard Smith, Alexander Smyth, 
 J. S. Smith, Southard, Storrs, Strother, Stuart of 
 Maryland, Tallmadge, Taylor, Terrell, Terry, Tomp- 
 kins, Townsend, Tucker of Virginia, Tucker of South 
 Carolina, Upham, Walker of North Carolina, Wal- 
 lace, Wendover, Whitman, Wilkin, Williams of Con- 
 necticut, Wilson of Massachusetts, and Wilson of 
 Pennsylvania. 
 
 NAYS. Messrs. Austin, Ball, Barbour of Virginia, 
 Barber of Ohio, Bassett, Blount, Boden, Burwell, 
 Butler of Louisiana, Campbell, Desha, Ervin of South 
 Carolina, Floyd, Hall of North Carolina, Harrison, 
 Hendricks, Herrick, Hitchcock, Hogg, Hostetter, 
 Johnson of Virginia, McLean of Illinois, Marchand, 
 Marr, Robert Moore, T. M. Nelson, Patterson, Pe- 
 gram, Pindall, Rhea, Rogers, Speed, Spencer, Tarr,
 
 DEBATES OF CONGKESS. 
 
 MARCH, 1819.] 
 
 Connecticut Asylum. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 Trimble, Tyler, Walker of Kentucky, Williams of 
 New York, "and Williams of North Carolina. 
 
 So the House concurred with the Com- 
 mittee of the Whole in rejecting both resolu- 
 tions. 
 
 The House then took up the amendments re- 
 ported by the committee to the bill " to enforce 
 those provisions of the act to incorporate the 
 subscribers to the Bank of the United States, 
 which relate to the right of voting for direc- 
 tors." 
 
 And the question was then taken, "Shall 
 the said bill be engrossed and read a third 
 time?" and passed in the affirmative yeas 98, 
 nays 38, 
 
 FRIDAY, February 26. 
 Military Academy. 
 
 Mr. HIGH having obtained the floor, remarked 
 that he rose for the purpose of submitting a 
 motion, the object of which was to call upon 
 the Secretary of "War for information to be 
 communicated at the next session of Congress, 
 in relation to the Military Academy. He said 
 he had been induced to submit the motion from 
 a belief that, either in the organization of the 
 government of the Academy, or in the adminis- 
 tration of it, there were some defects; and 
 from a further belief that Congress were not 
 possessed of the information necessary to enable 
 it to judge whether the country received a fair 
 equivalent for the large expenditures which 
 were annually made upon that institution. He 
 then submitted the following resolutions, which 
 were adopted : 
 
 Resolved, That the Secretary of War be instructed 
 to report to this House, at an early period of the 
 next session of Congress, a copy of such rules and 
 regulations as shall have been adopted for the Gov- 
 ernment of the Military Academy ; together with a 
 list of the cadets which were attached to the Acad- 
 emy on the first day of January, 1815, and of such 
 as shall have been appointed between the said first of 
 January, and 30th September, 1819; exhibiting the 
 date of their several appointments, with the States 
 and Territories from whence they came ; a list of 
 such as shall have resigned or shall have been dis- 
 missed, and at what period ; also, a list of such as shall 
 have been commissioned in the army, with the date 
 of their commissions, and of such as shall have re- 
 signed, with the date of their resignations. 
 
 Resolv id, also, That the said Secretary be instructed 
 to report as aforesaid, whether any, and if any, what 
 legislative provisions are necessary for the more con- 
 venient organization and government of the said 
 academy, the better to insure a strict obedience to 
 all proper orders, and a suitable respect for all the 
 rights of those whose duty it may be to yield obedi- 
 
 SATTJBDAY, February 27. 
 Treaty for the Acquisition of Florida. 
 The following Message was received from 
 
 the'PBESIDEXT OF THE UNITED STATES : 
 
 VOL. VL 24 
 
 To the Senate and House of 
 
 Representatives of the United States. 
 
 The treaty of amity, settlement, and limits between 
 the United States and his Catholic Majesty having 
 been on the part of the United States ratified, by 
 and with the advice and consent of the Senate, copies 
 of it are now transmitted to Congress. As the 
 ratification on the part of Spam may be expected to 
 take place during the recess of Congress, I recom- 
 mend to their consideration the adoption of such 
 Legislative measures, contingent upon the event of 
 the exchange of the ratifications, as may be necessary 
 or expedient for carrying the treaty into effect, in 
 the interval between the sessions, and until Congress 
 at their next session may see fit to make further 
 provision on that subject. 
 
 JAMES MONROE. 
 
 WASHINGTON, Feb. 26, 1819. 
 
 MONDAY, March 1. 
 Connecticut Asylum. 
 
 The House next agreed, on motion of Mr. 
 TEBEY, by the casting vote of the Speaker, to 
 take up the bill for the benefit of the Connecti- 
 cut asylum for the deaf and dumb, [granting 
 to it a donation of six sections of the public 
 lands.] 
 
 Mr. TEEEY briefly adverted to the humane 
 object of this institution, its general and exten- 
 sive utility, the number of unhappy objects who 
 were already receiving the benefis of the asy- 
 lum, &c. The bill was also supported by Mr. 
 HAEEISON, who agreed in opinion as to its 
 general utility there being numbers of the 
 unfortunate beings for whose benefit it was in- 
 tended, scattered through many of the States, 
 if not all, &c. 
 
 The bill was opposed by Mr. BASSETT, who 
 deemed the institution entirely a local one, not 
 deserving, more than any other local object, the 
 expenditure of national funds on it. He sym- 
 pathized with the subjects in the institution, 
 but it was not a charitable one, as the rich 
 alone, he understood, received the benefits of 
 the asylum; and he wa$ unwilling to tax the 
 poor for their support ; and it was furthermore 
 a precedent which might hereafter be regretted 
 when too late. He moved the commitment of 
 the bill. 
 
 Mr. TEEEY replied that the institution was 
 strictly charitable, as it was almost exclusively 
 used for the benefit of the indigent. 
 
 Mr. POINDEXTEB was unwilling to vote a dona- 
 tion of the public lands for this object; a simi- 
 lar donation had been refused to the individual 
 States for the benefit of a university, &c. 
 
 Mr. PITKIX replied to the opponents of the 
 bill at some length, and supported the humanity 
 and extensive usefulness and benign effects of 
 the institution. 
 
 The motion to commit the bill was lost ; and 
 the question being on a third reading, the de- 
 bate became more extensive it being supported 
 liy M> rs. OKI?, TEKKY, COLSTOX, and MERCER; 
 and opposed by Messrs UASSETT and BAEBOUE; 
 the last-named" gentleman moving the indefinite
 
 370 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OP R.] Afissouri State Government Disagreement of the two Houses Senate Adheres. [MARCH, 1819. 
 
 postponement of the bill, which was negatived 
 ayes 43, noes 60, and the bill was then or- 
 dered to be engrossed for a third reading to- 
 day. 
 
 Occupation of Florida. 
 
 The House then, on motion of Mr. HOLMES, 
 resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole 
 on the state of the Union, to which was referred 
 the bill authorizing the President of the United 
 States to take possession, under the treaty with 
 Spain, of East and West Florida, and provid- 
 ing for the temporary government of the terri- 
 tory. 
 
 Mr. HOLMES moved to amend the bill, by in- 
 serting a provision to authorize the appointment 
 of commissioners for the adjustment of the 
 claims, and of the western boundary, in pur- 
 suance of the stipulations of the treaty, and pro- 
 viding the sum of dollars to defray the ex- 
 penses of the said commission. 
 
 The question was then taken on the proposed 
 amendment, and decided in the negative with- 
 out a division ; and the bill was ordered to be 
 engrossed, and was subsequently read a third 
 time, passed, and sent to the Senate for con- 
 currence. 
 
 TUESDAY, March 2. 
 
 Missouri State Government Disagreement of 
 
 the two Houses Senate Adheres. 
 
 The House took up the amendments of the 
 Senate to the bill authorizing the formation of a 
 State government for the Territory of Missouri, 
 and concurred in all of them, except that which 
 struck out the prohibitory clause concerning 
 the admission and toleration of slavery. 
 
 Some debate arising again on the principle of 
 this amendment, Mr. TALLMADGE moved the 
 indefinite postponement of the bih 1 . 
 
 This motion was discussed at some length, 
 Messrs. MILLS, TATLOE, and TALLMADGE, sup- 
 porting the postponement, and Messrs. SCOTT, 
 ASTDERSON of KENTUCKY, POINDEXTER, TUCKER 
 of Virginia, BARBOUR of Virginia, and BEECHER, 
 opposing it; and was decided in the negative 
 yeas 69, nays 74, as follows : 
 
 YEAS. Messrs. Adams, Anderson of Pennsylvania, 
 Barber of Ohio, Bateman, Bennett, Boden, Boss, 
 Comstock, Crafts, Cushman, Darlington, Ellicott, 
 Folger, Fuller, Gage, Gilbert, Hale, Hall of Dela- 
 ware, Hasbrouck, Hendricks, Herkimer, Herrick, 
 Hopkinson, Hostetter, Hubbard, Hunter, Irving of 
 New York, Kinsey, Kirtland, Lincoln, Linn, Liver- 
 more, W. Maclay, W. P. Maclay, Mason of Rhode 
 Island, Merrill, Mills, Samuel Moore, Murray, Jere- 
 miah Nelson, Ogle, Palmer, Patterson, Pawling, Pit- 
 kin, Rice, Rich, Richards, Rogers, Rtiggles, Sampson, 
 Schuyler, Sergeant, Sherwood, Silsbee, Southard, 
 Tallmadge, Tarr, Taylor, Terry, Tompkins, Upham, 
 Wallace, Wendover, Westcrlo, Whiteside, Wilkin, 
 Williams of Connecticut, and Wilson of Pennsylvania 
 
 NAYS. Messrs. Abbott, Anderson of Kentucky, 
 Austin, Baldwin, Ball, Barbour of Virginia, Bayley, 
 Beecher, Bloomfield, Blonnt, Burwell, Butler of 
 Louisiana, Campbell, Cobb, Colston, Cook, Crawford, 
 
 Culbreth, Davidson, Desha, Earle, Edwards, Ervin 
 of South Carolina, Floyd, Hall of North Carolina, 
 Harrison, Hogg, Holmes, Huntington, Johnson of 
 Virginia, Johnson of Kentucky, Jones, Lewis, Little, 
 Lowndes, McLean of Illinois, McCoy, Marr, Mason 
 of Massachusetts, Mercer, Middleton, H. Nelson, T. 
 M. Nelson, New, Newton, Ogden, Owen, Parrott, 
 Pegram, Peter, Pindall, Pleasants, Poindexter, Reed 
 of Georgia, Rhea, Ringgold, Robertson, Settle, Sey- 
 bert, S. Smith, Ballard Smith, Alexander Smyth, 
 Speed, Stewart of North Carolina, Strother, Stuart 
 of Maryland, Terrell, Trimble, Tucker of Virginia; 
 Tucker of South Carolina, Tyler, Walker of North 
 Carolina, Walker of Kentucky, and Williams of North 
 Carolina. 
 
 All the said amendments were then concurred 
 in, except that which proposes to strike out the 
 following clause : " The further introduction of 
 slavery or involuntary servitude, be prohibited, 
 except for the punishment of crimes, whereof 
 the party shall have been duly convicted. And 
 that all children of slaves born within the said 
 State, after the admission thereof into the Union, 
 shall be free, but may be held to service until 
 the age of twenty-five years ; " and insert, " the 
 Legislature of the said State shall never inter- 
 fere with the primary disposal of the soil, by 
 the United States, nor with any regulations 
 Congress may find necessary for securing the 
 titles in such soil, to the bona fide purchasers ; 
 and that no tax shall be imposed on lands, the 
 property of the United States ; and in no case 
 shall non-resident proprietors be taxed higher 
 than residents." 
 
 Mr. ADAMS opposed the concurrence at some 
 length". 
 
 The question was then taken to concur with 
 the Senate in striking out the said clause, and 
 determined in the negative yeas 76, nays 78, 
 as follows : 
 
 YEAS. Messrs. Abbott, Anderson of Kentucky, 
 Austin, Baldwin, Ball, Barbour of Virginia, Bavley, 
 Bloomfield, Blount, Burwell, Butler of Louisiana, 
 Cobb, Colston, Cook, Crawford, Cruger, Culbreth, 
 Davidson, Desha, Earle,Edwards, Ervin of South Caro- 
 lina, Fisher, Floyd, Garnett, Hall of North Carolina, 
 Harrison, Hogg, Holmes, Johnson of Virginia, John- 
 son of Kentucky, Jones, Lewis, Little, Lowndes, 
 McLane of Delaware, McLean of Illinois, McCoy, 
 Marr, Mason of Massachusetts, Mercer, Middleton, 
 H. Nelson, T. M. Nelson, New, Newton, Ogden, 
 Owen, Parrott, Pegram, Peter, Pindall, Pleasants, 
 Poindexter, Quarles, Reed of Maryland, Reed of 
 Georgia, Rhea, Ringgold, Robertson, Settle, S. Smith, 
 Bal. Smith, Alex. Smyth, Spsed, Stewart of North 
 Carolina, Strother, Stewart of Maryland, Terrell, 
 Trimble, Tucker of Virginia, Tucker of South Caro- 
 lina, Tyler, Walker of North Carolina, Walker of 
 Kentucky, and Williams of North Carolina. 
 
 NAYS. Messrs. Adams, Allen, Anderson of Penn- 
 sylvania, Barber of Ohio, Bateman, Beecher, Bennett, 
 Boden, Boss, Campbell. Comstock, Crafts, Cnshman, 
 Darlington, Drake, Ellicott, Folger, Fuller, Gage, 
 Gilbert, Hale, Hall of Delaware, Hasbrouck, Hen- 
 dricks, Herkimer, Herrick, Hopkinson, Hostetter, 
 Hub jard, Hunter, Huntington, Irving of New York, 
 Kinsey, Kirtland, Lincoln, Linn, Livermore, W. 
 Maclay, W. P. Maclay, Mason of Rhode Island,
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 371 
 
 MARCH, 1819.] 
 
 House Adheres. 
 
 (H. OF R. 
 
 Merrill, Mills, Robert Moore, Samuel Moore, Murray, 
 Jeremiah Nelson, Ogle, Orr, Palmer, Patterson, 
 Pawling, Pitkin, Rice, Rich, Richards, Rogers, Rug- 
 gles, Sampson, Schuyler, Sergeant, Seybert, Sherwood, 
 SUsbee, Southard, Tallmadge, Tarr, Taylor, Terry, 
 Tompkins, Upham, Wallace, Wendover, Westerlo, 
 Whiteside, Wilkin, Williams of Connecticut, and 
 Wilson of Pennsylvania. 
 
 So the House refused to agree with the 
 Senate in striking out the clause, and the bill 
 was returned to the Senate. 
 
 House Adheres. 
 
 A message was received from the Senate, an- 
 nouncing that they adhered to their amendment 
 (striking out the restriction of slavery) to the 
 bill authorizing a State Government for the Mis- 
 souri Territory. 
 
 The said message was then taken up ; when 
 
 Mr. TAYLOR moved that this House adhere to 
 its disagreement to said amendment ; which mo- 
 tion brought on a renewal of the debate on the 
 subject ; in which the restriction was zealously 
 supported by Messrs. TAYLOR, MILLS, and TALL- 
 MADGE, and as zealously opposed by Mr. COBB. 
 
 Mr. COBB observed that he did not rise for the 
 purpose of detaining the attention of the House 
 for any length of time. He was too sensible of 
 the importance of each moment which yet re- 
 mained of the session, to obtrude many remarks 
 upon their patience. But, upon a measure in- 
 volving the important consequences that this 
 did, he felt it to be an imperious duty to express 
 his sentiments, and to enter his most solemn 
 protest against the principle proposed for adop- 
 tion by the amendment. Were gentlemen 
 aware of what they were about to do ? Did 
 they foresee no evil consequences likely to re- 
 sult out of the measure if adopted ? Could they 
 suppose that the Southern States would submit 
 with patience to a measure, the effect of which 
 would be to exclude them from all enjoyment 
 of the vast region purchased by the United 
 States beyond the Mississippi, and which be- 
 longed equally to them as to the Northern 
 States ? He ventured to assure them that they 
 would not The people of the slaveholding 
 States, as they are called, know their rights, 
 and will insist upon the enjoyment of them. He 
 should not now attempt to go over ground al- 
 ready occupied by others, with much more 
 ability, and attempt to show that, by the treaty 
 with France, the people of that territory were 
 secured in the enjoyment of the property which 
 they held in their slaves. That the proposed 
 amendment was an infraction of this treaty, had 
 been most clearly shown. Nor would he at- 
 tempt to rescue from slander the character of 
 the people of the Southern States in their 
 conduct towards, and treatment of, their 
 black population. That had also been done, 
 with a degree of force and eloquence to which 
 he could pretend no claim, by the gentleman 
 from Virginia, (Mr. BARBOUR,) and the honor- 
 able Speaker. He was, however, clearly of 
 opinion that Congress possessed no power un- 
 
 der the constitution to adopt the principle pro- 
 posed in the amendment. He called upon the 
 advocates of it to point out, and lay their finger 
 upon, that clause of the Constitution of the 
 United States which gives to this body the 
 right to legislate upon the subject. Could they 
 show in what clause or section this right was 
 expressly given, or from which it could be in- 
 ferred ? Unless this authority could be shown, 
 Congress would be assuming a power, if the 
 amendment prevailed, not delegated to them, 
 and most dangerous in its exercise. What is 
 the end and tendency of the measure proposed ? 
 It is to impose upon the State of Missouri condi- 
 tions not imposed upon any other State. It is 
 to deprive her of one branch of sovereignty not 
 surrendered by any other State in the Union, 
 not even those beyond the Ohio ; for all of them 
 had legislated upon this subject : all of them 
 had decided for themselves whether slavery 
 should be tolerated at the time they framed 
 their several constitutions. He would not now 
 discuss the propriety of admitting slavery. It 
 is not now a question whether it is politic or 
 impolitic to tolerate slavery in the United 
 States, or in a particular State. It was a dis- 
 cussion into which he would not permit himself 
 to be dragged. Admit, however, its moral im- 
 propriety : yet there was a vast difference be- 
 tween moral impropriety and political sover- 
 eignty. The people of New York or Pennsyl- 
 vania may deem it highly immoral and politi- 
 cally improper to permit slavery, but yet they 
 possess the sovereign right and power to permit 
 it, if they choose. They can to-morrow so 
 alter their constitutions and laws as to admit it, 
 if they were so disposed. It is a branch of 
 sovereignty which the old thirteen States never 
 surrendered in the adoption of the Federal Con- 
 stitution. Now the bill proposes that the new 
 State shall be admitted upon an equal footing 
 with the other States of the Union. It is in 
 this way only that she can be admitted, under 
 the constitution. These words can have no 
 other meaning than that, she shall be required 
 to surrender no more of her rights of sover- 
 eignty, than the other States, into a union with 
 which she is about to be admitted, have sur- 
 rendered. But if the proposed amendment is 
 adopted, will not this new State be shorn of 
 one branch of her sovereignty, one right, which 
 the other States may and have exercised, 
 (whether properly or not is immaterial,) and do 
 now exercise whenever they think fit. 
 
 Mr. 0. observed that he did conceive the 
 principle involved in the amendment pregnant 
 with danger. It was one, he repeated, to which 
 he believed the people of the region of country 
 which he represented would not quietly sub- 
 mit. He might perhaps subject himself to ridi- 
 cule for attempting the display of a spirit of 
 prophecy which he did not possess, or of zeal 
 and enthusiasm for which ho was entitled to 
 little credit. But he warned the advocates of 
 this measure against the certain effects which 
 it must produce. Effects destructive of the
 
 372 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 Thanks to the Speaker. 
 
 [MARCH, 1819. 
 
 peace and harmony of the Union. He believed 
 that they were* kindling a fire which all the 
 waters of the ocean could not extinguish. It 
 could be extinguished only in blood ! 
 
 The question was finally taken on adhering to 
 the former decision of the House, and decided 
 in the affirmative, by yeas and nays. For ad- 
 hering 78, against it 66, as follows : 
 
 YEAS. Messrs. Adams, Allen of Massachusetts, 
 Anderson of Pennsylvania, Barber of Ohio, Bateman, 
 Beecher, Bennett, Boss, Campbell, Comstock, Crafts, 
 Cushman, Darlington, Drake, Ellicott, Folger, Fuller, 
 Gage, Gilbert, Hale, Hall of Delaware, Hasbrouck, 
 Hendricks, Herkimer, Herrick, Hitchcock, Hopkinson, 
 Hostetter, Hubbard, Hunter, Huntington, Irving of 
 New York, Kinsey, Lincoln, Linn, Livermore, W. 
 Maclay, W. P. Maclay, Mason of Khode Island, Mer- 
 rill, Mills, Robert Moore, Samuel Moore, Mosely, 
 Murray, J. Nelson, Ogle, Orr, Palmer, Patterson, 
 Pawling, Pitkin, Rice, Rich, Richards, Rogers, 
 Ruggles, Sampson, Schuyler, Sergeant, Sherwood, 
 Silsbee, Southard, Tallmadge, Tarr, Taylor, Terry, 
 Tompkins, Upham, Wallace, Wendover, Westerlo, 
 Whiteside, Whitman, Wilkin, Williams of Connecti- 
 cut, Wilson of Massachusetts, and Wilson of Penn- 
 sylvania. 
 
 NAYS. Messrs. Abbott, Anderson of Kentucky, 
 Austin, Baldwin, Ball, Barbour of Virginia, Bayley, 
 Bloomfield, Blount, Burwell, Butler of Louisiana, 
 Cobb, Colston, Crawford, Davidson, Desha, Edwards, 
 Ervin of South Carolina, Fisher, Floyd, Garnett, Har- 
 rison, Herbert, Hogg, Holmes, Johnson of Virginia, 
 Jones, Lewis, Little, Lowndes, McLane of Delaware, 
 McLean of Illinois, McCoy, Marr, Mason of Massa- 
 chusetts, Mercer, Middleton, H. Nelson, T. M. Nelson, 
 Newton, Ogden, Owen, Parrott, Pegram, Peter, Pin- 
 dall, Pleasants, Poindexter, Reed of Georgia, Rhea, 
 Ringgold, Settle, S. Smith, Ballard Smith, Alexander 
 Smyth, Speed, Stewart of North Carolina. Storrs, 
 Strother, Terrell, Trimble, Tucker of Virginia, Tucker 
 of South Carolina, Tyler, Walker of Kentucky, and 
 Williams of North Carolina. 
 
 The adherence of the two Houses to their re- 
 spective opinions, precluding any further pro- 
 positions or compromise on the subject, the bill 
 was of course lost.* 
 
 WEDNESDAY, March 3. 
 
 Six o'clock, P. M. 
 
 Mr. TATLOE moved the House to come to the 
 foUowing order : 
 
 * This was the end of the bill, and it left the two Houses 
 geographically divided, and the same division extending 
 itself with electric speed to the States. It was a period of 
 deep apprehension, filling with dismay the hearts of the 
 steadiest patriots. It would be nine months before Congress 
 would sit again. The agitation, great as it was, was to be- 
 come greater, and no one could foresee its bounds. The 
 movement to put the slavery restriction on Arkansas, and 
 the close and equivocal votes on that question, greatly 
 aggravated the Missouri question, and seemed to menace 
 the slave States with total exclusion from the province of 
 Louisiana. To judge of the feelings and the apprehensions 
 of that day, this movement to restrict Arkansas, as well as 
 Missouri, must bo remembered, and how much it increased 
 the heats of the controversy. 
 
 Ordered, That no printing directed by this House 
 to be executed shall be received from the printer, by 
 the officers thereof, after the first day of May next. 
 
 The bill from the Senate, entitled " An act to 
 establish a new land office in the State of Illi- 
 nois," was read the first time; and, on the 
 question, u Shall the said bill bo read the second 
 time ?" there appeared yeas 7.0, nays 21, as 
 follows : 
 
 YEAS. Messrs. Abbott, Austin, Baldwin, Ball, Bar- 
 bour of Virginia, Barber of Ohio, Bayley, Butler of 
 Louisiana, Cobb, Comstock, Davidson, Drake, Elli- 
 cott, Fisher, Floyd, Folger, Garnett, Gilbert, Hall 
 of North Carolina, Harrison, Hendricks, Herrick, 
 Holmes, Hubbard, Irving of New York, Johnson of 
 Virginia, Jones, Lewis, Lincoln, Linn, Livermore, 
 McLean of Illinois, Mason of Massachusetts, Mercer, 
 Middleton, Samuel Moore, Mosely, Jeremiah Nelson, 
 H. Nelson, Newton, Ogle, Owen, Palmer, Parrott, 
 Pegram, Peter, Pitkin, Reed of Maryland, Reed of 
 Georgia, Rhea, Rich, Ringgold, Rogers, Ruggles, 
 Sampson, Settle, Seybert, Silsbee, Speed, Storrs, 
 Stuart of Maryland, Tarr, Tyler, Upham, Walker of 
 North Carolina, Walker of Kentucky, Westerlo, Wil- 
 liams of North Carolina, Wilson of Massachusetts, 
 and Wilson of Pennsylvania. 
 
 NAYS. Messrs. Adams, Bateman, Bennett, Dar- 
 lington, Earle, Hopkinson, Little, McLane of Dela- 
 ware, W. Maclay, W. P. Maclay, Murray, Ogden, 
 Schuyler, Sergeant, S. Smith, Southard, Tallmadge, 
 Terrell, Terry, Whitman, and Williams of Connecti- 
 cut. 
 
 Thus it appeared that a quorum was not 
 present. 
 
 The House proceeded, by ballot, to the elec- 
 tion of a printer, to execute the printing order- 
 ed by the House of Eepresentatives during the 
 next Congress, in pursuance of the " Kesolution 
 directing the manner in which the printing of 
 Congress shall be executed, fixing the prices 
 thereof, and for the appointment of a printer or 
 printers to Congress." And, upon an examina- 
 tion of the ballots, it appeared that JOSEPH 
 GALES, Jr., and WILLIAM W. SEATON, under the 
 firm of GALES and SEATON, were duly elected. 
 
 A message from the Senate informed the 
 House that the Senate have elected Gales and 
 Seaton, printers on their part, to execute the 
 printing of the Senate during the next Con- 
 gress, pursuant to the resolution on that sub- 
 ject. They have passed a resolution for the ap- 
 pointment of a joint committee to wait on the 
 President of the United States, and inform him 
 that the two Houses of Congress are about to 
 adjourn, if he has no further communications to 
 make to them, and have appointed a committee 
 on their part. 
 
 The said resolution was read and concurred 
 in by the House, and Messrs. PITKIN and HAB- 
 RISON were appointed of the said committee on 
 their part. 
 
 Thanks to the Speaker. 
 
 On motion of Mr. HUGH NELSON, it was 
 
 Resolved, unanimously, That the thanks of this 
 House be presented to the honorable Henry Clay, for 
 the able, impartial, and dignified manner in which
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 373 
 
 MARCH, 1819.] 
 
 Thanks to the Speaker. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 he has presided over its deliberations, and performed 
 the arduous and important duties of the Chair. 
 
 Upon which Mr. CLAY rose, and addressed 
 the House as follows : 
 
 I beg you to receive, gentlemen, my most respect- 
 ful acknowledgments for the flattering vote yon have 
 done me the honor to pass. Always entertaining for 
 this House the highest consideration, the expression 
 of your approbation conveys a gratification as pure 
 as it is indescribable. I owe it to truth, however, to 
 say, gentlemen, that, but for the almost unlimited 
 confidence with which you have constantly sustained 
 the Chair, I should have been utterly incompetent to 
 discharge its arduous duties. 
 
 If, gentlemen, in the course of our deliberations, 
 momentary irritation has been at any time felt, or 
 unkind expressions have ever, in the heat of debate, 
 fallen from any of us, let these unpleasant incidents 
 be consigned to oblivion, and let us recollect only the 
 anxious desire which has uniformly animated every 
 one to promote what appeared to him to be for the 
 prosperity of our common country. 
 
 One painful circumstance fills me with the deepest 
 regret. It is that, after having co-operated with 
 many of you, with some for years, to advance the 
 public good, we separate to meet perhaps no more. 
 I here bear testimony to the fidelity with which you 
 have all labored to fulfil the high and honorable trust 
 committed to us by the nation. And every one of 
 you will carry with you my most ardent wishes for 
 your individual welfare and happiness. 
 
 Mr. PITKIN, from the joint committee appoint- 
 ed to inform the President of the United States 
 that the two Houses of Congress are about to 
 adjourn, if he had no further communications 
 to make to them, reported that the committee 
 had waited on the President of the United States, 
 and was informed by him that he had no fur- 
 ther communications to make. 
 
 A message was then received from the Senate 
 informing the House that the Senate, having 
 completed the legislative business before them, 
 are ready to adjourn ; whereupon, the House 
 adjourned sine die.
 
 374 
 
 ABKIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 Proceedings. 
 
 [DECEMBER, 1819. 
 
 SIXTEENTH CONGBESS.FIBST SESSION. 
 
 BEGUN AT THE CITY OF WASHINGTON, DECEMBER 6, 1819. 
 
 PKOCEEDINGS IN THE SENATE.* 
 
 MONDAY, December 6, 1819. 
 The first session of the Sixteenth Congress, 
 conformably to the Constitution of the United 
 States, commenced this day at the city of Wash- 
 ington, and the Senate assembled. 
 
 PRESENT. 
 
 DAVID L. MOEEILL and JOHN F. PAEEOTT, 
 from New Hampshire. 
 
 PEENTISS MELLEN and HARBISON GEAY OTIS, 
 from Massachusetts. 
 
 JAMES BUREILL, jr., and WILLIAM HUNTEE, 
 from Ehode Island and Providence Plantations. 
 
 ISAAC TICHENOE and WILLIAM A. PALMEE, 
 from Vermont. 
 
 SAMUEL W. DANA and JAMES LANMAN, from 
 Connecticut. 
 
 NATHAN SANTOS D, from New York. 
 
 MAHLON DICKEESON and JAMES J. WILSON, 
 from New Jersey. 
 
 JONATHAN EGBERTS and WALTEE LOWBIE, 
 from Pennsylvania. 
 
 OUTERBRIDGE HoESEY and NICHOLAS VAN 
 
 DYKE, from Delaware. 
 
 JAMES BARBOUE, from Virginia. 
 
 NATHANIEL MACON, from North Carolina. 
 
 JOHN GAILLAED and WILLIAM SMITH, from 
 South Carolina. 
 
 JOHN ELLIOTT, from Georgia. 
 
 WILLIAM LOGAN, from Kentucky. 
 
 JOHN WILLIAMS and JOHN HENRY EATON, 
 from Tennessee. 
 
 BENJAMIN RUGGLES and WILLIAM A. TEIM- 
 BLE, from Ohio. 
 
 JAMES BEOWN, from Louisiana. 
 
 JAMES NOBLE and WALLEE TAYLOB, from In- 
 diana. 
 
 WALTEE LEAKE and THOMAS H. WILLIAMS, 
 from Mississippi. 
 
 NINIAN EDWAEDS and JESSE B. THOMAS, from 
 Illinois. 
 
 JAMES BAEBOUE, President pro tempore, re- 
 sumed the Chair. 
 
 JAMES LANMAN, appointed a Senator by the 
 Legislature of the State of Connecticut, for the 
 term of six years, commencing on the fourth 
 day of March last; NATHANIEL MACON, ap- 
 pointed a Senator by the Legislature of the 
 State of North Carolina, for the term of six 
 years, commencing on the fourth day of March 
 last ; JOHN HENEY EATON, appointed a Senator 
 by the Legislature of the State of Tennessee, for 
 the term of two years, in place of George W. 
 Campbell, resigned ; JOHN ELLIOTT, appointed 
 a Senator by the Legislature of the State of 
 Georgia, for the term of six years, commencing 
 on the fourth day of March last ; WILLIAM A. 
 TEIMBLE, appointed a Senator by the Legisla- 
 ture of the State of Ohio, for the term of six 
 years, commencing on the fourth day of March 
 last; JAMES BROWN, appointed a Senator by 
 the Legislature of the State of Louisiana, for the 
 term of six years, commencing on the fourth 
 day of March last ; and NINIAN EDWAEDS, ap- 
 
 *LIST OF MEMBERS OF THE SENATE. 
 
 New Hampshire T)&\i& L. Morrill, John F. Parrott 
 Massachusetts. Prentiss Mellen, Harrison Gray Otis. 
 Connecticut. Samuel W. Dana, James Lanman. 
 Vermont. Isaac Tichenor, William A. Palmer. 
 Rhode Island. James Burrill, jr., William Hunter. 
 New York. Nathan 6anford, Kufus King. 
 Pennsylvania. Jonathan Roberts, Walter Lowrie. 
 New Jersey. Mahlon Dickorson, James J. Wilson. 
 Delaware. Outerbridge Horsey, Nicholas Vandyke. 
 Maryland. Edward Lloyd, William Pinkney. 
 
 Virginia. James Barbour, James Pleasants. 
 North Carolina. Nathaniel Macon, Montfort Stokes. 
 South Carolina. John Gaillard, William Smith. 
 Georgia. John Elliott, Freeman Walker. 
 Kentucky. William Logan, Richard M. Johnson. 
 Tennessee. John II. Eaton, John Williams. 
 Ohio. Benjamin Ruggles, William A. Trimble. 
 Louisiana. James Brown, Henry Johnson. 
 Alabama. William Rufus King, John W. Walker. 
 Indiana. James Noble, Waller Taylor. 
 Mississippi. Walter Leake, Thomas II. Williams. 
 Illinois. Ninian Edwards, Jesse B. Thomas.
 
 DEBATES OF CONGKESS. 
 
 375 
 
 DECEMBER, 1819.] 
 
 President's Message. 
 
 [SENATE. 
 
 pointed a Senator by the Legislature of the State 
 of Illinois, for the term of six years, commencing 
 on the fourth day of March last ; respectfully 
 produced their credentials, were qualified, and 
 took their seats in the Senate. 
 
 The oath was also administered to Mr. PAL- 
 MER, Mr. GAILLAED, Mr. PAREOTT, Mr. LOWBIE, 
 and Mr, TAYLOR, their credentials having been 
 filed during the last session. 
 
 WILLIAM LOGAN, appointed a Senator by the 
 Legislature of the State of Kentucky, for the 
 term of six years, commencing on the fourth 
 day of March last, stated that he had neglected 
 bringing his credentials with him, expecting 
 they would be forwarded to the Senate by the 
 proper authority of the State, and which he 
 still supposed would speedily be done ; where- 
 upon the oath prescribed by law was adminis- 
 tered to him, and he took his seat in the Sen- 
 ate. 
 
 A quorum being present, and the House of 
 Representatives being advised thereof, the Sen- 
 ate proceeded to business. 
 
 Alabama, State Government. 
 The PRESIDENT laid before the Senate a copy 
 of the constitution of government formed by 
 the people of the State of Alabama, which was 
 referred to a committee, consisting of Messrs. 
 WILLIAMS of Mississippi, BROWN and MACON, to 
 consider and report thereon. 
 
 Death of Senator Hanson. 
 
 On motion of Mr. SANFORD, 
 
 Itesohed, That the members of the Senate 
 wear the usual mourning for thirty days, as a 
 mark of respect to the memory of the honora- 
 ble ALEXANDER 0. HANSON, a Senator from 
 Maryland, who has deceased since the last ses- 
 sion. 
 
 TUESDAY, December 7. 
 Mr. BTJERILL reported, from the joint com- 
 mittee, that they had waited on the President 
 of the United States, and that the President in- 
 formed the committee that he would make a 
 communication to the two Houses this day. 
 
 President's Message. 
 
 The following Message was received from the 
 PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES : 
 Fellow-citizens of the Senate 
 
 and of the House of Representatives : 
 
 The public buildings being advanced to a stage to 
 afford accommodation for Congress, I offer you my 
 sincere congratulations on the recommencement of 
 your duties in the Capitol. 
 
 In bringing to view the incidents most deserving 
 attention, which have occurred since your last session, 
 I regret to have to state, that several of our principal 
 cities have suffered by sickness; that an unusual 
 drought has prevailed in the Middle and "U'.-.-u-ni 
 States; and that a derangement has been felt in 
 some of our moneyed institutions, which has propor- 
 tionably affected their credit. I am happy, how- 
 
 ever, to have it in my power to assure you that the 
 health of our cities is now completely restored ; that 
 the produce of the year, though less abundant than 
 usual, will not only be amply sufficient for home con- 
 sumptionj but afford a large surplus, for the supply 
 of the wants of other nations ; and that the derange- 
 ment in the circulating paper medium, by being left 
 to those remedies which its obvious causes suggested, 
 and the good sense and virtue of our fellow-citizens 
 supplied, has diminished. 
 
 Having informed Congress, on the 27th of Febru- 
 ary last, that a treaty of amity, settlement, and 
 limits, had been concluded, in this city* between the 
 United States and Spain, and ratified by the compe- 
 tent authorities of the former, full confidence was 
 entertained that it would have been ratified by His 
 Catholic Majesty, with equal promptitude, and a like 
 earnest desire to terminate, on the condition of that 
 treaty, the differences which had so long existed be- 
 tween the two countries. Every view, which the 
 subject admitted of, was thought to have justified 
 this conclusion. Great losses had been sustained by 
 citizens of the United States, from Spanish cruisers, 
 more than twenty years before, which had not been 
 redressed. These losses had been acknowledged and 
 provided for by a treaty, as far back as the year 
 1802, which, although concluded at Madrid, was not 
 then ratified by the Government of Spain, nor since, 
 until the last year, when it was suspended by the late 
 treaty, a more satisfactory provision to both parties, 
 as was presumed, having been made for them. Other 
 differences had arisen, in this long interval, affecting 
 their highest interests, which were likewise provided 
 for by this last treaty. The treaty itself was formed 
 on great consideration, and a thorough knowledge of 
 all circumstances, the subject-matter of every article 
 having been for years under discussion, and repeated 
 references having been made, by the Minister of 
 Spain, to his Government, on the points respecting 
 which the greatest difference of opinion prevailed. 
 It was formed by a Minister duly authorized for the 
 purpose, who had represented his Government in the 
 United States, and been employed, in this long pro- 
 tracted negotiation, several years; and who, it is 
 not denied, kept strictly within the letter of his in- 
 structions. The faith of Spain was therefore pledged, 
 under circumstances of peculiar force and solemnity, 
 for its ratification. 
 
 On the part of the United States, this treaty was 
 evidently acceded to in a spirit of conciliation and 
 concession. The indemnity for injuries and losses, 
 so long before sustained, and now again acknowl- 
 edged and provided for, was to be paid by them, 
 without becoming a charge on the treasury of Spain. 
 For territory ceded by Spam, other territory of great 
 value, to which our claim was believed to be woil 
 founded, was ceded by the United States, and in a 
 quarter more interesting to her. This cession was, 
 nevertheless, received, as the means of indemnifying 
 our citizens, in a considerable sum, the presumed 
 amount of their losses. Other considerations, of 
 great weight, urged the cesSon of this territory by 
 Spain. It was surrounded by the territories of the 
 United States, on every side, except on that of the 
 ocean. Spain had lost her authority over it, and, 
 falling into tho hands of adventurers connected with 
 the savages, it was made the means of unceasing an- 
 noyance and injury in our Union, in many of its 
 most essential interests. By this cession, then, 
 Spain ceded a territory, in reality, of no value to her,
 
 376 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 President's Message. 
 
 [DECEMBER, 1819. 
 
 and obtained concessions of the highest importance, 
 by the settlement of long-standing differences with 
 the United States, affecting their respective claims 
 and limits, and likewise relieved herself from the 
 obligation of a treaty relating to it, which she had 
 failed to fulfil, and also from the responsibility inci- 
 dent to the most flagrant and pernicious abuses of 
 her rights, where she could not support her authority. 
 
 It being known that the treaty was formed under 
 these circumstances, not a doubt was entertained 
 that His Catholic Majesty would have ratified it 
 without delay. I regret to have to state, that this 
 reasonable expectation has been disappointed ; that 
 the treaty was not ratified within the time stipulated, 
 and has not since been ratified. As it is important 
 that the nature and character of this unexpected oc- 
 currence should be distinctly understood, I think it 
 my duty to communicate to you all the facts and cir- 
 cumstances, in my possession, relating to it. 
 
 Anxious to prevent all future disagreement with 
 Spain, by giving the most prompt effect to the treaty, 
 which had been thus concluded, and, particularly, by 
 the establishment of a government in Florida, which 
 should preserve order there, the Minister of the Unit- 
 ed States, who had been recently appointed to His 
 Catholic Majesty, and to whom the ratification, by 
 his Government, had been committed, to be ex- 
 changed for that of Spain, was instructed to transmit 
 the latter to the Department of State, as soon as ob- 
 tained, by a public ship, subjected to his order for 
 the purpose. Unexpected delay occurring in the 
 ratification, by Spain, he requested to be informed of 
 the cause. It was stated, in reply, that the great 
 importance of the subject, and a desire to obtain ex- 
 planations on certain points, which were not speci- 
 fied, had produced the delay, and that an Envoy 
 would be despatched to the United States to ob- 
 tain such explanations of this Government. The 
 Minister of the United States offered to give full ex- 
 planations on any point on which it might be de- 
 sired ; which proposal was declined. Having com- 
 municated this result to the Department of State, in 
 August last, he was instructed, notwithstanding the 
 disappointment and surprise which it produced, to in- 
 form the Government of Spain, that, if the treaty 
 should be ratified, and transmitted here, at any time 
 before the meeting of Congress, it would be received, 
 and have the same effect as if it had been ratified in 
 due time. This order was executed ; the authorized 
 communication was made to the Government of 
 Spain, and by its answer, which has just been re- 
 ceived, we are officially made acquainted, for the 
 first time, with the causes which have prevented the 
 ratification of the treaty, by His Catholic Majesty. 
 It is alleged by the Minister of Spain, that this Gov- 
 ernment had attempted to alter one of the prin- 
 cipal articles of the treaty, by a declaration, which 
 the Minister of the United States had been ordered 
 to present when he should deliver the ratification by 
 his Government, in exchange for that of Spain, and 
 of which he gave notice, explanatory of the sense in 
 which that article was- understood. It is further al- 
 leged that this Government had recently tolerated or 
 protected an expedition from the United States, 
 against the province of Texas. These two imputed 
 acts are stated as the reasons which have induced 
 His Catholic Majesty to withhold his ratification from 
 the treaty, to obtain explanations, respecting which, 
 it is repeated, that an Envoy would be forthwith 
 despatched to the United States. How far these al- 
 
 the conduct of the Government 
 Spain, will appear, on a view of the following 
 facts, and the evidence which supports them. 
 
 It will be seen, by the documents transmitted here- 
 with, that the declaration mentioned relates to a 
 clause in the eighth article, concerning certain grants 
 of land, recently made by His Catholic Majesty in 
 Florida, which, it was understood, had conveyed all 
 the lands, which, till then, had been ungranted. It 
 was the intention of the parties to annul these latter 
 grants, and that clause was drawn for that express 
 purpose, and for none other. The date of these 
 grants was unknown, but it was understood to be 
 posterior to that inserted in the article. Indeed, it 
 must be obvious to all, that, if that provision in the 
 treaty had not the effect of annulling these grants, 
 it would be altogether nugatory. Immediately after 
 the treaty was concluded and ratified by this Gov- 
 ernment, an intimation was received that these grants 
 were of anterior date to that fixed on by the treaty, 
 and that they would not, of course, be affected by it. 
 The mere possibility of such a case, so inconsistent 
 with the intention of the parties, and the meaning of 
 the article, induced this Government to demand an 
 explanation on the subject, which was immediately 
 granted, and whicfi corresponds with this statement. 
 With respect to the other act alleged, that this Gov- 
 ernment had tolerated or protected an expedition 
 against Texas, it is utterly without foundation. 
 Every discountenance has invariably been given to 
 any such attempt from within the limits of the 
 United States, as is fully evinced by the acts of the 
 Government, and the proceedings of the courts. 
 There being cause, however, to apprehend, in the 
 course of the last Summer, that some adventurers 
 entertained views of the kind suggested, the atten- 
 tion of the constituted authorities in that quarter was 
 immediately drawn to them, and it is known that 
 the project, whatever it might be, has utterly failed. 
 
 These facts will, it is presumed, satisfy every im- 
 partial mind that the Government of Spain had no 
 justifiable cause for declining to ratify the treaty. 
 A treaty concluded in conformity with instructions, is 
 obligatory, in good faith, in all its stipulations, ac- 
 cording to the true intent and meaning of the par- 
 ties. Each party is bound to ratify it. If either 
 could set it aside, without the consent of the other, 
 there would be no longer any rules applicable to 
 such transactions between nations. By this proceed- 
 ing, the Government of Spain has rendered to the 
 United States a new and very serious injury. It has 
 been stated that a Minister would be sent, to ask 
 certain explanations of this Government. But if 
 such were desired, why were they not asked within 
 the time limited for the ratification ? Is it contem- 
 plated to open a new negotiation respecting any of 
 the articles or conditions of the treaty? If that 
 were done, to what consequences might it not lead ? 
 At what time, and in what manner, would a new ne- 
 gotiation terminate ? By this proceeding, Spain has 
 formed a relation between the two countries which 
 will justify any measures on the part of the United 
 States, which a strong sense of injury, and a proper 
 regard for the rights and interests of the nation may 
 dictate. In the course to be pursued, these objects 
 should be constantly held in view, and have their 
 due weight. Our national honor must be main- 
 tained, and a new and a distinguished proof be af- 
 forded of that regard for justice and moderation which 
 has invariably governed the councils of this free peo-
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 377 
 
 DECEMBER, 1819.] 
 
 President's Message. 
 
 [SENATE. 
 
 pie. It must be obvious to all, that, if the United 
 States had been desirous of making conquests, or had 
 been even willing to aggrandize themselves in that 
 way, they could have had no inducement to form 
 this treaty. They would have much cause for grat- 
 ulatioii at the course which has been pursued by 
 Spain. An ample field for ambition is opened be- 
 fore them. But such a career is not consistent with 
 the principles of their Government, nor the interests 
 of the nation. 
 
 From a full view of all circumstances, it is sub- 
 mitted to the consideration of Congress, whether it 
 will not be proper for the United States to carry the 
 conditions of the treaty into effect, in the same manner 
 as if it had been ratified by Spain ; claiming, on 
 their part, all its advantages, and yielding to Spain 
 those secured to her. By pursuing this course we 
 shall rest on the sacred ground of right, sanctioned, 
 in the most solemn manner, by Spain herself, by a 
 treaty which ghe was bound to ratify, for refusing 
 to do which she must incur the censure of other na- 
 tions, even those most friendly to her; while, by 
 confining ourselves within that limit, we cannot fail 
 to obtain then: well merited-approbation. We must 
 have peace on a frontier where we have been so long 
 disturbed ; our citizens must be indemnified for losses 
 so long since sustained, and from which indemnity 
 has been so unjustly withheld from them. Accom- 
 plishing these great objects, we obtain all that is de- 
 sirable. 
 
 But His Catholic Majesty has twice declared his 
 determination to send a Minister to the United 
 States to ask explanations on certain points, and to 
 give them respecting his delay to ratify the treaty. 
 Shall we act, by taking the ceded territory, and pro- 
 ceeding to execute the other conditions of the treaty, 
 before this Minister arrives and is heard ? This is a 
 case which forms a strong appeal to the candor, the 
 magnanimity, and the honor of this people. Much 
 is due to courtesy between nations. By a short de- 
 lay we shall lose nothing ; for, resting on the ground 
 of immutable truth and justice, we cannot be diverted 
 from our purpose. It ought to be presumed that the 
 explanations which may he given to the Minister of 
 Spain will be satisfactory, and produce the desired 
 result. In any event, tiie delay, for the purpose 
 mentioned, being a further manifestation of the sin- 
 cere desire to terminate in the most friendly man- 
 ner all differences with Spam, cannot fail to be 
 duly appreciated by His Catholic Majesty, as well as 
 by other powers. It is submitted, therefore, whether 
 it will not be proper to make the law proposed for 
 carrying the conditions of the treaty into effect, 
 should it be adopted, contingent ; to suspend its ope- 
 ration upon the responsibility of the Executive, hi 
 such manner as to afford an opportunity for such 
 friendly explanations as may be desired during the 
 present session of Congress. 
 
 I communicate to Congress a copy of the treaty, 
 and of the instructions" to the Minister of the United 
 States at Madrid respecting it ; of his correspondence 
 with the Minister of Spain, and of such other docu- 
 ments as may be necessary to give a full view of the 
 subject. 
 
 In the course which the Spanish Government have, 
 on this occasion, thought proper to pursue, it is satis- 
 factory to know that they have not been counte- 
 nanced by any other European power. On the con- 
 trary, the opinion and wishes, both of France and 
 Great Britain, have not been withheld, either from 
 
 the United States or from Spain ; and have been un- 
 equivocal in favor of the ratification. There is also 
 reason to believe that the sentiments of the imperial 
 Government of Russia have been the same, and that 
 they have also been made known to the Cabinet of 
 Madrid. 
 
 In the civil war existing between Spain and the 
 Spanish provinces in this hemisphere, the greatest 
 care has been taken to enforce the laws intended to 
 preserve an impartial neutrality. Our ports have 
 continued to be equally open to both parties, and on 
 the same conditions ; and our citizens have been 
 equally restrained from interfering in favor of either 
 to the prejudice of the other. The progress of the 
 war, however, has operated manifestly in favor of 
 the colonies. Buenos Ayres still maintains un- 
 shaken the independence which it declared in 1816, 
 and has enjoyed since 1810. Like success has also 
 lately attended Chili, and the provinces north of the 
 La Plata, bordering on it, and likewise Venezuela. 
 
 This contest has, from its commencement, been 
 very interesting to other powers, and to none more 
 so than to the United States. A virtuous people 
 may, and will, confine themselves within the limit 
 of strict neutrality ; but it is not in their power to 
 behold a conflict so vitally important to their neigh- 
 bors, without the sensibility and sympathy which 
 naturally belong to such a case. It has been the 
 steady purpose of this Government to prevent that 
 feeling leading to excess, and it is very gratifying to 
 have it in my power to state that, so strong has been 
 the sense throughout the whole community, of what 
 was due to the character and obligations of the na- 
 tion, that very few examples of a contrary kind have 
 occurred. 
 
 The distance of the colonies from the parent coun- 
 try, and the great extent of their population and re- 
 sources, gave them advantages which it was antici- 
 pated at a very early period it would he difficult for 
 Spam to surmount. The steadiness, consistency, and 
 success, with which they have pursued their object, 
 as evinced more particularly by the undisturbed sov- 
 ereignty which Buenos Ayres has so long enjoyed, 
 evidently give them a strong claim to the favorable 
 consideration of other nations. These sentiments, on 
 the part of the United States, have not been with- 
 held from other powers, with whom it is desirable to 
 act in concert. Should it become manifest to the 
 world that the efforts of Spam to subdue these prov- 
 inces will be fruitless, it may be presumed that the 
 Spanish Government itself will give up the contest. 
 In producing such a determination, it cannot be 
 doubted that the opinion of friendly powers, who 
 have taken no part in the controversy, will have 
 their merited influence. 
 
 It is of the highest importance to our national 
 character, and indispensable to the morality of our 
 citizens, that all violations of our neutrality should 
 be prevented. No door should be left open for the 
 evasion of our laws ; no op'portunity afforded to any 
 who may be disposed to take advantage of it, to com- 
 promit the interest or the honor of the nation. It is 
 submitted, therefore, to the consideration of Congress, 
 whether it may^not be advisable to revise the laws ; 
 with a view to this desirable result. 
 
 It is submitted, also, whether it may not be proper 
 to designate, by law, the several ports or places along 
 the coast, at which, only, foreign ships of war and 
 privateers may be admitted. The difficulty of sus- 
 taining the regulations of our commerce, and of
 
 378 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 President's Message. 
 
 [DECEMBER, 1819. 
 
 other important interests from abuse, without such 
 designation, furnishes a strong motive for this 
 measure. 
 
 At the time of the negotiation for the renewal 
 of the commercial convention between the United 
 States and Great Britain, a hope had been entertain- 
 ed that un article might have been agreed upon, mu- 
 tually satisfactory to both countries, regulating, upon 
 principles of justice and reciprocity, the commercial 
 intercourse between the United States and the British 
 possessions, as well in the West Indies, as upon 
 the continent of North America. The Plenipotenti- 
 aries of the two Governments not having been able 
 to come to an agreement on this important interest, 
 those of the United States reserved for the considera- 
 tion of this Government the proposals which had been 
 presented to them, as the ultimate offer on the part 
 of the British Government, and which they were not 
 authorized to accept. On their transmission here, 
 they were examined with due deliberation, the result 
 of which was a new effort to meet the views of the 
 British Government. The Minister 'of the United 
 States was instructed to make a further proposal, 
 which has not been accepted. It was, however, de- 
 clined in an amicable manner. I recommend to 
 the consideration of Congress, whether further pro- 
 hibitory provisions in the laws relating to this inter- 
 course may not be expedient. It is seen, with in- 
 terest, that, although it has not been practicable, as 
 yet, to agree in any arrangement of this important 
 branch of their commerce, such is the disposition of 
 the parties, that each will view any regulations which 
 the other may make respecting it, in the most friend- 
 ly light. 
 
 By the 5th article of the convention, concluded on 
 the 20th of October, 1818, it was stipulated that the 
 difference which has arisen between the two Govern- 
 ments, with regard to the true intent and meaning of 
 the 5th article of the Treaty of Ghent, in relation to 
 the carrying away, by British officers, of slaves from 
 the United States, after the exchange of the ratifica- 
 tions of the Treaty of Peace, should be referred to 
 the decision of some friendly Sovereign or State, to 
 be named for that purpose. The Minister of the 
 United States has been instructed to name to the 
 British Government a foreign Sovereign, the com- 
 mon friend to both parties, for the decision of this 
 question. The answer of that Government to the 
 proposal, when received, will indicate the further 
 measures to be pursued on the part of the United 
 States. 
 
 Although the pecuniary embarrassments which 
 affected various parts of the Union, during the latter 
 part of the preceding year, have, during the present, 
 been considerably augmented, and still continue to 
 exist, the receipts into the Treasury, to the 30th of 
 September last, have amounted to $19,000,000. 
 After defraying the current expenses of the Govern- 
 ment, including the interest and reimbursement of 
 the public debt, payable to that period, amounting to 
 $18,200,000, there remained to the Treasury, on 
 that day, more than $2,500,000, which, with the 
 sums receivable during the remainder of the year, 
 will exceed the current demands upon the Treasury 
 for the same period. 
 
 The causes which have tended to diminish the pub- 
 lic receipts, could not fail to have a corresponding 
 effect upon the revenue which has accrued upon im- 
 posts and tonnage during the three first quarters of 
 the present year ; it is, however, ascertained that the 
 
 duties, which have been secured during that period, 
 exceed $18,000,000. and those of the whole year will 
 probably amount to' $23,000,000. 
 
 For the probable receipts of the next year, I refer 
 you to the statements which will be transmitted from 
 the Treasury, which will enable you to judge whether 
 further provision be necessary. 
 
 The great reduction in the price of the principal 
 articles of domestic growth, which has occurred dur- 
 ing the present year, and the consequent fall in the 
 price of labor, apparently so favorable to the success 
 of domestic manufactures, have not shielded them 
 against other causes adverse to their prosperity. 
 The pecuniary embarrassments which have so deeply 
 affected the commercial interests of the nation, have 
 been no less adverse to our manufacturing establish- 
 ments in several sections of the Unioa The great 
 reduction of the currency, which the banks have 
 been constrained to make, in order to continue 
 specie payments, and the vitiated character of it 
 where such reductions have not been attempted, in- 
 stead of placing within the reach of these establish- 
 ments the pecuniary aid necessary to avail them- 
 selves of the advantages resulting from the reduction 
 in the prices of the raw materials, and of labor, have 
 compelled the banks to withdraw from them a por- 
 tion of the capital 'heretofore advanced to them. 
 That aid, which has been refused by the banks, has 
 not been obtained from other sources, owing to the 
 loss of individual confidence, from the frequent fail- 
 ures which have recently occurred in some of our 
 principal commercial cities. 
 
 An additional cause for the depression of these 
 establishments may probably be found in the pecu- 
 niary embarrassments which have recently affected 
 those countries with which our commerce has been 
 principally prosecuted. 
 
 Their manufactures, for the want of a ready or 
 profitable market at home, have been shipped by 
 the manufacturers to the United States, and, in 
 many instances, sold at a price below their current 
 value at the place of manufacture. Although this 
 practice may, from its nature, be considered tempo- 
 rary or contingent, it is not on that account less in- 
 jurious in its effects. Uniformity in the demand and 
 price of an article is highly desirable to the domestic 
 manufacturer. 
 
 It is deemed of great importane to give encourage- 
 ment to our domestic manufactures. In what man- 
 ner the evils which have been adverted to may be 
 remedied, and how far it may be practicable, in other 
 respects, to afford to them further encouragement, 
 paying due regard to the other great interests of the 
 nation, is submitted to the wisdom of Congress. 
 
 The survey of the coast, for the establishment of 
 fortifications, is now nearly completed, and consider- 
 able progress has been made in the collection of 
 materials for the construction of fortifications in the 
 Gulf of Mexico and in the Chesapeake Bay. The 
 works on the Eastern bank of the Potomac, below 
 Alexandria, and on the Pea Patch in the Delaware, are 
 much advanced, and it is expected that the fortifica- 
 tions at the Narrows, in the harbor of New York, 
 will be completed the present year. To derive all 
 the advantages contemplated from these fortifica- 
 tions, it was necessary that they should be judicious- 
 ly posted, and constructed with a view to permanence. 
 The progress, hitherto, has therefore been slow ; but, 
 as the difficulties, in parts heretofore the least ex- 
 plored and known, are surmounted, it will in future
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 379 
 
 DECEMBER, 1819.] 
 
 Sierra Leone Colony. 
 
 [SENATE. 
 
 be more rapid. As soon as the survey of the coast is 
 completed, which it is expected will he done early in 
 the next Spring, the engineers employed in it will 
 proceed to examine, for like purposes, the northern 
 and north-western frontiers. 
 
 The troops, intended to occupy a station at the 
 mouth of the St. Peter's, on the Mississippi, have es- 
 tahlished themselves there, and those who were 
 ordered to the mouth of the Yellow Stone, on the 
 Missouri, have ascended that river to the Council 
 Bluff, where they will remain until the next Spring, 
 when they will proceed to the place of their destina- 
 tion. I have the satisfaction to state, that this 
 measure has been executed in amity with the In- 
 dian tribes, and that it promises to produce, in regard 
 to them, all the advantages which are contemplated 
 by it 
 
 Much progress has likewise been made hi the con- 
 struction of ships-of-war, and in the collection of 
 timber and other materials for ship-building. It is 
 not doubted that our Navy will soon be augmented 
 to the number, and placed, in all respects, on the 
 footing provided for by law. 
 
 The board, consisting of engineers and naval offi- 
 cers, have not yet made their final report of sites for 
 two naval depots, as instructed, according to the reso- 
 lutions of March 18th, and April 20th, 1818, but 
 they have examined the coast therein designated, 
 and their report is expected in the next month. 
 
 For the protection of our commerce in the Medi- 
 terranean ; along the Southern Atlantic coast ; in 
 the Pacific and Indian Oceans ; it has been found 
 necessary to maintain a strong naval force, which it 
 seems proper for the present to continue. There is 
 much reason to believe that, if any portion of the 
 squadron heretofore stationed in the Mediterranean 
 should be withdrawn, our intercourse with the pow- 
 ers bordering on that sea would be much interrupted, 
 if not altogether destroyed. Such, too, has been the 
 growth of a spirit of piracy, in the other quarters 
 mentioned, by adventurers from every country, in 
 abuse of the friendly flags which they have assumed, 
 that, not to protect our commerce there, would be 
 to abandon it as a prey to then? rapacity.* Due at- 
 tention has likewise been paid to the suppression of 
 the slave trade, in compliance with a law of the last 
 session. Orders have been given to the commanders 
 of all our public ships to seize all vessels navigated 
 under our flag, engaged in that trade, and to bring 
 them in, to be proceeded against, in the manner pre- 
 scribed by that law. It is hoped that these vigor- 
 ous measures, supported by like acts by other na- 
 tions, will soon terminate a commerce so disgraceful 
 to the civilized world. 
 
 In the execution of the duty imposed by these acts, 
 and of a high trust connected with it, it is with deep 
 regret I have to state the loss which has been sus- 
 
 * In the early administrations, ships of war were not sent 
 out to protect commerce, except against powers and depre- 
 dators not amenable to the laws of nations each as the 
 Barbary Powers and pirates: and when so sent, tho fact 
 was always communicated to Congress, and the reason for 
 it given. The idea of sending out squadrons without a 
 specific object without a known danger to avert was then 
 unknown. They were sent out to attend to a known, or 
 apprehended danger, from lawless depredators, and nothing 
 else. The civil Government at home reserved to itself the 
 settlement of injuries to commerce from the civilized 
 nations. 
 
 tamed by the death of Commodore Perry. His gal- 
 lantry, in a brilliant exploit, in the late war, added 
 to the renown of his country. His death is deplored 
 as a national misfortuue. 
 
 JAMES MONROE. 
 WASHINGTON, December 7, 1819. 
 
 The Message and accompanying documents 
 were read, and three thousand copies thereof 
 ordered to be printed for the use of the 
 Senate. 
 
 MONDAY, December 13. 
 Mr. BBOWN presented the memorial of William 
 Thornton, Superintendent of the Patent Office, 
 praying an increase of his present compensa- 
 tion ; and the memorial was read, and referred 
 to a select committee to consider and report 
 thereon, by bill or otherwise. And Mr. BBOWN, 
 Mr. KOBEBTS, and Mr. MACON, were appointed 
 the committee. 
 
 TUESDAY, December l<i> 
 
 JAMES PLEASANTS, appointed a Senator by 
 the Legislature of the State of Virginia, to sup- 
 ply the vacancy occasioned by the resignation 
 of JOHN W. EPPES, produced his credentials, 
 was qualified, and took his seat in the Senate. 
 
 JOHN W. WALKEE, appointed a Senator by 
 the Legislature of the State of Alabama, pro- 
 duced his credentials, was qualified, and took 
 his seat in the Senate. 
 
 WEDNESDAY, December 15. 
 
 MONTFOED STOKES, from the State of North 
 Carolina, arrived the 14th instant, and attended 
 this day. 
 
 FEEEMAN WALKEE, appointed a Senator by 
 the Legislature of the State of Georgia, to sup- 
 ply the vacancy occasioned by the resignation 
 of John Forsyth, produced his credentials, was 
 qualified, and took his seat in the Senate. 
 
 MONDAY, December 20. 
 Sierra Leone Colony. 
 
 The following Message was also received from 
 the PEESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES : 
 
 To the Senate and House of 
 
 Representatives of the United States: 
 
 Some doubt being entertained respecting the true 
 intent and meaning of the act of the last session, 
 entitled " An act -in addition to the acts prohibiting 
 the slave trade," as to the duties of the agents to be 
 appointed on the coast of Africa, I think it proper to 
 state the interpretation which has been given of the 
 act, and the measures adopted to carry it into effect, 
 that Congress may, should it be deemed advisable, 
 amend the same, before further proceeding is had 
 under it. 
 
 The obligation to instruct the commanders of all 
 our armed vessels to seize and bring into port all 
 ships or vessels of the United States, wheresoever 
 found, having on board any negro, mulatto, or person 
 of color, in violation of former acts for the suppression
 
 380 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 Proceedings. 
 
 [DECEMBER, 1819. 
 
 of the slave trade, being imperative, was executed 
 without delay. No seizures have yet been made, 
 but, as they were contemplated by the law, and 
 might be presumed, it seemed proper to make the 
 necessary regulations, applicable to such seizures, 
 for carrying the several provisions of the act into 
 effect. 
 
 It is enjoined on the Executive to cause all ne- 
 groes, mulattoes, or persons of color, who may he 
 taken under the act, to be removed to Africa. It is 
 the obvious import of the law, that none of the per- 
 sons thus taken, should remain within the United 
 States ; and no place, other than the coast of Africa, 
 being designated, their removal or delivery, whether 
 carried from the United States, or landed immediately 
 from the vessels in which they were taken, was sup- 
 posed to be confined to that coast. No settlement or 
 station being specified, the whole coast was thought 
 to be left open for the selection of a proper place at 
 which the persons thus taken should be delivered. 
 The Executive is authorized to appoint one or more 
 agents, residing there, to receive such persons ; and 
 one hundred thousand dollars are appropriated for 
 the general purposes of the law. 
 
 On due consideration of the several sections of the 
 act, and of its humane policy, it was supposed to be 
 the intention of Congress that all the persons above 
 described, who might be taken under it and landed in 
 Africa, should be aided in their return to their former 
 homes, or in their establishment at or near the place 
 where landed. Some shelter and food would be ne- 
 cessary for them there, as soon as landed, let their 
 subsequent disposition be what it might. Should 
 they be landed without such provision having been 
 previously made, they might perish. It was suppos- 
 ed, by the authority given to the Executive to ap- 
 point agents residing on that coast, that they should 
 provide such shelter and food, and perform the other 
 beneficent and charitable offices contemplated by the 
 act. The coast of Africa having been little explored, 
 and no persons residing there who possessed the re- 
 quisite qualifications to entitle them to the trust, be- 
 ing known to the Executive, to none such could it 
 be committed. It was believed that citizens only, 
 who would go hence well instructed in the views of 
 their Government, and zealous to give them effect, 
 would be competent to these duties, and that it was 
 not the intention of the law to preclude their appoint- 
 ment. It was obvious that the longer these persons 
 should be detained in the United States, in the hands 
 of the marshal, the greater would be the expense, 
 and that for the same term would the main purpose 
 of the law be suspended. It seemed, therefore, to be 
 incumbent on me to make the necessary arrange- 
 ments for carrying this act into effect in Africa, in 
 tune to meet the delivery of any persons who might 
 be taken by the public vessels and landed there un- 
 der it. 
 
 On this view of the policy and sanctions of the 
 law, it has been decided to send a public ship to the 
 coast of Africa, with two such agents, who will take 
 with them tools, and other implements, necessary for 
 the purposes above mentioned. To each of these 
 agents a small salary has been allowed fifteen 
 hundred dollars to the principal, and twelve hundred 
 to the other. All our public agents on the coast of 
 Africa receive salaries for their services, and it was 
 understood that none of our citizens, possessing the 
 requisite qualifications, would accept these trusts, 
 by which they would be confined to parts the least 
 
 frequented and civilized, without a reasonable com- 
 pensation. Such allowance, therefore, seemed to be 
 indispensable to the execution of the act. It is in- 
 tended, also, to subject a portion of the sum appro- 
 priated, to the order of the principal agent, for the 
 special objects above stated, amounting in the whole, 
 including the salaries of the agents for one year, to 
 rather less than one-third of the appropriation. Spe- 
 cial instructions will be given to these agents, defin- 
 ing, in precise terms, their duties in regard to the 
 persons thus delivered to them ; the disbursement of 
 the money by the principal agent ; and his accounta- 
 bility for the same. They will also have power to 
 select the most suitable place, on the coast of Africa, 
 at which all persons who may be taken under this 
 act shall be delivered to them, with an express in- 
 junction to exercise no power founded on the princi- 
 ple of colonization, or other power than that of per- 
 forming the benevolent offices above recited, by the 
 permission and sanction of the existing Government 
 under which they may establish themselves. Orders 
 will be given to the commander of the public ship hi 
 which they will sail, to cruise along the coast, to 
 give the more complete effect to the principal object 
 of this act. 
 
 JAMES MONROE. 
 DECEMBER, 17, 1819. 
 
 The* Message was read. 
 
 
 WEDNESDAY, December 22. 
 
 WILLIAM E. KING, appointed a Senator by 
 the Legislature of the State of Alabama, pro- 
 duced his credentials, was qualified, and took 
 his seat in the Senate. 
 
 On motion, by Mr. WILLIAMS, of Mississippi, 
 
 Resolved, That the Senate proceed to ascer- 
 tain the classes in which the Senators of the 
 State of Alabama shall be inserted, in con- 
 formity to the resolution of the 14th of May, 
 1789, and as the constitution requires. 
 
 That the Secretary put into the ballot-box 
 three papers, of equal size, numbered 1, 2, 3 ; 
 each Senator shall draw out one paper; the 
 Senator who shall draw No. 1, shall be inserted 
 in the class of Senators whose term of service 
 will expire on the 3d of March, 1821 ; the 
 Senator who shall draw No. 2, shall be inserted 
 in the class of Senators whose term of service 
 expires on the 3d of March, 1823 ; and the 
 Senator who shall draw No. 3, shall be inserted 
 in the class of Senators whose term of service 
 expires on the 3d of March, 1825. 
 
 Whereupon, the numbers above mentioned 
 were, by the Secretary, rolled up and put into 
 the box ; when Mr. KING drew No. 2, and is 
 accordingly of the class of Senators whose 
 terms of service will expire on the 3d of March, 
 1823; and Mr. WALKER drew No. 3, and is 
 accordingly of the class of Senators whose 
 terms of service will expire on the 3d of 
 March, 1825. 
 
 MONDAY, December 27. 
 DANIEL D. TOMPKINS, Vice President of the 
 United States, and President of the Senate, at- 
 tended and took the Chair.
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 381 
 
 JANUAKY, 1820.] 
 
 State of Maine. 
 
 [SENATE. 
 
 EDWARD LLOYD, appointed a Senator by the 
 Legislature of the State of Maryland, to con- 
 tinue as such to the third day of March, 1825, 
 produced his credentials, was qualified, and 
 took his seat. 
 
 HENRY JOHNSON, from the State of Louisiana, 
 attended this day. 
 
 WEDNESDAY, December 29. 
 Missouri Territory. 
 
 Mr. SMITH presented the memorial of the 
 Legislative Council and House of Representa- 
 tives of the Missouri Territory, praying to be 
 admitted into the Union, as a separate and in- 
 dependent State ; and the memorial was read, 
 and referred to the Committee on the Judi- 
 ciary. 
 
 The memorial is as follows : 
 
 To the honorable the Senate and House of Represent- 
 atives of the United States of America in Congress 
 assembled : The memorial of the Legislative Coun- 
 cil and House of Representatives of the Territory 
 of Missouri, in the name and behalf of the people 
 of said Territory, respectfully showeth : 
 That their Territory contains at present a popula- 
 tion little short of one hundred thousand souls, which 
 is daily increasing with a rapidity almost unexam- 
 pled ; that their territorial limits are too extensive to 
 admit of a convenient, proper, and equal administra- 
 tion of Government; and that the present interest 
 and accommodation, as well as the future growth 
 and prosperity of their country, will be greatly pro- 
 moted by the following division, which your memo- 
 rialists propose, to the end that the people may be 
 authorized by law to form a constitution and estab- 
 lish a State government within the following limits : 
 Beginning at a point in the middle of the main 
 channel of the Mississippi River, at the thirty-sixth 
 degree of North latitude, and running thence in a 
 direct line to the month of the Big Black River, (a 
 branch of White River ;) thence up the main branch 
 of White River, in the middle of the main channel 
 thereof, to where the parallel of thirty-six degrees 
 thirty minutes North latitude crosses the same; 
 thence, with that parallel of latitude, due West, to a 
 point from which a due North line will cross the 
 Missouri River at the mouth of Wolf River ; thence 
 . due North to a point due West of the mouth of Rock 
 River ; thence due East to the middle of the main 
 channel of the River Mississippi, opposite the mouth 
 of Rock River ; and thence down the River Missis- 
 sippi, in the middle of the main channel thereofj to 
 
 These are limits to which, to a superficial observer, 
 glancing over the chart of our country, would seem 
 a little unreasonable and extravagant, but which a 
 slight attention to its geography (or more properly 
 to its topography) will be sufficient to satisfy your 
 honorable body are not only proper, but necessary. 
 The districts of country that are fertile and suscepti- 
 ble of settlement are small, and are detached and 
 separated from each other at great distances, by im- 
 mense plains and barren tracts, which must for ages 
 remain waste and uninhabited. These distant fron- 
 tier settlements, thus insulated, must ever be weak 
 and powerless in themselves, and can only become 
 important and respectable by being united ; and one 
 
 of the great objects your memorialists have in view 
 is the formation of an effectual barrier for the future 
 against Indian incursions, by pushing forward and 
 fostering a strong settlement on the little River Platte 
 to the West, and on the Des Moines to the North. 
 
 DAVID BARTON, 
 Speaker of the House' of Representatives. 
 
 BENJAMIN EMMONS, 
 President of the Legislative Council. 
 ST. Louis, November 21, 1818. 
 The foregoing is a true copy of the original. 
 
 D. BARTON, Speaker. 
 
 MONDAY, January 3, 1820. 
 
 EICHAED M. JOHNSON, appointed a Senator 
 by the Legislature of the State of Kentucky, to 
 supply the vacancy occasioned by the resigna- 
 tion of John J. Crittenden, produced his cre- 
 dentials, was qualified, and took his seat in 
 the Senate. 
 
 State of Maine. 
 
 The Senate resumed the consideration of the 
 bill declaring the consent of Congress to the ad- 
 mission of the State of Maine into the Union. 
 
 Mr. BARBOTTR observed that this bill involved 
 considerations of great moment; that it em- 
 braced provisions on which there were conflict- 
 ing opinions, though no objection whatever was 
 entertained to the main object of the bill, of 
 which indeed he was warmly in favor. For this 
 and other reasons, which Mr. B. afterwards 
 submitted at large, he wished the bill to go back 
 to the committee, in hopes that they might so 
 shape it as to obviate the difficulties alluded to, 
 and unite the voice of the Senate in its favor. 
 Mr. B. concluded his remarks by moving that 
 the further consideration of the bill be post- 
 poned to Wednesday ; when, if his present mo- 
 tion succeeded, he should offer the following 
 motion : 
 
 " That the bill entitled a bill declaring the consent 
 of Congress to the admission of the State of Maine 
 into the Union, be committed to the Committee on 
 the Judiciary, with instructions so to amend it as to 
 authorize the people of Missouri to establish a State 
 government, and to admit such State into the Union 
 upon an equal footing with the original States in all 
 respects whatever." 
 
 The motion to postpone was opposed at con- 
 siderable length by Messrs. MELLEN, OTIS, and 
 BURRILL, successively, on the ground of the im- 
 propriety of delaying the bill, and also as taken 
 in connection with a motion of which Mr. B AR- 
 BOUR had given notice. The inexpediency of 
 coupling the two subjects together in one bill ; 
 and, incidentally, the question connected with 
 the Missouri bill of certain restrictions, &c., en- 
 tered into the debate. 
 
 The motion strictly before the Senate being 
 simply to postpone the consideration of the bill 
 to Wednesday, it was assented to generally by 
 those gentlemen who had opposed the object of 
 the postponement, and was agreed to without 
 a division.
 
 382 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 Maine and Mumtri. 
 
 1820. 
 
 TUESDAY, January 4. 
 
 WILLIAM PIXKNEY, appointed a Senator by the 
 Legislature of the State of Maryland, in place of 
 Alexander C. Ifanson, deceased, produced his 
 credentials, was qualified, and took his seat in 
 the Senate. 
 
 WEDNESDAY, January 5. 
 
 Pennsylvania Resolutions against Slavery in 
 New States. 
 
 Mr. EOBEETS offered the following proceed- 
 ings of the Legislature of Pennsylvania, which 
 were received, and read: 
 
 Resolutions relative to preventing the introduction of 
 slavery into new States. 
 
 The Senate and House of Representatives of the 
 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, whilst they cherish 
 the right of the individual States to express their opin- 
 ions upon all public measures proposed in the Con- 
 gress of the Union, are aware that its usefulness must 
 in a great degree depend upon the discretion with 
 which it is exercised. They believe that the right 
 ought not to be resorted to upon trivial subjects or 
 unimportant occasions, but they are also persuaded 
 that there are moments when the neglect to exercise 
 it would be a dereliction of public duty. 
 
 Such an occasion as in their judgment demands the 
 frank expression of the sentiments of Pennsylvania is 
 now presented. A measure was ardently supported 
 in the last Congress of the United States, and will 
 probably be as earnestly urged during the existing 
 session of that body, which has a palpable tendency 
 to impair the political relations of the several States ; 
 which is calculated to mar the social happiness of the 
 present and future generations ; which, if adopted, 
 would impede the march of humanity and freedom 
 through the world, and would affix and perpetuate an 
 odious stain upon the present race a measure, in 
 brief, which proposes to spread the crimes and cruel- 
 ties of slavery from the banks of the Mississippi to the 
 shores of the Pacific. 
 
 When measures of this character are seriously ad- 
 vocated in the republican Congress of America, in the 
 nineteenth century, the several States are invoked by 
 the duty which they owe, to the Deity, by the venera- 
 tion which they entertain for the memory of the 
 founders of the Republic, and by a tender regard for 
 posterity, to protest against its adoption, to refuse to 
 covenant with crime, and to limit the range of an evil 
 that already hangs in awful boding over so large a 
 portion of the Union. 
 
 Nor can such a protest be entered by any State 
 with greater propriety than by Pennsylvania. This 
 Commonwealth has as sacredly respected the rights of 
 other States as it has been careful of its own. It has 
 been the invariable aim of the people of Pennsylvania 
 to extend to the universe, by their example, the un- 
 adulterated blessings of civil and religious freedom. 
 It is their pride, that they have been at all times the 
 practical advocates of those improvements and chari- 
 ties amongst men which are so well calculated to en- 
 able them to answer the purposes of their Creator ; 
 and, above all, they may boast that they were fore- 
 most in removing the pollution of slavery from 
 amongst them. 
 
 Under these convictions, and in full persuasion that 
 upon this topic there is but one opinion in Pennsyl- 
 vania 
 
 Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives 
 of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, That the Sen- 
 ators and Representatives of this State in the Con- 
 gress of the United States be, and they are hereby, 
 requested to vote against the admission of any terri- 
 tory as a State in the Union, unless " the further in- 
 troduction of slavery or involuntary servitude, except 
 For the punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall 
 bave been duly convicted, shall be prohibited ; and 
 all children born within the said territory, after 
 the admission into the Union as a State, shall be free, 
 but may be held to service until the age of twenty- 
 five years." 
 
 Resolved, That the Governor be, and he is hereby, 
 requested to cause a copy of the foregoing preamble 
 and resolution to be transmitted to each of the Sen- 
 ators and Representatives of the State in the Congress 
 of the United States. 
 
 JOSEPH LAWRENCE, 
 Speaker of the House of Representatives. 
 ISAAC WEAVER, 
 
 Speaker of tlie Senate. 
 
 APPROVED The 22d day of December, 1819. 
 WILLIAM FINDLAY. 
 
 THTJBSDAY, January 13. 
 Maine and Missouri. 
 
 The Senate having taken up the bill from the 
 House of Representatives, for the admission of 
 the State of Maine into the Union, on an equal 
 footing with the original States, together with 
 the amendment reported thereto by the Judi- 
 ciary Committee, which amendment embraces 
 provisions for authorizing the people of the 
 Territory of Missouri to form a convention, 
 &c., preparatory to their admission into the 
 Union 
 
 Mr. ROBERTS, of Pennsylvania, rose and said 
 he felt it to be his duty to try the merits of 
 these two subjects by a preliminary motion to 
 this effect : 
 
 " That the bill for the admission of the State of 
 Maine into the Union, and the amendment thereto 
 reported, be recommitted to the Judiciary Commit- 
 tee, with instructions so to modify its provisions as 
 to admit the State of Maine into the Union" (divested 
 of the amendment embracing Missouri) 
 
 Mr. ROBERTS said that the question involved 
 in the amendment reported by the Judiciary 
 Committee would probably excite much feeling. 
 For himself, however, he was determined to 
 prepare to meet it with the temper and moder- 
 ation which were due to it. But he wished, in 
 entering upon it, there should be the most per- 
 fect regularity, and the most full opportunity 
 for discussion. The question of the admission 
 of Maine into the Union was one question ; that 
 of the admission of Missouri another ; and that 
 of uniting the two in one bill was a distinct 
 question, for the purpose of obtaining an unem- 
 barrassed decision on which he had submitted 
 the present motion. Mr. R. adverted to the 
 progress, in the Senate, of the proposition for 
 the admission of Maine into the Union. Very 
 early in the session, he said, a communication 
 had been received from a regular source, that a
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 JANUARY, 1820.] 
 
 Maine and Missouri. 
 
 [SENATE. 
 
 convention of the people of Maine, duly author- 
 ized thereto by an act of the Legislature of 
 Massachusetts, had met and formed a constitu- 
 tion of State government. A bill had been 
 duly reported, by a committee, for the admis- 
 sion of the State of Maine into the Union, and 
 made the order of the day for a particular day. 
 On that day, and on successive following days, 
 it was 'postponed, for various reasons, on ac- 
 count of the absence of members from different 
 sections of the Union. At that time, Mr. R. 
 said, he had no idea that there was an intention 
 to connect the two subjects of Maine and Mis- 
 souri, until a member from Virginia, in moving 
 a further postponement of the bill, stated that 
 he had some notion of endeavoring to connect 
 the two questions. This proceeding struck 
 him, on comparing it with the usual order of 
 proceedings in this House, as a little curious, to 
 say the least of it though he did not mention 
 it as a matter for censure, but as a mere state- 
 ment of facts. On the 29th of December, said 
 he, we find a memorial from the Legislature of 
 Missouri is taken from the files of the House, 
 and referred to the Judiciary Committee. Some 
 days afterwards, a message is received from the 
 House of Representatives, transmitting a bill for 
 the admission of Maine into the Union, which 
 is referred to the Judiciary Committee, and, 
 the two subjects being thus before the same 
 committee, they reported the bill for the admis- 
 sion of Missouri, by way of a rider to the bill 
 which came from the other House for the ad- 
 mission of Maine. This, Mr. R. said, was an 
 extraordinary mode of proceeding, which ought 
 to be met at the threshold ; and he knew not 
 how it could be more directly met than by the 
 motion which he had submitted. The motion 
 to recommit, he said, was a regular motion, but 
 was not to be made, he admitted, but in extra- 
 ordinary cases. This was a case of that descrip- 
 tion. He appealed to gentlemen whether it 
 was regular or even justifiable to connect in one 
 bill two subjects totally distinct, as these in re- 
 ality are ? Maine, he said, w r as a part of the 
 old territory of the United States ; her consti- 
 tution was already formed, with the consent of 
 the State from which she was to be separated ; 
 there was no dispute about her limits, which 
 were defined, nor about the justice of her claim 
 to admission, which was admitted. There 
 were many doubts about Missouri, with respect 
 to her extent, boundaries, and population, with- 
 out regard to other questions which might arise 
 respecting her constitution, &c. The cases of 
 Kentucky and Vermont had been cited as 
 a precedent for this proceeding ; but, Mr. R. 
 said, they were admitted by separate bills, 
 passed at different periods of the same session. 
 Mr. R. said, for his part, ho had no objection 
 that the two bills for the admission of Maine 
 and Missouri should pass on the SJUIK- day ; but 
 they ought to pass separately and independent!} 
 of each other. Standing, as they did, on differ- 
 ent grounds, they ought to be decided on their 
 own merits. 
 
 Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina, said, as chair- 
 man of the committee which reported the 
 amendment, according to the ordinary usage 
 when opposition arose, it became his duty to 
 explain the reasons which operated with them 
 in making that report, although the motion be- 
 fore the Senate did not present any distinct ob- 
 jection to it, but only sought to modify it. If 
 the object of the resolution was to make the 
 admission of Maine apart of the bill, the motion 
 was nugatory, because Maine was already in the 
 bill, as it came from the House of Representa- 
 tives ; and to recommit the bill for the purpose 
 of introducing what was already there, could 
 answer no sensible purpose. If the object was 
 to exclude Missouri for the want of formality or 
 simplicity in the bill, the resolution ought to be 
 rejected. There could be no good reason why 
 they should be separated. The subject matter 
 was perfectly congenial, and it was a correct 
 rule in legislation to incorporate in the same 
 statute all subjects that were homogeneous, 
 and this principle accorded with the uniform 
 practice of the Senate. But, if it had for its 
 object the admission of Maine, and the total ex- 
 clusion of Missouri from the privilege of a place 
 in the Union, upon an equal footing with the 
 original States, it became more objectionable. 
 
 If any difference did exist between the two 
 cases now before you, the preference was in fa- 
 vor of Missouri. The assent of Congress must 
 first be had before Maine can be admitted : 
 Congress was bound to admit Missonri, when- 
 ever she presented herself with such a popula- 
 tion as you have been accustomed to recognize 
 as sufficient in other cases, which Missouri now 
 tenders, and claims her right of admission. 
 This claim to the right of admission, on the 
 part of Missouri, is founded on the third article 
 of the treaty of cession under which the United 
 States acquired the territory of Louisiana in full 
 dominion. That article of the treaty is so ex- 
 plicit and definite it cannot be questioned. It 
 says, " The inhabitants of the ceded territory 
 shall be incorporated in the,Union of the United 
 States, and admitted as soon as possible, accord- 
 ing to the principles of the Federal Constitution, 
 to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages, 
 and immunities of citizens of the United States; 
 and in the mean time they shall be maintained 
 and protected in the free enjoyment of their 
 liberty, property, and the religion which they 
 profess." The terms here prescribed are im- 
 perative. Here is no condition annexed ; but 
 they shall be admitted into the Union. This 
 treaty has become a part of the supreme law of 
 the land. It is made so by the constitution it- 
 self, and is as'obligsrtory as the constitution can 
 be. The President and Senate of the United 
 States are made competent to form any treaty 
 they may deem proper, and such treaty is abso- 
 lutely binding to the fullest extent of its stipu- 
 lations. Upon this occasion the words used are 
 as appropriate as any in the English language. 
 To incorporate is defined, by a distinguished 
 lexicographer, in these words : " To mingle dif-
 
 384 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 ^faine and Missouri. 
 
 [JANUARY, 1820. 
 
 ferent ingredients, so as they shall make one 
 mass." In addition to this is the comprehensive 
 and appropriate word Union. This makes Mis- 
 souri as much a component part of the Union 
 as Maine, and as much an object of its care and 
 protection. "Where, then, exists the incongruity 
 which forbids their junction in the same bill ? 
 By this treaty an express stipulation is entered 
 into, in words as definite and appropriate as any 
 the English language affords, to secure their 
 rights of liberty and property. But this is said 
 to be no more than the formula of a treaty. It 
 would afford but a poor consolation to the 
 inhabitants of a country which, in the destiny 
 of nations, may be transferred from one sov- 
 ereign to another, to be told, that all the 
 plain and sensible stipulations securing to 
 them their most sacred rights and dearest priv- 
 ileges, are but the formula of a treaty. It 
 is an obligation which the faith of the nation is 
 pledged to fulfil. Are there any rights attached 
 to Maine that ought to be more sacredly guard- 
 ed than those of Missouri, guaranteed by this 
 treaty ? If there are not, why should Maine 
 claim to approach this high station alone, dis- 
 daining and avoiding Missouri as her associate ? 
 Mr. MELLEN, of Massachusetts, said, as he had 
 presented the memorial of the convention, pray- 
 ing for the admission of Maine into the Union, 
 and, as he was an inhabitant of that section of 
 Massachusetts, it was natural to suppose that he 
 felt an interest in the success of the bill under 
 consideration. I do, sir, said he, feel an inter- 
 est ; and though on a former occasion I have 
 expressed in the Senate my sentiments in rela- 
 tion to the subject of the separation of Maine 
 from Massachusetts, and have elsewhere frankly 
 opposed the measure then in contemplation, 
 circumstances have since given a new aspect to 
 the question ; an immense majority of the peo- 
 ple of Maine have declared their opinion in fa- 
 vor of- dissolving their connection with Massa- 
 chusetts, and becoming an independent State ; 
 Massachusetts has consented to their wishes ; a 
 constitution has been formed in a spirit of har- 
 mony, and it has been accepted by the people 
 by a vote almost unanimous. In this state of 
 things I cheerfully yield my own opinion, and 
 am disposed to join the general wish, and aid in 
 such measures as are still necessary to the com- 
 pletion of the great object in view. "With this 
 avowal I proceed, sir, to state, that I am op- 
 posed to the amendment reported by the com- 
 mittee. I am opposed to it for several reasons. 
 It will be recollected that the bill on the table 
 has passed the House of Eepresentatives in the 
 simplest form merely declaring the assent of 
 Congress to the admission* of Maine into the 
 Union ; the bill, so passed, has been sent to the 
 Senate for concurrence ; in the usual course it 
 was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, 
 and they have reported it, with an amendment, 
 consisting of a long bill for authorizing Missouri 
 to form a constitution, as a preliminary step 
 towards her admission into the Union at a fu- 
 ture day. I confess, Mr. President, I did not 
 
 anticipate this course; I had no authority to 
 expect it ; for though I am young in legislation, 
 I am informed by those who aiv experienced, 
 that such an amendment is a perfect novelty, to 
 say the least of it. I have always found, sir, 
 that the most correct course for a man of busi- 
 ness to pursue is to adopt the very simple rule 
 of doing one thing at a time, and doing it fairly 
 and faithfully ; that the proper mode of decid- 
 ing causes in a court of justice, or questions in 
 a legislative body, is to examine them distinctly, 
 and decide each cause and each question upon 
 its own merits ; and, in order to ascertain those 
 merits, apply principles and proof without con- 
 fusion or embarrassment. I am desirous, sir, 
 that, on the present occasion, this plain, old- 
 fashioned mode of proceeding may be adopted 
 and pursued. It would be considered as a sin- 
 gular departure from the ordinary rules of 
 managing the concerns of a court, to try two 
 causes between different parties at the same 
 moment and by the same jury; and for the 
 judge to instruct this jury that they must, at all 
 events, return their verdict in both causes for 
 the plaintiffs, or both for the defendants, with- 
 out any regard to the discriminating merits of 
 the causes ; and it would certainly appear more 
 strange still, if, in one of the causes, there were 
 no doubt or question about its justice ; and yet 
 that it must be sacrificed in company with the 
 other, because the jury could not agree in a 
 verdict as to this other. The case I have now 
 stated shows the impropriety of this junction 
 of the two bills. This is not consonant to the 
 usage in similar cases. I refer to Kentucky 
 and Vermont; they were both admitted into 
 the Union at the same session, with an interval 
 of only a few days, and yet separate acts of 
 Congress were passed for the purpose. 
 
 Mr. LLOYD, of Maryland, expressed his hope 
 that the motion which had been made by the 
 gentleman from Pennsylvania would not pre- 
 vail. He had not been sufficiently long a mem- 
 ber of this body to know precisely the usual 
 mode of proceeding in cases of this kind, but he 
 should have thought the more direct course 
 would have been to have moved to strike out 
 the amendment, instead of moving a recommit- 
 ment. This, however, was matter of form ; he 
 objected to the motion on principle. It had 
 been said the two subjects w r ere different in 
 their nature. This Mr. L. did not admit. "What, 
 asked he, is the question presented by the bill 
 and the proposed amendment? It is this: 
 Shall Maine and Missouri be admitted into the 
 Union on an equal footing with the original 
 States? Could there, he asked, be a plainer 
 question ; could there be two -subjects more in- 
 timately connected, or in principle more nearly 
 allied, than the two embraced in this question ? 
 We may imagine, said he, as many distinctions 
 between the two cases as we please ; but if we 
 confine ourselves to the power granted to us by 
 the constitution, we have but one course to 
 pursue, which is, to admit both the States, on 
 the same terms, into the Union.
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 385 
 
 JANUARY, 1820.] 
 
 Maine and Missouri. 
 
 [SKNAl 
 
 Mr. L. readily admitted that, as a general 
 course, it was highly improper to tack together 
 questions depending on different principles, and 
 relying on different arguments for their sup- 
 port. He denied, however, that this was such 
 a case. He affirmed that if the Senate had a 
 right to impose restrictions upon Missouri, they 
 had the same right in regard to Maine, but no 
 power over the one which they had not over 
 the other. If the novel doctrine, which had 
 been recently announced, of restrictions and 
 provisions on the admission of new States, was 
 to prevail, how much must Massachusetts and 
 Maine have relied on the liberality of Congress, 
 in forming a constitution without previously 
 obtaining the assent of Congress, and in suppos- 
 ing they were to be admitted into the Union on 
 their own terms. How did they know, said 
 Mr. L., but we might impose a restriction upon 
 Maine, to compel her to admit slavery within 
 her limits? If we have a right to impose a 
 negative condition in regard to Missouri, we 
 have a correspondent and equal right to impose 
 an affirmative condition in regard to Maine. 
 But, in this case, it seemed that every thing 
 liberal was to be conceded in regard to Maine, 
 and every thing illiberal, in his view of it, was 
 to be demanded of Missouri. 
 
 Mr. BUKEILL, of Ehode Island, took the floor. 
 He commenced with some remarks on the ques- 
 tion of order involved in the amendment. Ho 
 apprehended the committee had falleli into an 
 error in reporting it ; at least, it was without 
 precedent for a committee to report on any 
 subject referred to them by way of amendment 
 to a bill from the House of Representatives, 
 embracing a totally different object. It would 
 be agreed on all hands, he said, that an observ- 
 ance of their own rules was necessary to the 
 dignity of this body, and to the order and de- 
 spatch of business. He did not dwell long, 
 however, on the point of order, but proceeded 
 to consider the merits of the question, which 
 was a simple proposition to separate the two 
 subjects of Maine and Missouri. 
 
 It was conformable to the rules and practice 
 of the Senate, he said, to divide a question, 
 when asked by any member, where it was sus- 
 ceptible of division. Now, he asked, was not 
 this question susceptible of the proposed divi- 
 sion? It was not only susceptible of division, 
 he said, but the cases embraced by it were es- 
 sentially dissimilar. With regard to the State 
 of Maine, the territory embraced by it had, 
 from the adoption of the constitution, been 
 known as the District of Maine : its limits were 
 known and accurately defined. The question 
 on the admission of Maine was a question re- 
 specting the division of one of the original 
 States. And would any one say that the divi- 
 sion of an old State was a question of the same 
 nature as that of the erection of a State out of 
 an acquired territory? There were cases, he 
 said, in which Congress were under an obliga- 
 tion to erect new States in the territories of the 
 United States; but they were not obliged to 
 VOL. VI. 25 
 
 admit into the Union a State formed out of an 
 old State. He agreed with gentlemen on the 
 other side in some of their premises, though he 
 dissented from their conclusions. He agreed 
 that the question of consenting to the division of 
 a new State was a question of policy a question 
 on which the Congress was to exercise a sound 
 discretion. For example, if the State of which 
 he was a Representative on this floor were to 
 ask to be divided, though the people composing 
 it should be unanimously agreed on the subject, 
 he doubted whether Congress would assent to 
 it. The question therefore embraced by the 
 bill was about the division of a State, which 
 Congress was to decide as it should deem most 
 wisely in regard to the general interests of the 
 Union ; whilst the question involved in the 
 amendment regarded the erection of a new 
 State in a Territory, which Congress were un- 
 der an obligation, arising not only from the co- 
 lonial condition of the Territory, but by the 
 force of a treaty with a foreign power, as had 
 been contended, and as he admitted in a certain 
 sense, to establish. There was no connection 
 between questions so distinct in their nature, 
 and they ought not to be united in the same 
 bill. 
 
 Mr. MACON, of North Carolina, next followed 
 in debate. With regard to the order of pro- 
 ceeding, he said, it had never been the prac- 
 tice to refer back a subject to a committee, but 
 for the purpose of obtaining details, to make 
 that which was doubtful plain. In the present 
 case there was no occasion for such a reference, 
 the object being to separate two subjects pro- 
 posed to be united, which could be directly ef- 
 fected by a disagreement to the proposed 
 amendment. There was no necessity, there- 
 fore, in his opinion, to recommit the bill on that 
 ground. 
 
 This, said he, is a pretty important question, 
 view it in what light you will. The appear- 
 ance of the Senate to-day is different from any 
 thing I have seen since I have been a member 
 of it. It is the greatness of the question which 
 has produced it. So interesting is it, that, on 
 this incidental question, all the members have 
 gone into the question, which is not, but is ex- 
 pected to be, before the Senate. 
 
 With regard to the question immediately be- 
 fore the Senate, Mr. M. said he had hardly ex- 
 pected that the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
 would have forbidden the banns of this mar- 
 riage. He thought the opposition to it wonld 
 have come from some one more interested, more 
 nearly allied to the parties. Allusion had been 
 made to the case of Vermont and Kentucky. 
 And why, he asked, were there given, in the 
 same bill, to Vermont two representatives, and 
 to Kentucky two ? Their population was not 
 known; but their representation was made 
 equal in order to keep tip the proportion which 
 the National Convention had given to the two 
 sections of the Union. 
 
 It had been said that the law of Massachu- 
 setts, sanctioning the independence of Maine,
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 [JANUARY, 1820. 
 
 would expire on the 8d day of March, and it 
 was therefore proper to hasten the passage of 
 the bill from the House of Eepresentatives, 
 without amendment. But, Mr. M. said, that 
 Massachusetts would not, after she had consent- 
 ed to her daughter setting up for herself, play 
 the stepmother, and say, because you have not 
 done this to-day, you shall not do it to-morrow. 
 Massachusetts would do hereafter, he had no 
 doubt, what she had already done. 
 
 With respect to the alleged impropriety of 
 connecting the two subjects in one bill, Mr. M. 
 asked if there was any thing more common 
 than for Congress to pass bills for particular 
 objects, " and for other purposes ? " It was the 
 practice of every day ; and those " other pur- 
 poses " were frequently not purposes connected 
 with the main subject of the bill. The Senate, 
 the gentleman might recollect, had at times 
 been so tenacious of their bills, as not to allow 
 them to be amended even by a dot over an i, 
 or a cross on a t. Yet the Senate had, before 
 now, in more instances than one, tacked one 
 bill to another of a different nature. Mr. M. 
 quoted an instance, being an act to establish a 
 board of commissioners for the city of "Wash- 
 ington, and for other purposes, passed several 
 years ago. After the bill came from the House 
 of Representatives to the Senate, as the Jour- 
 nal would show, it was amended by the addi- 
 tion of provisions for authorizing the making 
 a canal from the Potomac to the Eastern 
 Branch ; which provision was certainly not 
 analogous to the main object of the bill. Mr, 
 M. said he questioned whether a bill ever passed 
 with a great many sections, but those who 
 voted, for it objected to some of them. He 
 could himself recollect amendments to bills 
 having been made, which were so obnoxious 
 that gentlemen friendly to the object of the 
 bills had been almost ready to give up the main 
 point, rather than agree to the amendments. 
 
 Reference had been made to proceedings on 
 this subject out of doors. Those proceedings, 
 said Mr. M., have been all one side. Our peo- 
 ple do not petition much ; we plume ourselves 
 on not pestering the General Government with 
 our prayers. Nor do we set the woods on fire 
 to drive the game out. When the question, 
 which every one had alluded to, came properly 
 before the House, Mr. M. said he would speak 
 his sentiments upon it. Gentlemen were in- 
 quiring what, to a fraction, was the population 
 of Missouri. For his part, if she was other- 
 wise fitted for self-government, and had a pop- 
 ulation of but twenty thousand, he would say 
 to her, come into the family, and become one 
 of us. In no instance, he said, had Congress 
 insisted, in the admission of new States, on a 
 population of sixty thousand. The true reason 
 of the objection to the prompt admission of 
 Missouri, was the principle to which gentlemen 
 had alluded, and which had made so much 
 noise out of doors. He confessed, that on this 
 question he had felt more anxiety than on any 
 other question lately presented to his view. It 
 
 may, said he, be a matter of philosophy and 
 abstraction with the gentlemen of the East, but 
 it is a different thing with us. They may phi- 
 losophize and town-meeting about it as much 
 as they please ; but, with great submission, sir, 
 they know nothing about the question. 
 
 FBIDAY, January 14. 
 Maine and Missouri. 
 
 The Senate resumed the consideration of the 
 subject of the Maine bill, (as proposed to be 
 amended by adding Missouri to it,) and the 
 proposition by Mr. ROBERTS, to recommit the 
 bill with instructions to the committee to sepa- 
 rate the two, and report Maine in a distinct 
 bill, as it came from the other House. 
 
 Mr. B ARBOUR, of Virginia, said, the particular 
 agency which he had heretofore had in this 
 subject, made it proper that he should endeavor 
 to show the impropriety of agreeing to the 
 proposed resolution, and at the same time vin- 
 dicate the course pursued by the committee in 
 recommending the amendment providing for 
 the admission of Missouri into the Union. To 
 a distinct understanding of the subject, said he, 
 it is necessary we should advert to the history 
 of its progress. A select committee, to whom 
 the subject was referred, brought in a bill whose 
 object was to provide for the admission of 
 Maine into the Union. While it was depend- 
 ing before the Senate, I submitted a motion to 
 recommit the bill, with instructions to incorpo- 
 rate the very amendment which has now been 
 proposed. Before this question was decided, a 
 bill is sent tip from the House of Representa- 
 tives, precisely like that depending here. In 
 conformity to an existing comity between the 
 two Houses, the bill depending here, with the 
 instructions I had submitted, was postponed, 
 and the Senate proceeded to act on the one 
 from the House of Representatives. At the 
 proper time, it was committed to the Judiciary 
 Committee, who, as I think, most wisely and 
 justifiably, reported the bill with the much con- 
 tested amendment in favor of Missouri the 
 memorial of that people having been previously 
 referred to that committee, supplicating admis- 
 sion into the Union. It is objected, first, by 
 the member from Pennsylvania, that the com- 
 mittee got possession of the subject rather cu- 
 riously. In justification of this assertion, he 
 states that the memorial of the people of Mis- 
 souri is that which was presented the last 
 session. Sure, this objection is of itself a cu- 
 riosity. Is it not the invariable usage which 
 obtains in both branches, when a petition has 
 been presented, and its object not consumma- 
 ted, as is but too commonly the case, Congress 
 either being unable or unwilling to do so, for 
 the same identical petition to be presented to 
 the ensuing Congress? Why present a new 
 one, the facts and grounds of the application 
 remaining the same? It is next objected by 
 the gentleman from Rhode Island, that the 
 committee have exceeded their powers in rec-
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 387 
 
 JAOTAKY, 1820.] 
 
 Maine and Missouri. 
 
 [SENATE. 
 
 ommending this amendment. Pray, sir, what 
 is the object of referring a bill to a committee 
 merely to dot the i's and cross the t's ? I 
 had supposed they had a more important duty 
 to perform. Not only their right, but that it 
 was their bounden duty to modify or amend 
 any and every part in relation to the particular 
 subject embraced by the bill, and to extend its 
 provisions so as to embrace every correspond- 
 ing subject. This is not only a rational rule, 
 but one which is prescribed by every well-or- 
 ganized deliberative body. It in the first place 
 diminishes that multiplicity of laws already 
 swelled to an extent beyond the reading of the 
 most industrious. Secondly, it prevents that 
 irregularity and inconsistency which ensue 
 from a different course. I appeal to the expe- 
 rience of the Senate, when I assert, that the 
 success of a claim, for instance, depends some- 
 times on the zeal, perseverance, and ability of 
 its patron. A claim thus supported, is carried 
 in triumph through the House while one no 
 less just, for want of those efficient auxiliaries, 
 is lost, and, in consequence, a chequered and 
 unequal system of legislation obtains. If this 
 be true on trifling occasions, how does the rea- 
 son of the course pursued by*the committee in- 
 crease upon us, and the necessity of adhering 
 to it upon subjects so important as those in- 
 volved in the bill and amendment ! But it is 
 objected that the two subjects are dissimilar, 
 and, therefore, should be separated. If this be 
 true, why send it back to the committee ? The 
 question before the Senate is, shall they be 
 joined as proposed by the committee ? If you 
 disapprove of the junction, reject it ; but do 
 not refer it to the committee : they have per- 
 formed their duty; do you perform yours. 
 But is it true, that there is any difference in 
 the two subjects, so as to make it indispensable 
 to separate them ? As to any thing yet before 
 the Senate, there is no essential difference ; and, 
 therefore, nothing to require their separation. 
 Let us inquire, first, in what they agree ; Maine, 
 it is readily admitted, has just claims to an ad- 
 mission into the Union ; and I shall be greatly 
 misunderstood, if I am suspected of any hostil- 
 ity to such admission. Her claims rest on the 
 extent of her territory, the number of her peo- 
 ple, the great length of her maritime coast, her 
 frontier situation, and the necessity of the resi- 
 dence of her government within her borders, 
 by which, whenever the occasion occurs, the 
 resources of the State may be called out imme- 
 diately for her defence and protection. What 
 are Missouri's claims? An equal extent of 
 country, the number of her people, her fron- 
 tier situation, a right guaranteed by the treaty 
 by which we acquired the country, but, above 
 all, the invaluable privilege of self-government, 
 of which she is now deprived : a privilege dear 
 to every American ; the deprivation of which 
 is the last injury which can bo inflicted upon 
 them. In what do they differ? It is said 
 Maine is ready to come into the Govern- 
 ment, having formed her constitution. In de- 
 
 pendently of the consideration that this state 
 of things would make it necessary only to adapt 
 the different sections of the bill to the peculiar 
 circumstances of the two cases, I must be per- 
 mitted to state, that Maine has no claim on us 
 for the precipitancy with which she has acted. 
 The correct course would have been, to have 
 obtained the consent of Congress before she 
 had proceeded as far as she has. For I pre- 
 sume no one will pretend that there is any con- 
 stitutional obligation on Congress to admit 
 Maine at all into the Union for the very ob- 
 vious reason, that she now, as a part of Massa- 
 chusetts, enjoys all the inestimable blessings of 
 self-government. She surely, therefore, has 
 not increased her claim on our indulgence by 
 the premature step she has taken in forming 
 her constitution ; especially, too, as she did not 
 know but, according to the new doctrine re- 
 cently sprung up, Congress might think proper 
 to impose restrictions* of which right she 
 seems to have deprived us, by making and fash- 
 ioning her constitution according to her own 
 will and pleasure. Missouri, on the contrary, 
 quietly submitted to the injustice of which she 
 was the victim at the last session, and, for this 
 submission, and her forbearance to assert her 
 right to self-government, is held as an unworthy 
 associate of the less respectful Maine. 
 
 Mr. OTIS, of Massachusetts, observed that, 
 from the relation hi which he stood to the 
 State whose separation was to be effected by 
 the bill, it might be expected that he should 
 take some part hi the debate, though he was 
 not sure that it was in his power to add much 
 to the illustration of the subject. It must be 
 obvious to all that he could not reflect without 
 regret upon the proposed division of his native 
 State ; but as this measure had been long since 
 agreed to, with the full and deliberate consent 
 of all parties concerned; and the people of 
 Maine, in consequence of what he regarded as 
 an invitation from Congress, had actually formed 
 a constitution, and were now intent upon the 
 consummation of their plan, he felt it to be his 
 duty to contribute, with sincerity and frank- 
 ness, to its accomplishment. The question now 
 before the Senate was in substance a question 
 of order ; and it was with a view to disencum- 
 ber it of other questions, of a more grand and 
 interesting character, that he should vote hi fa- 
 vor of the recommitment. He should, on the 
 whole, have preferred taking the question upon 
 the adoption* of the amendment ; but as upon 
 that the entire merits of the Missouri preten- 
 sions would have been open to a debate, at the 
 option of honorable gentlemen, which it was 
 desirable to avoid, he was reconciled to the 
 present course. He begged leave, however, to 
 deny, that a vote in favor of this motion was 
 equivalent to one for rejecting Missouri. He 
 had once voted for the admission of Missouri, 
 and expected, after a fair opportunity for* ex- 
 amination into the details of a bill for that pur- 
 pose, if it could be made to accord with his 
 views, to vote for it again. It was not, he
 
 388 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 Maine and Missouri. 
 
 [JANUAKY, 1820. 
 
 agreed, very easy to compass, with the chains 
 of a definition, the principles that shonld regu- 
 late the embracing of several objects in one 
 bill ; but there was in every man's bosom a per- 
 ception of the fitness and congruity of objects 
 which furnished an almost unerring standard. 
 If the subject-matter of two provisions was en- 
 tirely dissimilar, and unconnected ; if the law 
 could neither operate simultaneously, nor with 
 equal effect, upon different subjects ; if the con- 
 clusion to be drawn resulted from different 
 premises, and depended on arguments which 
 could not stand in any possible relation to each 
 other, it might be assumed, for a general prin- 
 ciple, that they ought not to be united. If a 
 bill were sent from the House of Representa- 
 tives, for raising revenue, it would be most im- 
 proper and unusual to hook upon it a bankrupt 
 act, or any other heterogeneous amendment. 
 In England, it had been fashionable, formerly, 
 to attempt to starve majesty into a compliant 
 humor, by the appendage of riders to the sup- 
 
 ly bills; but he protested against the intro- 
 uction of so objectionable a precedent in the 
 Senate of the United States, in their intercourse 
 with the House. In reply to the appeal of the 
 honorable member from Virginia, who emphat- 
 ically demanded whether the proposed junction 
 of these two subjects would be resisted, but for 
 the objection held in reserve to the admission 
 of Missouri, he declared, with the most perfect 
 sincerity, that he was not influenced by any 
 such anticipation ; but simply by a sense of the 
 absolute discordance of the two provisions, and 
 a regard to what he believed the dignity of the 
 Senate demanded. No two things could have 
 less resemblance. 
 
 Mr. LOGAN, of Kentucky, explained the views 
 which had influenced him, as one of the select 
 committee, to report the amendment. It was 
 to come at a clear and distinct view of the 
 merits of the questions embraced by the bill 
 and amendment; to show, by placing them 
 side by side, that the same rule must be applied 
 to both ; that no greater right existed to im- 
 pose onerous conditions on the one than on the 
 other of these Territories. If, said he, gentle- 
 men will come across my boundary to affect my 
 property, I wish to look over on the other side, 
 and see how they stand. He was opposed to 
 the recommitment, which he conceived wholly 
 unnecessary, inasmuch as there was a substan- 
 tive proposition now before the Senate, and it 
 would be made no plainer by recommitment, 
 which would in fact only be to consume time, 
 unnecessarily, &c. 
 
 Mr. DANA, of Connecticut, concluded the de- 
 bate by some remarks on a point which had not 
 been adverted to by others, or, he said, he 
 would not have spoken. He objected to the 
 course proposed by the report of the select 
 committee, and was in favor of recommitment. 
 Nine States, he said, had already been admitted 
 into the Union since the adoption of the consti- 
 tution ; and in no case had there been a con- 
 nection of two in one bill, and this for a very 
 
 good reason. An act for the admission of a 
 State into the Union, said Mr. D., is entirely 
 distinct from all other objects of legislation. It 
 is a question whether we will admit a new as- 
 sociate in the empire. It is an individual case 
 in its very nature. It is not a case for which 
 we can provide by a general law. We can no 
 more do that by a general law, than we can, by 
 such a law, declare whether members are duly 
 entitled to a seat on this floor, so as to super- 
 sede the necessity of examining the credentials 
 in each particular case. The House of Repre- 
 sentatives, Mr. D. said, had, in its legislation, 
 with very great propriety, confined itself to the 
 question whether a single State should be ad- 
 mitted. It was in vain to ransack the annals 
 of legislation, ancient or modern, for any anal- 
 ogy to the case now before the Senate. It 
 could only have existed in our own history ; and 
 in that there was no example of the union of 
 two States in one act of admission ; and Mr. D. 
 said they ought not to be united. If the pro- 
 vision were not made in the constitution for 
 the admission of new States, the general power 
 of legislation would not have extended to it. 
 Mr. D. cited the case of Kentucky, as precisely 
 analogous to tharof Maine ; and showed that 
 Massachusetts had followed, in her assent, &c., 
 to the independence of Maine, the example set 
 by Virginia. There had been a case, he said, 
 in which, at the same session of Congress, one 
 Territory had been admitted into the Union, 
 and another authorized to form a constitution 
 of State government ; but the idea was never 
 suggested of uniting them both in one act ; the 
 fact being that the reasons of the two acts were 
 not the same. On the ground that acts of this 
 description were entirely different from all or- 
 dinary acts of legislation, and must in their na- 
 ture be limited to particular objects, it was as 
 improper to combine these two questions as to 
 combine the questions whether two persons 
 were distinctly qualified to represent particular 
 States in this body. 
 
 The question was then taken on the motion 
 for recommitment, and decided, by yeas and 
 nays, in the negative, by 25 votes to 18, as fol- 
 lows: 
 
 YEAS. Messrs. Burrill, Dana, Dickerson, Horsey, 
 Hunter, Lanman, Lowrie, Mellen, Merrill, Noble, 
 Otis, Roberts, Ruggles, Sandford, Tichenor, Trimble, 
 Van Dyke, and Wilson. 
 
 NAYS. Messrs. Barbour, Brown, Eaton, Edwards, 
 Elliott, Gaillard, Johnson of Kentucky, Johnson of 
 Louisiana, King, Leake, Lloyd, Logan, Macon, Pal- 
 mer, Parrott, Pinkney, Pleasants, Smith, Stokes, 
 Taylor, Thomas, Walker of Alabama, Walker of 
 Georgia, Williams of Mississippi, and Williams of 
 
 So the motion was negatived; the Senate 
 thus refusing to separate the conjunction of the 
 two States of Maine and Missouri. 
 
 The Senate adjourned to Monday next.
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 J.OJCARY, 1820.] 
 
 Maine and Missouri Restriction on Missouri. 
 
 [SENATE. 
 
 MONDAY, January 17. 
 Maine and Missouri Restriction on Missouri. 
 
 The Senate then resumed the consideration 
 of the admission of the State of Maine into the 
 Union, as proposed to be amended by the an- 
 nexation of Missouri. And the said proposed 
 amendment being under consideration 
 
 Mr. EDWABDS offered an amendment, having 
 in view the principle of compromise, (by exclu- 
 sion of slavery from the other territories of the 
 United States ;) but subsequently withdrew it, 
 to give an opportunity for the following mo- 
 tion: 
 
 Mr. ROBERTS moved to add to the amend- 
 ment (whereby Missouri is proposed to be ad- 
 mitted to form a constitution) the following 
 proviso : 
 
 " Provided, that the farther introduction into said 
 State of persons to be held to slavery or involuntary 
 servitude within the same, shall be absolutely and 
 irrevocably prohibited." 
 
 The said amendment having been read 
 
 Mr. ROBEKTS said his objection to the order 
 followed in the introduction of this bill was a 
 serious one. Irregularity in legislative pro- 
 ceedings ought always to be avoided, but more 
 especially on a question laying the foundations 
 of a great community. I have thought, said he, 
 and still think, (with deference to the decision 
 had,) it has been an unfortunate course, and 
 that this will be more apparent as we progress. 
 Many remarks which fell from gentlemen in the 
 discussion hitherto had, now invite reply. I 
 have taken some care to arrange my thoughts 
 for that purpose; but I have determined to 
 withhold them at this time. The subject we 
 are entering upon is one of great magnitude ; 
 
 the understanding, and the absence from the 
 mind of all sorts of passions. I very much de- 
 sire to avoid touching any and every subject, 
 however pertinent, calculated to awaken im- 
 patience or dissatisfaction, or to use language 
 which may be justly excepted to, as incompati- 
 ble with this declaration. 
 
 It has sometimes been permitted, in God's 
 providence, that a people should deliberately 
 fix the great principles of their polity, under 
 circumstances happily calculated to secure to 
 themselves and their posterity the high bless- 
 ings of his benevolent justice, so as to promise 
 the fulfilment of the great end for which he 
 created man happiness. Such was the occa- 
 sion when these States declared themselves free 
 and independent ; such was that that secured to 
 the people of the Northwestern Territory the 
 fundamental principles of civil and religious 
 liberty; and such, let me observe, and not 
 least in importance, is that on which we are de- 
 Ijberating. The people of these happy States 
 were the first who proclaimed, before the Uni- 
 verse, u That all men are created equal ; that 
 they are endowed by the Creator with certain 
 inalienable rights ; that among these are life, 
 liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ; that, to 
 
 COUSeilL Oi UtO gUVtJIUCU. i piJ J" U 5 \ 
 
 go back with me to the memorable era of 
 which I am speaking. How stood the affairs 
 of our ancestors when they adopted these 
 truths as the maxims of their policy? The 
 power of one of the mightiest nations of the 
 earth was raised to crush them; that power 
 was directed by the vindictive spirit of an in- 
 censed king, and parliament, and prejudiced 
 people. A large mass of the people of America 
 adhered to the mother country, ready to be- 
 come her willing instruments in the worse 
 scenes of the sanguinary conflict. The States 
 were without government, without allies, with- 
 out revenue, without arms, without military 
 organization. In. snch a state of things, under 
 such circumstances, they called the Supreme 
 Judge of the world io witness that, as to them, 
 his laws had been violated, and it had become 
 their duty to resist oppression, and on the 
 purity of their motives they invoked the pro- 
 tecting arm of his providence, and plighted 
 their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred 
 honor to vindicate the truth, that governments 
 ought to secure to all men the inalienable 
 rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happi- 
 ness. What a prodigy ! Truths that the spec- 
 ulative philosopher and retired philanthropist 
 had hardly ventured to indulge, were now pro- 
 claimed, as the bright gem which was to be ob- 
 tained cheaply, at the cost of every danger man 
 could encounter. All that before was wonder- 
 ful, sunk into littleness. The fainting hopes of 
 humanity were revived ; the world was irradi- 
 ated by the blaze of truth ; it was as the voice 
 of Justice crying from the wilderness, whither 
 the arm of tyranny had banished her Despair 
 not, yo oppressed nations ! My temples are not 
 everywhere desolate. There is still a people 
 determined and able to vindicate my empire ! 
 The pledge they gave was redeemed. The arm 
 of that providence, besought with all the fer- 
 vency of the prayers of suffering virtue, was ex- 
 tended to good men, engaged in a just cause, 
 who had sworn to establish the great principles 
 of social liberty, or fall willing victims to the 
 high attempt. The oppressor was humbled to 
 acknowledge our country was, and of right 
 ought to be, free and independent. Magnani- 
 mous allies had been obtained during the con- 
 test, and the recognition of the independence 
 of our country by Britain, removed the last 
 caveat to our admission into the community of 
 nations. History informs us, though independ- 
 ence and peace had been achieved, still much 
 remained to be done, by a wise policy and just 
 laws, to secure the benefit of the great princi- 
 ples consecrated at the birth of our political 
 community. 
 
 In 1787 an occasion offered more felicitous 
 than that in which the faculties of sovereign 
 power were assumed, to apply the just, social 
 principles unanimously recognized by the great 
 act of the Congress of 1776. The cession of the
 
 390 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 Maine and Missouri Restriction on Missouri. 
 
 f JANUARY, 1820. 
 
 Northwestern Territory by the several States 
 claiming it, in full sovereignty to the United 
 States, gave to the old Congress an opportunity 
 of showing that peace and security had not 
 weakened their faith in, or lessened their at- 
 tachment to, the principles of the great corner 
 stone of all our laws and constitutions the 
 Declaration of Independence. That instrument 
 Lad the unanimous vote of the representatives 
 of all tho States ; there were no geographical 
 distinctions then ; slaveholding and non-slave- 
 holding States were not thought of. By one 
 simultaneous act the Congress declared, and the 
 States ratified the declaration, that governments 
 were established to secure the enjoyment of 
 individual rights, deriving their just authority 
 from the consent of the governed. 
 
 At that time, let it be remembered, all the 
 States contained slaves, and all the States de- 
 clared, before the Supreme Judge of the world, 
 that slavery was a violation of his truth, and 
 admitted the binding obligation to remedy the 
 wrong, when possible. Now, let us recur to 
 the ordinance of '87, and the articles of compact 
 it contains. I can do it justice in no other lan- 
 guage than that declaring its purpose as laid 
 down by the wise and good men who conceived 
 and gave it effect. Thus it reads : " And for 
 extending the fundamental principles of civil 
 and religious liberty, which form the basis 
 whereon these republics, their laws, and con- 
 stitutions are erected ; to fix and establish those 
 principles as the bases of all laws, constitutions, 
 and governments, which forever hereafter shall 
 be formed in said territory ; to provide also for 
 the establishment of States and permanent gov- 
 ernment therein, and for their admission to a 
 share in the federal councils, on an equal foot- 
 ing with the original States, at as early periods 
 as may be consistent with the general interest." 
 Look at the scope and character of this declara- 
 tion. Here, indeed, the great self-evident truths 
 of which I have been speaking were applied, in 
 full effect, to a virgin territory, unstained by 
 the vices, untainted by the errors, and un-em- 
 barrassed by the mistaken notions of interest 
 incident to human society. They were the laws 
 of God, applied to a country before it had been 
 peopled, by a wise foresight, which has been 
 often displayed, under the guidance of a kind 
 Providence, by the councils of our country. At 
 the era of Independence the wholesome maxims 
 of our policy recognized could not have their 
 full effect, because in the infancy of our settle- 
 ments the curse of slavery had been entailed on 
 us by a blinded and unkind mother country. 
 All that virtue could require was, that so invet- 
 erate a disease should be relieved, by applying 
 diligently discreet correctives, and, above all, 
 guarding against the extension of the evil. Thus 
 do we find, four years after peace had been 
 settled, on cool deliberation, the federal council 
 seized the first opportunity of planting the 
 fundamental principles of civil and religious 
 liberty, like seed sown in a soil received, as it 
 were, from the hand of the Creator, where they 
 
 designed them to flourish in eternal vigor, and 
 spread their fragrant branches through the 
 world. This mighty stroke of a wise policy 
 was had under the utmost freedom from all bias 
 of selfishness and of constraint. 
 
 The great men who executed this trust looked 
 not at the bearings of interest or to the gratifi- 
 cation of an unworthy ambition. The ordinance 
 declares a second time that slavery was viewed 
 as a great evil, and one for the existence of 
 which the people of that day were not account- 
 able. That States which found themselves 
 under the sad necessity of permitting its con- 
 tinuance, might, at the same time, without in- 
 consistency, declare again and again, all men 
 are created equal. This immortal ordinance, 
 which with its elder sister the Declaration of 
 Independence, will shed eternal and unextin- 
 guishable lustre over the annals of our country, 
 was also adopted by a unanimous vote. It was 
 aye, aye, from New Hampshire to Georgia. 
 Here again there was no geographical distinc- 
 tion. In this act of imperishable virtue Virgi- 
 nia had the largest share. She ceded the most 
 extensive and best-founded right to the terri- 
 tory. She left Congress free to impress on it 
 the fundamental principles of civil and religions 
 liberty. She gave her ready voice for the ordi- 
 nance, and it is believed her representatives 
 were among the most ardent advocates for the 
 measure. I cannot look into the provisions of 
 the articles of compact without burning with 
 admiration of their principles, and the wisdom 
 and virtue by which they have been consecrated. 
 There are no marginal notes, or I would briefly 
 recount them. The rights of the untutored 
 Indian were guaranteed, and, in the goodness 
 and wisdom of the legislator, it was left open 
 to his hopes that his posterity might one day 
 enjoy the blessings of the rights they secured. 
 These blessings, Mr. President, have been al- 
 ready consecrated to three stars of your constel- 
 lation that will soon take rank as of the first 
 magnitude. Ohio will probably appear in that 
 character at the next census. I have spoken of 
 the ordinance of 1787 as applying to a territory. 
 But of what mighty magnitude is it! It is 
 fitted to contain a mightier population than the 
 mightiest of the old continents. If its history 
 was not insulated by more comprehensive 
 events, it might now stand as the world's best 
 hope. In this instrument it was not necessary 
 to repeat that all men are created equal ; that 
 was already inscribed on the corner stone of all 
 your laws and polity. It was here enough to 
 say, no man should be a slave, and that every 
 man should have an equal share of civil and re- 
 ligious liberty, by the decree of unchangeable 
 justice. So far we discover no holding back : 
 all is one consistent, just, enlightened, and un- 
 varying policy. Every thing seems to have 
 been done in the divine spirit, breathed by the 
 representatives of an oppressed people, in the 
 Declaration of Independence. 
 
 About this period it became necessary to form 
 a more perfect union, and the constitution,
 
 DEBATES OF CONGKESS. 
 
 391 
 
 JANCABY, 1820.] 
 
 Maine and Missouri Restriction on Missouri. 
 
 [SEMATE. 
 
 framed by an assembly in which WASHINGTON 
 presided, seemed to have put the last hand to 
 the work which placed on an immovable foun- 
 dation the fundamental principles of civil and 
 religious liberty, whereon our republics, their 
 laws and constitutions, are erected. That in- 
 strument, framed with almost superhuman in- 
 telligence, clothed the Congress with all legis- 
 lative powers granted in it, and with power to 
 make all needful rules and regulations respect- 
 ing the territory belonging to the United States ; 
 and all engagements were declared to be as 
 valid against the United States under the con- 
 stitution as under the Confederation. Among 
 the first acts of the new Congress, is one provid- 
 ing that the ordinance of '87 should continue to 
 have full effect. At the formation of the con- 
 stitution this ordinance must have been well 
 understood. It was enacted a little tune ante- 
 rior to the adjournment of the Convention, and 
 was the harbinger of the great compact of 
 Union. The councils from which they emanated 
 were clothed with the power, and represented 
 the majesty of the people, and it was impossi- 
 ble that the compromise resorted to by the Con- 
 vention, in settling the rule of representation 
 and taxation, should not have been considered 
 as applicable only to the States then existing, 
 and to those which might be admitted out of 
 the territory of the good old thirteen. The 
 same obligation of duty, consistency and regard 
 to right, which induced the old Congress to 
 prohibit slavery in the Northwestern Territory, 
 could not have been inoperative in the Conven- 
 tion, as many States had long before abolished 
 slavery ; and nobody seems then to have thought 
 it admissible, only under hard necessity. I 
 think it will scarcely be contended, that, in '87, 
 any of our councils could have contemplated 
 the purchase of the territory which presents 
 the great question on which we are now delib- 
 erating, or that such a question could have 
 grown out of such an event. 
 
 In 1787, North Carolina ceded to the United 
 States the territory which is now called the 
 State of Tennessee. In the cession she stipu- 
 lates, among other things, that the inhabitants 
 of that territory should enjoy the benefits of 
 the ordinance, save only that the Congress 
 should pass no law tending to emancipate slaves. 
 In this, I apprehend, it will hardly be contend- 
 ed she was binding them by restrictions, but 
 that it will be allowed she intended to secure 
 to them all the liberty their condition would 
 permit. This recognition and ratification of 
 the ordinance is proof of the estimation in which 
 its principles were held; and Tennessee has 
 been admitted under its enfranchising, or, as 
 you will call them, restricting provisions, and 
 has long appeared amongst us as an ornament 
 to this body. On her admission are the words, 
 " on an equal footing with the original States," 
 first used. She being the first State admitted 
 under the articles of compact in the ordinance 
 of '87, the words were from thence transplanted, 
 and, like texts from another book, not standing 
 
 in their original relation to other words, their 
 meaning has been misunderstood. Turn to the 
 ordinance, and they are made plain. It there 
 reads, the " new State shall be admitted when 
 it shall have sixty thousand free inhabitants 
 therein, by its delegates in 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 consti- 
 tution and State government; provided the 
 constitution and State government so to be 
 formed shall be republican, and in conformity 
 to the principles contained in these articles." 
 These are conditions under which seven new 
 States have been admitted into this Union, save 
 only the article respecting slavery has been 
 silent in the admission of Tennessee, Mississippi, 
 and Alabama, and, by especial reservation, it 
 has not been required of Louisiana to forbid 
 slavery. 
 
 Can it be possible, after this long-settled con- 
 struction, it shall be seriously contended that 
 the Congress, in the admission of Missouri, can 
 propose no check on the evil of slavery, and, by 
 parity of reasoning, none on any portion of the 
 country acquired under the title of Louisiana ? 
 We have seen Mississippi and Alabama brought 
 into the Confederation, under compact to per- 
 mit slavery. Louisiana has been so admitted in 
 the discretion of Congress. On what grounds I 
 know not, but I am bound to believe from what 
 was understood to have been uncontrollable 
 necessity. If so, it can avail Missouri nothing, 
 as no such necessity exists in this case. The 
 amendment has, I have to regret, but a limited 
 operation on slavery. It is not proposed to free 
 the slaves hi Missouri, but to prevent their in- 
 crease by emigration. This principle does not 
 touch at all the provisions of the treaty. The 
 country is to be eventually incorporated into 
 the Union, it is admitted. We are all anxious 
 the portion in question should. The dispute 
 is, shah 1 she be admitted without securing to her 
 the franchises of civil and religious liberty, as 
 far as her condition admits of its being done. 
 Congress have power to prevent the migration 
 of slaves, and though lexicographers may not 
 be uniform in then- interpretation of the word 
 in general acceptation, it means change of place ; 
 so it has been construed by the Congress. An 
 act now exists prohibiting the migration of slaves 
 to Louisiana, in any manner, but as bona Jide 
 the property of persons actually going to settle 
 within it. I know it will be alleged that it is 
 repealed. But I have searched the statute book, 
 and looked into the constitution of Louisiana, 
 and can find no repeal of it. The section I 
 allude to it as follows : 
 
 " It shall not be lawful for any person or persons to 
 import, or bring into the said Territory, from any 
 port or place without the limits of the United States, 
 or cause or procure to be so imported, or brought, or 
 knowingly to aid or assist in so importing or bring- 
 
 ing any slave or slaves ; and every person so offend- 
 
 ing, and being thereof convicted before 
 
 within said Territory, having competent jurisdiction, 
 
 any court
 
 392 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 Maine and Missouri Restriction on Missouri. 
 
 [JANUARY, 1820. 
 
 shall forfeit and pay, for each and every slave so im- 
 ported, the sum of three hundred dollars ; one moiety 
 for the use of the United States, and the other moiety 
 for the use of the person or persons who shall sue for 
 the same, and every slave so brought shall thereupon 
 become entitled to, and receive his or her freedom. 
 It shall not be lawful for any person or persons to im- 
 port or bring into said Territory, from any port or 
 place within the limits of the United States, or to 
 cause or procure to be so imported or brought, or 
 knowingly to aid or assist in so importing or bringing 
 any slave or slaves which shall have been imported 
 since the first day of May, one thousand seven hun- 
 dred and ninety eight, into any port or place within 
 the limits of the United States, or which may be 
 hereafter so imported from any port or place from 
 without the United States; and every person so 
 offending, and being thereof convicted before any 
 court within said Territory, having competent juris- 
 diction, shall forfeit and pay for each and every slave 
 so imported, or brought, the sum of three hundred 
 dollars ; one moiety for the use of the United States, 
 and the other moiety for the use of the person or per- 
 sons who shall sue for the same. And no slave or 
 slaves shall be introduced into said Territory, directly 
 or indirectly, except by a citizen of the United States, 
 removing into said Territory for actual settlement, and 
 being at the time of such removal bona fide owner of 
 such slave or slaves ; and every slave brought into 
 the said Territory, contrary to the provisions of this 
 act, shall thereupon be entitled to, and receive bis or 
 
 If this be the law, where is your wonder- 
 working writ of habeas corpus ? Are your 
 Judiciary asleep, and your law a dead letter ? 
 If I be mistaken, I hope to be corrected ; but it 
 is enough for my purpose to show such a law 
 has existed, and that the power of Congress to 
 regulate the migration of slaves is not a new 
 doctrine, nor now first proposed to be exercised. 
 It proves incontestably the motion I have now 
 offered has not hitherto been deemed as conflict- 
 Lag with the provisions of the treaty of cession. 
 I am willing to consider Missouri as an inchoate 
 State ; no one will more gladly see her admit- 
 ted into the Union ; but I wish to see the page 
 of her constitution irradiated with the fun- 
 damental principles of civil and religious liberty 
 to see her become a party to that covenant 
 round which the patriots of '76 pledged their 
 lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. 
 The committee have attached the admission of 
 Missouri to the bill for admitting Maine, under 
 the pretext of congeniality. How insufficient 
 the pretence ! What ludicrous incongruity do 
 the two propositions present! You are not 
 acting on a section of two or three lines ; as to 
 Maine, it is her constitution you are ratifying. 
 What do you find on the front of it ? "Arti- 
 cle 1, section 1 : All men are born free and 
 equal, and are free to worship God in their own 
 way." Here is a substantial pledge to the good 
 old faith. To her we may say, Come, sister, 
 take your place in our constellation : the lustre 
 of your countenance will brighten the American 
 galaxy. But do not urge us to admit Missouri, 
 under a pretence of congeniality with the 
 visage of a savage, deformed with the hideous 
 
 cicatrices of barbaric pride with her features 
 marred as if the finger of Lucifer had been 
 drawn across them. 
 
 Mr. ELLIOTT, of Georgia, said, with a knowl- 
 edge of the talents which would be called forth 
 on this occasion, in behalf of the rights of Mis- 
 souri, it might seem unnecessary for one so un- 
 skilled in parliamentary debate, to obtrude his 
 humble efforts on the attention of the Senate. 
 But, said he, the magnitude of the consequences 
 which maj grow out of the decision about to 
 be made, and the weight of responsibility rest- 
 ing upon every member charged with the con- 
 sideration of the subject, urge me to rise, as I 
 honestly conceive, in support of the constitu- 
 tion of my country, the faith of its Govern- 
 ment, and the future peace and harmony of the 
 Union. 
 
 As it is essential to a correct and liberal dis- 
 cussion, that the point at issue be clearly under- 
 stood and dispassionately examined, all irrele- 
 vant matter should be cautiously rejected, and 
 the mind brought to the investigation with its 
 powers unembarrassed. How much to be re- 
 gretted, then, is the public excitement which 
 has been produced in anticipation of this de- 
 bate I It is, I fear, not well calculated to in- 
 sure a decision of this question upon its merits. 
 The voice of the people should be heard, and 
 always heard with deep attention and due re- 
 spect. But, when feelings are thereby excited 
 which do not belong to the subject under con- 
 sideration, you are bound, by the strongest ob- 
 ligations of duty, to exclude them from these 
 walls. Here the passions should be suffered to 
 sleep, while to the unbiased judgment and the 
 enlightened conscience are committed the deci- 
 sions which may be recorded in your journals. 
 
 What, then, sir, is the question we are called 
 upon to decide? Does it involve the liberty or 
 slavery of the black population of the United 
 States? On this subject the constitution has 
 wisely interdicted the interference of the Gen- 
 eral Government. Does it seek a suspension of 
 the law prohibiting the unhallowed trade to 
 Africa, until the people of Missouri shall have 
 accommodated themselves with slaves from that 
 unfortunate country ? No such sacrifice of feel- 
 ing or policy is asked at your hands ; on the 
 contrary, the prayer of the people of Missouri, 
 if granted, would not affect the liberty of a 
 single freeman. Neither of these subjects being 
 before the Senate, the arguments and feelings 
 which grow out of them are alike foreign to 
 the present discussion. But the people of Mis- 
 souri do ask of you to fulfil your solemn en- 
 gagements in their behalf, and to admit them 
 into the Union, " according to the principles of 
 the Federal Constitution, to the enjoyment of 
 all the rights, advantages, and immunities of 
 citizens of the United States." The question 
 then is, will you thus admit them ? 
 
 Indulge me, sir, with your attention for a 
 few moments, while I briefly consider their 
 claims to such admission : 1st, under the consti- 
 tution ; 2dly, from the obligations voluntarily
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 JAJITJARY, 1820.] 
 
 Maine and Missouri Restriction on Missouri. 
 
 [SENATE. 
 
 assumed by the United States, in the treaty of 
 cession, of the 30th April, 1803 ; and, lastly, 
 from the suggestions of sound policy. In the 
 3d section of the 4th article of the constitution, 
 it is declared " New States may be admitted 
 by the Congress into this Union ;" and in the 
 subsequent section of the same article, "The 
 United States shall guarantee to every State in 
 this Union a republican form of government." 
 By the first section Congress is obviously clothed 
 with discretionary power to admit, or not to 
 admit, new States into this Union. But, when- 
 ever this power is exercised in the admission of 
 a new State into this Union, the United States 
 become bound, by the second section, to aid in 
 the support of a republican form of govern- 
 ment within her limits. Hence, the power 
 claimed by Congress to exact a constitution on 
 republican principles, as a condition to the ad- 
 mission of a new State into this Union. The 
 condition is the necessary result of the obliga- 
 tion previously imposed upon the United States 
 to guarantee a republican form of government to 
 each State ; and it is to be considered as an evi- 
 dence of the patronage of the constitution, 
 rather than as any authority to impose restric- 
 tions on the States. 
 
 The second section of the fourth article de- 
 clares " The citizens of each State shall be en- 
 titled to all privileges and immunities of citizens 
 in the several States." A new State, then, when 
 once admitted into this Union, becomes possess- 
 ed, by the very act of admission, of all privi- 
 leges and immunities of the old States. But 
 the old States claim and exercise the privilege 
 to alter and amend their constitutions at pleas- 
 ure. This is accorded to them as an inalienable, 
 indefeasible right, essential to self-government 
 and in the use of this right they are unre- 
 strained, provided they preserve the form of the 
 government, and do not violate the Federal 
 Constitution. But the admission of involuntary 
 servitude into a State does not affect the form 
 of the government, nor violate the Federal 
 Constitution; for one-half of the States in the 
 Union allow of it, and the Federal Constitution 
 expressly recognizes and sanctions it. Under 
 the constitution, then, any State in this Union 
 may admit involuntary servitude within its 
 limits, in the exercise of its unquestionable right 
 of self-government; and Congress cannot be 
 supposed to have power to impose a restriction, 
 which the State has authority to abrogate at 
 pleasure. 
 
 But it is contended by the honorable gentle- 
 man from Pennsylvania, (Mr. ROBERTS,) that, 
 since the year 1808, Congress has acquired au- 
 thority, under the ninth section of the first 
 article, to impose the contemplated restriction. 
 This section reads : " The migration or impor- 
 tation of such persons as any of the States now 
 existing shall think proper to admit, shall not 
 be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year 
 1808, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such 
 importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each 
 person." The terms migration and importation 
 
 are not synonymous. Migration implies voli- 
 tion, choice, self-direction but these belong not 
 to a slave. He may be carried or imported, or 
 he may abscond, but he can never migrate. 
 The Irish, the Scotch, and the Dutch, migrate 
 to this country, and it was probably to prevent 
 Congress, until after the year 1808, from inter- 
 dicting this practice, under the authority given 
 to that body " to establish a uniform rule of 
 naturalization," that the word migration was 
 introduced in this section. But importation 
 applies to slaves. They were imported ; and 
 the last clause of this section is conclusive as to 
 the correctness of this exposition " but a tax 
 or duty may be imposed on such importation, 
 not exceeding ten dollars for each person." 
 The subjects of this tax or duty were persons 
 imported, while those who migrated were suf- 
 fered to enter our ports without the imposition 
 of any duty. This section is restrictive, and 
 restrains the power of Congress to prohibit the 
 importation of slaves or the migration of for- 
 eigners prior to the year 1808. Since that 
 period, Congress has very wisely acted upon the 
 subject of the slave trade, and, under the au- 
 thority imparted by the constitution, " to regu- 
 late commerce with foreign nations," such laws 
 have been passed as promise at no distant period 
 its entire suppression. But Congress has never 
 attempted to prevent the transfer or removal of 
 slaves from one State to another at the will of 
 their owners. The section restrains no such 
 power, for no such is given in the constitution. 
 The truth is, it is a right claimed and exercised, 
 by the States, and they will never surrender it. 
 Congress has no authority for claiming it. 
 
 But the latter part of the third section of the 
 fourth article, it is supposed, gives to Congress 
 competent authority on this subject. It reads 
 " The Congress shah 1 have power to dispose 
 of and make all needful rules and regulations 
 respecting the territory or other property be- 
 longing to the United States." Under the au- 
 thority here given, Congress may lay out and 
 dispose of the lands of the United States ; and 
 when inhabited, make such rules and regulations 
 as may be needful for the civil government of 
 the territory. But the question before the Sen- 
 ate is not what rules and regulations Congress 
 may make for the government of a territory. 
 It is, I conceive, sir, entirely a distinct subject 
 of inquiry, and, therefore, cannot depend for its 
 decision upon any authority drawn from this 
 clause. Whenever the question respecting the 
 powers of Congress to impose restrictions on 
 the Territories shall come up, it will be time 
 enough to argue it ; at present it ought not to 
 be permitted to embarrass the point at issue 
 before the Senate. To me, then, the constitu- 
 tion does not seem to countenance the inhibi- 
 tion sought to be imposed by the amendment. 
 
 But, sir, the treaty of cession of the 80th of 
 April, 1803, is still more explicit on this sub- 
 ject. The third article provides that, " the in- 
 habitants of the tvdi/d territory shall be incor- 
 porated into the Union of the United States,
 
 394 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 Maine and Missouri Restriction on Missouri. 
 
 [JANUARY, 1820. 
 
 and admitted as soon as possible, according to 
 the principles of the Federal Constitution, to 
 the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages, 
 and immunities of citizens of the United States ; 
 and, in the mean time, they shall be maintained 
 and protected in the free enjoyment of their 
 liberty, property, and the religion which they 
 profess." The only difficulty which presents 
 itself here is, to adopt any train of reasoning, 
 by which the right of Missouri to an uncondi- 
 tional admission into the Union, can be made 
 more obvious than it is rendered by a bare re- 
 cital of this section. It seems to me not very 
 unlike an attempt to prove a self-evident pro- 
 position. Under the constitution, it is manifest 
 Congress may refuse admission to a new State. 
 But here the General Government stands pledg- 
 ed not only to admit Missouri into the Union, 
 but to do so as soon as possible ; that is, so soon 
 as she shall be in possession of the legal requi- 
 sites; and when admitted, to receive her "ac- 
 cording to the principles of the Federal Con- 
 stitution," by which is intended, " under a re- 
 publican form of Government," guaranteed to 
 her by the United States in conformity with the 
 provisions of the fourth section of the fourth 
 article of the constitution. And, sir, as it re- 
 gards the plenitude of the rights which are to 
 be acquired by this admission, it is declared to 
 be " to the enjoyment of all the rights, advan- 
 tages, and immunities, of citizens of the Unit- 
 ed States." Now, all the rights, advantages, 
 and immunities of the citizens of the United 
 States, is a phrase of the most extensive 
 latitude, and must necessarily include the mo- 
 mentous and inalienable right of self-govern- 
 ment, which appertains to all the States. But 
 many of the States, in the exercise of the right 
 of self-government, have established, and do 
 permit, involuntary servitude within their lim- 
 its. Missouri, then, when admitted, may so 
 amend her constitution, under the enjoyment of 
 the same right, as to admit slavery within her 
 .jurisdiction. And yet, it is contended that 
 Congress can impose a restriction which the 
 State, at the moment of her admission into the 
 Union, will have a right to annul ! Again, in 
 the last clause of this section it is expressly 
 agreed, that, " in the mean time they shall be 
 maintained and protected in the free enjoyment 
 of their liberty, property, and the religion 
 which they profess." But a part of this prop- 
 erty, for the protection of which the United 
 States stand thus solemnly pledged, was, un- 
 questionably, slaves. The Congress, thus, not 
 only has no power to impose the contemplated 
 restriction on the State of Missouri, when ad- 
 mitted into the Union ; but having guaranteed 
 to the owners of slaves, in the ceded territory, 
 the free enjoyment of their property, that body 
 could not, under any Territorial regulation, 
 have imposed such a restriction. That the Gen- 
 eral Government thus understood the obliga- 
 tions of the treaty may be fairly inferred from 
 its practice under it. Since the acquisition of 
 Louisiana from France, no attempt has been 
 
 made by Congress to legislate on this subject ; 
 and the inhabitants have been left to the uncon- 
 trolled management and direction of this species 
 of property. In the year 1812, when a part of 
 this Territory, under the name of Louisiana, 
 was admitted into the Union, the admission was 
 unconditional as to this subject, and that part 
 of the territory was received on the footing of 
 the original States. 
 
 Mr. MOHBII.L, of New Hampshire, said it was 
 with reluctance that he rose to address the 
 President of the Senate on this subject. I ap- 
 proach it, said he, fully impressed with the pe- 
 culiar sensibility which is excited in this House 
 when it is discussed. I arn not insensible of 
 the force of argument, the power of eloquence, 
 and the weight of numbers, those must en- 
 counter who take the affirmative of this ques- 
 tion. But, sir, it is a duty which I cannot 
 evade without doing violence to my own con- 
 science and disappointing the expectation of 
 that respectable portion of community whom I 
 have the honor, in part, to represent. It is a 
 duty I owe to myself, my constituents, and my 
 country. The decision of this question, sir, is 
 not to affect a small section of the countiy only, 
 but a territory more extensive than all the rest 
 of the United States will have occasion to look 
 back upon the measures of this Congress with 
 joy or sorrow, delight or regret, perhaps, to the 
 last period of time. Yes, sir, unborn millions 
 will feel the effects of your laws, and rise up 
 and call you blessed, or justly execrate the pol- 
 icy that permits one portion of the citizens to 
 trample on the rights of the other, and trans- 
 form those into despots, and these into enemies 
 of their country. 
 
 Mr. President, when I cast my eye over this 
 widely-extended empire, and behold it still ex- 
 tending, I inquire, with deep solicitude and in- 
 expressible anxiety, what will be the situation 
 of my beloved country a century or half a cen- 
 tury to come? "Will this growing Republic rise 
 like the cedar of Lebanon, and flourish like the 
 palm tree? "Will its extensive branches and 
 fragrant leaves cheer and heal the innumerable 
 inhabitants of this immense domain ? Will its 
 civil and religious liberties be preserved ? "Will 
 its intellectual and moral improvements pro- 
 gress and keep pace with its rapid population 
 and increasing wealth ? Sir, history furnishes 
 us with no fact on which we can found this 
 hope. Eepublics have risen and fallen, empires 
 have been shaken, and kingdoms demolished. 
 But, sir, for my country I would ardently desire 
 a better fate, that she may convey to posterity 
 her inestimable blessings, and thereby outlive 
 the convulsions of nations. 
 
 Mr. President, this may be the case ; but to 
 insure it, our Government must be wisely ad- 
 ministered, our liberties and morals preserved 
 from contamination, and the principles of the 
 original compact " the palladium of our rights " 
 kept sacred and entire. This will cement the 
 bonds of affection, sustain the Union, and give 
 that energy to the Government that the com-
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 JANUARY, 1820.] 
 
 Maine and Missouri Restriction on Missouri. 
 
 [SENATE. 
 
 bined power and influence of the world will be 
 unable to impair. But, sir, violate these, and 
 this political fabric is racked to its centre. As 
 an honorable gentleman intimated, it may oc- 
 casion a tremor in the West, agitation in the 
 East, and convulsion in the centre, and chaos 
 through the whole. 
 
 Watch them with caution and vigilance, and 
 this growing Eepublic rises as the cedar and 
 soars as the eagle. 
 
 Sir, we are as liberal and as accommodating 
 as any people on earth, and we are as tenacious 
 of our rights. We know how we obtained them, 
 and we know how to preserve them. 
 
 Mr. President, our forefathers quit the land 
 of their nativity, the air which gave them birth, 
 the associates of their youth, that they might 
 enjoy civil and religious liberty. These were 
 more precious than the possession of wealth, 
 and the society of friends in a land of intoler- 
 ance. They ploughed the mighty deep, they 
 endured fatigue and danger, and implanted 
 themselves on the inhospitable shores of a sav- 
 age land, and there they erected the standard 
 of liberty. They were Eepublicans in heart, 
 pious in their profession, and virtuous in their 
 practice. But they were not beyond the reach 
 of oppression ; the strong arm of power was ex- 
 tended across the Atlantic. They felt their weak- 
 ness and dependence ; they saw the hand which 
 had been extended for their preservation and 
 safety; they implored a divine benediction. 
 Sir, the cause of this country was the cause of 
 liberty, of truth, and of righteousness. A kind 
 Providence interposed, and we were strangely 
 rescued from the iron grasp of an unrelenting foe. 
 
 Omnipotent was the power, and marvellous 
 was the deliverance ! 
 
 Mr. President, independence was the high des- 
 tiny of America ; it was the decree of the Holy 
 One ; its banner was unfurled ; its enjoyments 
 anticipated; liberty and equality had "free 
 course ;" and a constitution, the admiration of 
 the world, the dread of tyrants and the boast of 
 freemen, grew out of the mighty conflict. This, 
 sir, is the instrument which I have sworn to 
 support, the polar star to direct my legislative 
 course. Let no unhallowed touch profane the 
 sacred ark of your liberties ; preserve it invio- 
 late, and its light, like the fiery pillar of captive 
 Israel, will conduct you safely through all the 
 toils and perils of your political journey, cheer 
 the desert of your Western country, and cause 
 the hearts of millions to rejoice. Sir, this is the 
 standard around which we rally. Guard it 
 with watchfulness, and you are safe ; violate, 
 or pervert it, and a train of evils, too dreadful 
 to imagine, will be the probable result. Sir, do 
 you demand proof of our patriotism and attach- 
 ment to our constitution and country? We 
 point you to Bunker Hill, Bonnington, Trenton, 
 Princeton, and Monmouth. We have met the 
 p.ower that spurned us ; we took our lives in 
 our hands, and faced the foe that bid us de- 
 fiance. This was the day that tried men's souls. 
 We have lavished our strength, our treasure, 
 
 and our blood, in the first and second war, to 
 sustain triumphant the ark of American lib- 
 erty. In the name, then, of our constitution and 
 your plighted faith, with confidence bordering 
 on certainty, we approach an enlightened, lib- 
 eral, and magnanimous Legislature, and only 
 ask the protection and preservation of our guar- 
 anteed privileges. We do not mean, sir, in the 
 attitude of humble suppliants, to implore a fa- 
 vor for which we have no just claim ; but to re- 
 mind you of your solemn compact our mutual 
 agreement. Sir, are pledges of our sincerity 
 and integrity required ? We present you the 
 best securities of which a Eepublic can boast 
 faith never violated, hearts never corrupted, 
 valor never surpassed, and affections cemented 
 to the Government by ties of reciprocal ad- 
 vantage. 
 
 Mr. President, I have arrived at a point which 
 I lament I am compelled to disclose. It is my 
 deliberate opinion, that the uncontrolled ex- 
 tension of involuntary servitude will tend to 
 impair all those virtuous qualities that I have 
 named, which I deem the stamina, nerve, 
 muscle, and hope of the nation. Alienation of 
 affection and discord are the ruin of a country. 
 " United we stand divided we fall." 
 
 Sir, the magnitude of this subject, the impor- 
 tance which I conceive is attached to it, and the 
 vital principle which will be affected in its final 
 decision, are the only apology which I offer, for 
 viewing it in the several points of light in which 
 it presents itself to my understanding. In the 
 first place, to clear the most formidable obstacle 
 out of the way, I shall endeavor to demonstrate, 
 that Congress have a right and power to pro- 
 hibit slavery in every territory within their do- 
 minion, and in every State, formed of territory 
 acquired without the limits of the original 
 States. 
 
 This right and power are derived from the 
 constitution, article 1, section 9 : " The migra- 
 tion or importation of such persons as any of 
 the States now existing shall think proper to ad- 
 mit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress 
 prior to the year 1808." 
 
 Here is a grant of power suspended for a cer- 
 tain period. It amounts to this : Congress may, 
 after the year 1808, pass laws to prohibit the 
 migration and importation of slaves. I under- 
 stand the sense and meaning of this clause to be, 
 that the power of the Congress, although com- 
 petent to prohibit such migration and importa- 
 tion, was not to be exercised with respect to 
 the then existing States, (and them only,) until 
 the year 1808 ; but that the Congress were at 
 liberty to make such prohibition as to any new 
 State which might, in the mean time, be estab- 
 lished. And further, that, from and after 
 that period, they were authorized to make such 
 prohibition as to all the States, whether new or 
 old. 
 
 It will, I presume, be admitted, that slaves 
 were the persons intended. The word slaves 
 was avoided, probably on account of the exist- 
 ing toleration of slavery, and its discordancy
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 Maine and Missouri Restriction on Missouri. 
 
 [JANUARY, 1820. 
 
 with the principles of the Revolution; and 
 from a consciousness of its being repugnant to 
 the following positions in the Declaration of In- 
 dependence : "We hold these truths to be self- 
 evident ; tliat all men are created equal ; that 
 they are endowed by their Creator with certain 
 inalienable rights ; that among these are life, 
 liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." 
 
 That this exposition is correct, I infer from 
 the common acceptation of words, and the fact 
 that Congress did, in March 1807, pass a law to 
 take effect on the first day of January, 1808, 
 prohibiting the further importation of slaves. 
 No objection has been made to the constitu- 
 tionality, expediency, or policy of this law. The 
 whole nation viewed it as one step towards ac- 
 complishing the object the framers of the con- 
 stitution evidently had in view. It may be of 
 use to us to inquire, what was the understand- 
 ing, and what was their design, in introducing 
 this paragraph into that instrument ? If you 
 examine the Journals of the Federal Conven- 
 tion, sir, you will find it was not hastily or in- 
 cautiously adopted, without deliberation, but 
 after critical analysis and profound investigation. 
 
 Mr. President, it is a sound principle in ex- 
 pounding a law, to give to every word a mean- 
 ing and an operation, and to be governed by the 
 evident design of the legislators ; so, in explain- 
 ing the constitution, we are surely on safe 
 ground, to pursue the object its authors evi- 
 dently had in view, by giving to every word 
 some meaning and operation. Does it not ap- 
 pear, from the words of that instrument, it was 
 their intention to arrest the progress and pre- 
 vent the further extension of involuntary ser- 
 vitude ? Let common sense put a purport upon 
 our Declaration of Independence, the letter of 
 our constitution, and the spirit of our Govern- 
 ment, and this must be the result. 
 
 It is well understood, that this question tried 
 the feelings and excited the interest of that 
 body perhaps more than any question they dis- 
 cussed. But to obtain a constitution they 
 came to a compromise ; and in this compro- 
 mise there were mutual sacrifices. The large 
 States agreed that each should have two mem- 
 bers in the Senate, and the non-slaveholding 
 States consented that the black population 
 should come into the calculation in the appor- 
 tionment of members in the House of Represent- 
 atives, and the payment of direct taxes. It was 
 the opinion of some, that involuntary servitude 
 ought to be totally excluded ; and of others, that 
 it could not be, but might be meliorated and re- 
 strained. This produced the compromise, " the 
 States now existing," which have admitted 
 slavery, may continue to do so, on this condi- 
 tion : " Congress may, after the year 1808," 
 pass laws to prevent the '" migration " and fur- 
 ther "importation" of slaves. To this prop- 
 osition they agreed. This confirmed the com- 
 pact. It is now binding on the whole. And 
 this Congress are to be controlled by its prin- 
 ciples. We wish neither to disturb the com- 
 pact, nor violate our plighted faith. We lament 
 
 the degraded situation of the slaves, and the 
 misfortune of those who hold them ; but we 
 mean to attach no blame to them ; it is an evil 
 produced by a cause which was never within 
 the reach of the present generation. 
 
 What is this tract of country ? Is it a State 
 or a Territory ? If a State, then she may legis- 
 late for herself; if a Territory, then Congress 
 have power to regulate. It is not a State till 
 admitted into the Union by an act of Congress. 
 This is clear, because should Congress pass a 
 law to admit Missouri into the Union on con- 
 ditions, and those be rejected, she remains still 
 a Territory. Then every legislative act, pre- 
 vious to that of admission, is a "regiilation re- 
 specting a Territory." And, under this provi- 
 sion of the constitution, in connection with the 
 immutable principles of rational government, 
 conditions have uniformly been incorporated in 
 the acts admitting new States into the Union, 
 as well as those which related to territorial 
 government. 
 
 If Congress have a constitutional right to 
 "make all needful rules and regulations re- 
 specting the territories," then it follows, ex ti 
 termini, that they have equal right to exercise 
 their discretion in deciding what "rules and 
 regulations are needful." The power to make 
 rules, and not a right to exercise discretion in 
 adjusting them, would be a complete nullity. 
 Previous to the year 1808, Congress did sup- 
 pose, without the aid of this clause in the con- 
 stitution, they possessed sovereign power and 
 control over their territories. Under this very 
 just impression, a law was passed in April, 
 1798, prohibiting the importation of slaves into 
 the Mississippi Territory Vol. 1, page 40, sec. 7: 
 
 " And be it further enacted, That from and after 
 the establishment of the aforesaid government, it 
 shall not be lawful for any person or persons to im- 
 porter bring into the said Mississippi Territory, from 
 any port or place within the limits of the United 
 States, or to cause or procure to be so imported or 
 brought, or aid in bringing, any slave ; and being 
 convicted, &c., shall forfeit and pay three hundred dol- 
 lars, &c., and the slave be entitled to freedom." 
 
 This distinctly shows, that Congress supposed 
 their power over the Territories more exten- 
 sive than that over the States ; because over 
 them they could not pass a prohibitory statute 
 till 1808. The same fact appears from the act 
 of Congress of March, 1804, " erecting Louis- 
 iana into two Territories." Sec. 10 " It shall 
 not be lawful for any person or persons to im- 
 port or bring into the said Territory, from any 
 port or place without the limits of the United 
 States, &c., any slave or slaves ; and every per- 
 son so offending, &c., shall forfeit three hundred 
 dollars, and the slave shall receive his or her 
 freedom." " It shall not be lawful for any per- 
 son or persons to import or bring into the said 
 Territory, from any port or place within the 
 limits of the United States, any slave or slaves 
 which shall have been imported since the first 
 day of May, 1798, or which may hereafter be 
 imported ; such person shall forfeit, &c., three
 
 DEBATES OF CONGKESS. 
 
 397 
 
 JANUARY, 1820.] 
 
 Restriction of Slavery Maine and Missouri. 
 
 [SENATE. 
 
 hundred dollars ; and no slave or slaves shall, 
 directly or indirectly, be introduced into said 
 Territory, except by a citizen of the United 
 States, removing into said Territory for actual 
 settlement, and being at the time of such re- 
 moval bona fide owner of such slave or slaves ; 
 and every slave brought into said Territory, 
 contrary to the provisions of this act, shall re- 
 ceive his or her freedom." 
 
 From these facts it very obviously appears 
 that Congress had, and did exercise, the power 
 of inhibiting the importation, and even the 
 migration of slaves, into its territories, directly 
 or indirectly, otherwise than by a citizen of the 
 United States removing thither for actual set- 
 tlement, and being at the time bona fide owner 
 of the slave. And this previous to the time 
 that the ninth section in the first article of the 
 constitution took effect ; of course the power 
 must be derived from some other clause in the 
 constitution perhaps that which authorizes 
 Congress to regulate commerce, or from the 
 immutable principle that all legitimate Govern- 
 ments have an inherent right to exercise sov- 
 ereign control over its territories. 
 
 TUESDAY, January 18. 
 Restriction of Slavery in the Territory North 
 
 and West of Missouri. 
 Agreeably to notice given, Mr. THOMAS asked 
 and obtained leave to bring in the following 
 bill, which was read and passed to the second 
 reading : 
 
 A BUI to prohibit the introduction of slavery into 
 the territories of the United States North and West 
 of the contemplated State of Missouri. 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Represent- 
 atives of the United States of America, in Congress 
 assembled, That the sixth article of the ordinance of 
 Congress, passed on the thirteenth day of July, one 
 thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven, for the 
 government of the territory of the United States 
 Northwest of the river Ohio, shall, to all intents and 
 purposes, be deemed and held applicable to, and shall 
 have full force and effect in and over all the territory 
 belonging to the United States, which lies West and 
 Xortb of a line beginning at a point on the parallel 
 of North latitude thirty degrees and thirty minutes, 
 where the said parallel crosses the Western boundary 
 line of the United States : thence, running East, along 
 that parallel of latitude, to a point where the said 
 parallel is intersected by a meridian line passing 
 through the middle of the mouth of the Kansas River, 
 where the same empties into the Missouri River; 
 thence, from the point aforesaid, North, along the 
 said meridian line, to the intersection of the parallel 
 of latitude which passes through the rapids of the 
 River Des Moines, making the said line to corre- 
 spond with the Indian boundary line ; thence, East, 
 from the point of intersection last aforesaid, along the 
 said parallel of latitude, to the middle of the channel 
 of the main fork of the said river Des Moines ; thence, 
 down and along the middle of the mam channel of 
 the said river Des Moines, to the motath of the same, 
 where it empties into the Mississippi River ; thence, 
 due East, to the middle of the main channel of the 
 Mississippi River; thence, up and following the 
 
 course of the Mississippi River, in the middle of the 
 main channel thereof, to its source ; and thence, due 
 North, to the Northern boundary of the United 
 
 States. 
 
 WEDNESDAY, January 19. 
 Maine and Missouri. 
 
 The Senate resumed, as in Committee of the 
 Whole, the consideration of the bill, entitled 
 " An act for the admission of the State of Maine 
 into the Union," together with the amendments 
 reported thereto by the Committee on the 
 Judiciary, and the amendment proposed by 
 Mr. ROBERTS. 
 
 Mr. WALKEK, of Georgia, said, the subject 
 under consideration had been already so much 
 discussed, that he had not the vanity Jo believe 
 that he could offer any thing new to the con- 
 sideration of the Senate. But representing, as 
 he did, a State in which slavery is tolerated, it 
 might possibly be construed a dereliction of 
 duty, and an abandonment of the sacred inter- 
 ests of those he represented, were he to remain 
 silent on the present occasion. Nothing, how- 
 ever, said he, but an imperious, an irresistible 
 sense of duty could have induced me to depart 
 from the resolution I had at first taken, not to 
 trespass upon the time of the Senate by any 
 observations of mine upon the bill now in pro- 
 gression. And really, sir, it is with a degree 
 of unfeigned reluctance I have risen to oppose 
 my opinions to those of gentlemen of so much 
 more experience than myself, and for whose 
 opinions I cannot but entertain the most pro- 
 found respect. 
 
 We have already heard, sir, as well from the 
 honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania, who 
 first addressed you, as from the honorable gen- 
 tleman from New Hampshire, who closed his 
 remarks last evening, that the subject under 
 consideration is an important one. In this 
 sentiment I perfectly accord. 
 
 Perhaps, sir, no subject which has agitated 
 the councils of the United States of America, 
 from the formation of our Government down 
 to the present period, has been pregnant with 
 more important consequences than the one now 
 under discussion. It is a subject, sir, which has 
 excited not only the deep interest of those who 
 are to decide upon it, but one which is agitat- 
 ing this continent from one extreme to the 
 other. And whether we turn our eyes to the 
 East or to the West, to the North or to the 
 South, we behold anxiety depicted in every 
 countenance, as if, upon the decision of this 
 question, depended the peace and harmony of 
 this Union. 
 
 Sir, the resolutions and instructions of differ- 
 ent State Legislatures the petitions of very 
 many assemblages of citizens in various parts 
 of the Union, with which your table is crowded 
 proclaim, in language not to be misunder- 
 stood, the deep-toned feeling to which the dis- 
 cussion of this question has given rise. 
 
 Mr. President, I have heard, with much re- 
 gret, the sentiments which have been expressed 
 in this debate. They evince a degree of sec-
 
 398 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 Maine and Missouri. 
 
 [JANUARY, 1820. 
 
 tional feeling which I had not expected to find 
 within these walls. I had indulged the hope, 
 sir, that, with the close of the late war, all 
 party animosity had subsided, and that our po- 
 litical bark, having ridden out the tempest of 
 faction, had been safely anchored in the haven 
 of peace. But a state of tranquillity, I appre- 
 hend, is incompatible with the nature of man. 
 Scarcely had the storm subsided scarcely had 
 we shaken hands as brothers when a new 
 source of discontent has been discovered ; and 
 another, and much more important distinction 
 of party than any which has preceded it, is 
 about to be established. 
 
 The feelings of humanity and benevolence 
 have taken such complete possession of certain 
 sections Of our country, that every other con- 
 sideration is made to bend to the irresistible 
 inclination to ameliorate the condition of slaves. 
 A spirit of opposition a line of demarcation 
 is sought to be established between the slave- 
 holding and non-slaveholding States. And 
 "slavery or not," seems destined to be the 
 watch- word of party. 
 
 I, for one, Mr. President, deprecate this state 
 of things. I am not among those who believe 
 that party dissensions are essential to the health 
 of the body politic. I delight, sir, to inhale the 
 breeze which brings with it harmony and peace ; 
 but when other sentiments prevail, it is not my 
 nature to yield to their influence with calm in- 
 difference. Contest is preferable to submission. 
 I feel it my duty, therefore, to meet this ques- 
 tion at the threshold ; I fear there is too much 
 reason to consider it the inception of a policy 
 whose tendency may be to dismember this 
 Union. And the alarming doctrines we yester- 
 day heard, have certainly not tended to allay 
 my apprehensions. 
 
 It will not be expected, I trust, that I should 
 follow the honorable gentlemen who advocate 
 the amendment, over all the ground they have 
 occupied in debate; for this I have neither in- 
 clination nor ability, and were they both in my 
 possession, still, the effort might, perhaps, by 
 some, be thought unnecessary. 
 
 With the historical sketches which have been 
 given us, of the early settlements of this coun- 
 try, and of the dangers and difficulties which 
 were encountered by our forefathers in this 
 perilous enterprise, I have been amused and 
 instructed I had almost said, I have been 
 charmed by their novelty ; but I must be par- 
 doned for saying, I cannot perceive their re- 
 levancy to the subject under discussion. 
 
 The honorable gentleman from New Hamp- 
 shire, whose arguments I cannot hope to reach, 
 much less to answer, has employed a consider- 
 able portion of a very long and a very able 
 speech, in inventing anathemas against slavery, 
 and has been pleased to draw a parallel be- 
 tween the inhabitants of the different sections 
 of this country, (but with what degree of ac- 
 curacy others must judge,) in which he has not 
 failed to give a very decided preference to those 
 who inhabit States in which slavery is not tol- 
 
 erated ; and in the plenitude of his charity and 
 benevolence, has ascribed this vast and essen- 
 tial difference to the influence of slavery. To 
 the same influence is ascribed a destitution of 
 talents, of courage, of morality, and of religion ; 
 and, from the observations of the honorable 
 gentleman, one would be led to believe that all 
 the cardinal virtues wither at the approach of 
 this accursed monster slavery. In what a de- 
 plorable condition would be the inhabitants of 
 the slaveholding States if the honorable gentle- 
 man's speculations were history I Fortunately, 
 however, they have their existence only in a 
 fervid imagination. 
 
 But, dreading lest he should not be able to 
 carry conviction to our understandings, which 
 he must of course have considered extremely 
 blunt and impenetrable, the honorable gentle- 
 man endeavors to make an attack upon our 
 fears, in which he considers us perhaps much 
 more assailable; and with all the Christian 
 meekness and charity imaginable, we are cau- 
 tioned to beware how we encourage slavery, 
 for that the vengeance of an angry God will 
 not sleep for ever. 
 
 The honorable gentleman's zeal seems to have 
 transported him beyond the bounds of just cal- 
 culation. Our apprehensions are not so easily 
 excited. For, whilst we bow with great hu- 
 mility and reverence before the majesty of 
 Heaven, and, on our bended knees, would de- 
 precate the wrath of God, we are not prepared 
 to consider the honorable gentleman as one of 
 his vicegerents. 
 
 Mr. President, it is far from my intention to 
 recriminate ; I came not here to offend or be 
 offended. If it will be a gratification to the 
 honorable gentleman's feelings, I am willing to^ 
 admit, that the inhabitants of that section of * 
 the country from whence he comes, are all 
 high-minded and honorable men; that they are 
 intelligent, brave, virtuous, moral, religious, 
 and patriotic. But I must take the liberty of 
 reminding the honorable gentleman, that these 
 are not sectional qualities; and that if he will 
 give himself the trouble to consult the page of 
 history, he will learn that those virtues are 
 alike the growth of every part of this extensive, 
 prosperous, and happy country ; and I trust I 
 shall not give offence by declaring it as my firm 
 conviction, that the inhabitants of the slave- 
 holding States will not suffer by a just com- 
 parison with those of any other section of the 
 Union. 
 
 In approaching the constitution of my conn- 
 try, sir, I proceed with a kind of deferential 
 awe : it is a hallowed instrument, with which 
 I am almost afraid to trust myself. 
 
 The grant of powers to Congress by the con- 
 stitution, are embraced in the 8th section of the 
 1st article ; by which Congress shall have power 
 to lay and collect taxes, to borrow money, to 
 regulate commerce, to establish a uniform rule 
 of naturalization, to coin money, to promote 
 the progress of science and useful arts, to con- 
 stitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court,
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 399 
 
 JANUARY, 1820.] 
 
 Maine and Missouri, 
 
 [SENATE. 
 
 to declare war, &c. Among the powers enu- 
 merated in this section, the one contended for 
 will not be found. But the gentlemen inform 
 us that the power is derived from the 9th sec- 
 tion of the same article, or from the third sec- 
 tion of the 4th article ; but from which of these 
 sections the advocates of this measure have not 
 exactly agreed among themselves. That it 
 cannot be derived from both, I presume, must 
 be admitted ; for it would be doing injustice to 
 the profound intelligence of the immortal fram- 
 ers of the constitution, to suppose that they 
 would have employed two distinct sections hi 
 different articles of that instrument, to convey 
 the same power. And this diversity of opinion 
 among such able expositors of the constitution, 
 renders it at least doubtful whether it is de- 
 rivable from either section. 
 
 But let us examine the sections referred to. 
 The 9th section of the 1st article is as follows : 
 
 " The migration or importation of such persons as 
 any of the States now existing shall think proper to 
 admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior 
 to the year 1808 ; but a tax or duty may be imposed 
 on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for 
 each person." 
 
 It is much to be regretted that any section of 
 this inimitable instrument should have been so 
 constructed as to admit even of doubtful inter- 
 pretation. It is, however, a proof that perfec- 
 tion belongs not to man, but is an attribute of 
 the Deity. The instrument under consideration 
 is, perhaps, as perfect as man could make it. 
 
 The gentlemen who rely upon this section 
 contend that the power impliedly acknowledged 
 to reside in Congress, by the phraseology of 
 this section, to prohibit the migration of slaves, 
 is sufficiently extensive to authorize the inter- 
 diction of carrying slaves from one State to an- 
 other of this Union, or from the States to the 
 Territories belonging to the United States ; and 
 that Congress may well regulate the inter- 
 course between the States and Territories, in 
 this regard, and totally prohibit the "migra- 
 tion " of slaves. 
 
 On first turning my attention to this subject, 
 with a view to the formation of an opinion 
 upon the section under consideration, I was im- 
 pressed with the belief that the words " migra- 
 tion and importation " were used as convert- 
 ible; that they were intended to have the 
 same interpretation ; and both to have refer- 
 ence to the introduction of slaves from abroad : 
 for, although the word "persons" was used, I 
 had no difficulty in believing slaves were meant. 
 This construction I believed to be strengthened 
 by the fact that the word "migration" is en- 
 tirely dropped in the latter part of the section, 
 and the word " such " is made to refer to the 
 persons so to be introduced ; Congress being 
 authorized to impose a tax on such importation 
 not exceeding ten dollars for each person. But, 
 on more mature reflection, my mind came to 
 the conclusion that the words were entitled to 
 be considered separately; that they \vero in- 
 tended to have distinct meanings, and each to 
 
 be employed in the performance of a particular 
 office. I was the more easily led to this con- 
 clusion from the belief that the great and ex- 
 cellent men who formed our constitution, would 
 not have employed an unnecessary phraseology, 
 or have used words which they did not intend 
 should have their appropriate signification. 
 
 The construction, therefore, which I am dis- 
 posed to give to this section is that the word 
 " importation," as its appropriate meaning would 
 indicate, looks abroad and was intended to em- 
 brace slaves brought into this country from 
 Africa and elsewhere by water. The word 
 "migration " was intended to embrace such as 
 should be brought into the United States by 
 land, from the contiguous territory belonging 
 to foreign powers. For it would have been 
 idle and vain to have prohibited the "im- 
 portation" or the bringing of slaves directly 
 into our ports whilst there should be no inter- 
 diction of " migration" from the territory of for- 
 eign powers immediately adjoining the terri- 
 tory of the United States, and it must be recol- 
 lected, that at the time of the adoption of the 
 Federal Constitution, this country was bordered 
 in different directions by territory belonging to 
 other nations. By giving this construction you 
 satisfy the full meaning of both words.* 
 
 Honorable gentlemen, arguing this as an 
 original question upon the subject of slavery, 
 tell us, very emphatically, that slavery is too 
 great an evil to be tolerated. Suppose we 
 
 This clause in the constitution forms a part of the staple 
 In every speech on the Missouri question, being quoted for 
 opposite purposes by the two sides to the question by one 
 side, the phrases " migration " and " importation " being held 
 to be synonymous and applicable to slaves within the United 
 States, and their removal from one State to another ; by the 
 other side, being held as words of different import, and ap- 
 plicable both to slaves and free persons, brought or coming 
 rom abroad. " Migration " implied voluntary action im- 
 portation, involuntary. The puzzle in the clause came from 
 ;he use of both words, and from the necessity as well as the 
 mpossibility of finding a consistent meaning for each one. 
 The care of the constitution, in the use of language, was 
 known. Far from using an equivocal phrase, it would not 
 use two of the same import where one was enough ; yet 
 lere was an exception a departure from that laudable care ; 
 and, according to Mr. Madison, it was done on purpose, and 
 for the case of scrupulous consciences. Mr. Madison, in his 
 etter of November, 1819, to Mr. Eobert Walsh, thus ac- 
 counts for it : " Some of the States had scruples about ad- 
 mitting the term 'slaves' into the instrument: hence the 
 descriptive phrase, 'migration, or importation of persons;' 
 the term migration allowing those who were scrupulous of 
 acknowledging expressly a property in human beings, to 
 lew imported persons as a species of emigrants, while 
 others might apply the term to foreign malefactors sent or 
 coming into the country. It is possible, though not recol- 
 ected, that some might have had an eye to the case of freed 
 lacks as well as malefactors." So that this phrase, " migra- 
 lon," which gave so much trouble to our Congress, and ex- 
 ited such alarming apprehension in one-half of the Union, 
 was only a mode of getting a unanimous vote for the same 
 thing, to wit : the non-importation of Africans for slaves 
 a certain day.
 
 400 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 Maine and Missouri. 
 
 [JANUARY, 1820. 
 
 should entertain the opinion that such is the 
 fact, and the people of Missouri should think 
 differently, shall we take upon ourselves to 
 judge for them what is most for their advan- 
 tage ? Shall we deny them the right of opin- 
 ion ? Is this compatible with the genius and 
 spirit of our free constitution ? Are these the 
 sentiments of gentlemen who ahhor slavery ? 
 I had thought, Mr. President, that the pride of 
 opinion was the American's boast. I had fondly 
 hoped that the old doctrine of saving the peo- 
 ple from their worst enemy, themselves, had 
 been long since exploded ; and that one much 
 more congenial with the principles of our Gov- 
 ernment had been substituted. I had thought, 
 that, as the people were the source of all power, 
 they might be permitted to judge for them- 
 selves in all original and important questions in 
 which their welfare was materially involved. 
 I must contend then, sir, that whether slavery 
 is really an evil or not, is a matter for the peo- 
 ple of Missouri to determine for themselves, 
 and not Congress for them. If it is an evil, 
 and they choose to hug it to their bosoms, and 
 to enfold it in their fond embrace, does it per- 
 tain to Congress to deny them the privilege ? 
 Shall we take from them the right of judging 
 for themselves upon a subject so intimately con- 
 nected with their welfare ? Will those who in- 
 veigh so bitterly against the slavery of the 
 blacks make slaves of the white people of Mis- 
 souri, and rivet chains about their necks? 
 Shall an American Congress, basking in the 
 sunshine of the only free constitution upon 
 earth, unmindful of the blessings which they 
 themselves enjoy, undertake to impose a gov- 
 ernment upon a portion of their citizens, against 
 their will, and to restrain them in the exercise 
 of rights enjoyed by others ? Such a course of 
 conduct might do well for a despot of Europe. 
 Such a procedure might have been expected 
 from a Bonaparte, in the meridian of his splen- 
 did career of conquest. But for the meek-eyed 
 sons of a Eepublic to attempt such a thing, I 
 must confess, Mr. President, has excited my as- 
 tonishment and regret. 
 
 These people are either capable of self-gov- 
 ernment, or they are not. If the former, per- 
 mit them to frame a constitution for them- 
 selves, restrained only by the obligation im- 
 posed by the Federal Constitution that it shall 
 have a Republican form. Let us grant to them 
 the boon of self-government, without alloy. 
 But if they should be deemed incapable of self- 
 government, let Congress, in tender commis- 
 eration for their unfortunate condition, con- 
 tinue "to make all needful rules and regu- 
 lations," which may be essential for their com- 
 fort and protection. But can it be expected 
 that the people of Missouri, the hardy sons of 
 the "West, will tamely submit to such a degra- 
 dation to such a palpable infringement of their 
 rights ? Will they submit to be told that they 
 are incapable of thinking and acting for them- 
 selves ; that they are incapable of appreciating 
 the advantages, or of avoiding the evils of 
 slavery ? 
 
 Such submission and humiliation, sir, might 
 be expected from the slaves of an eastern 
 despot, whose souls, enfettered and enchained 
 by arbitrary power, had become so fallen, so 
 degraded, and debased, that they were inca- 
 pable of the exercise of manly feelings. But 
 to expect such submission from the free-born 
 sons of America, upon whose birth the genius 
 of liberty smiled, who have been nursed in the 
 lap of independence, and grown to manhood, 
 warmed and animated by the genial influence 
 of our happy constitution, is to expect that 
 which reason and nature forbid. 'Tis to expect 
 from freemen the conduct of slaves. 
 
 Mr. President, unless these men are com- 
 posed of different materials from what I pre- 
 sume they are, I fear much do I fear that 
 the imposition of restrictions, or the refusal to 
 admit them unconditionally into the Union, will 
 excite a tempest, whose fury will not be easily 
 allayed. It is, perhaps, wrong to predict or an- 
 ticipate evil, but he must be badly acquainted 
 with the signs of the tunes, who does not per- 
 ceive a storm portending ; and callous to all the 
 finer feelings of nature must he be, who does 
 not dread the bursting of that storm. 
 
 Mr. President, I cannot but imagine to my- 
 self intestine feuds, civil wars, and all the black 
 catalogue of evils consequent upon such a state 
 of things. I behold the father armed against 
 the son, and the son against the father. I per- 
 ceive a brother's sword crimsoned with a 
 brother's blood. I perceive our houses wrapped 
 in flames, and our wives and infant children 
 driven from their homes, forced to submit to 
 the pelting of the pitiless storm, with no other 
 shelter but the canopy of heaven ; with nothing 
 to sustain them but the cold charity of an un- 
 feeling world. I trust in God, that this crea- 
 ture of the imagination may never be realized. 
 But if Congress persist in the determination to 
 impose the restriction contemplated, I fear there 
 is too much cause to apprehend, that conse- 
 quences fatal to the peace and harmony of this 
 Union will be the inevitable result. 
 
 When Mr. WALKER had concluded 
 
 Mr. MELLEN rose and said : I rise, Mr. Presi- 
 dent, to express my sentiments upon the subject 
 under consideration, with a deep conviction of 
 ts importance in regard to the lasting welfare 
 and happiness of our country. I approach the 
 question with respectfulness ; aiming at nothing 
 beyond plainness and simplicity. On this occa- 
 sion, I am not disposed, were I able, " to gather 
 and distribute the flowers of rhetoric," notwith- 
 standing the happy example which I have this 
 morning witnessed. 
 
 I am not vain enough to believe that I can 
 shed new light upon a question which has been 
 so learnedly and elaborately investigated in 
 aoth Houses of Congress on a former occasion, 
 and has recently employed the talents of respect- 
 ed individuals in different parts of the Union, 
 am sure, sir, if the subject has not already 
 been exhausted, the distinguished powers of in- 
 tellect which will be exerted during the present
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 401 
 
 JANUARY, 1820.] 
 
 Maine and Missouri. 
 
 [SENATE. 
 
 discussion will completely exhaust it. Still it 
 is my duty and my pride frankly to express my 
 own, as well as the feelings and opinion of the 
 State I represent ; and I cannot decline it, nor 
 consent to give my silent support to the amend- 
 ment proposed by my honorable friend from 
 Pennsylvania. Notwithstanding some remarks 
 which have been made by those who have pre- 
 ceded' me, I can assnre those with whom I may 
 differ in opinion, that, for one, I am the firm 
 friend of harmony and peace ; and as I am not 
 conscious of any hostility of feeling, no such 
 hostility will be shown ; no other language but 
 that of truth and independence can be neces- 
 sary or proper. "With these motives, dispo- 
 sitions, and principles, I will pursue the path of 
 duty. 
 
 We are told, sir, that, in relation to the sub- 
 ject before us, an unusual and alarming degree 
 of excitement exists in the public mind ; that 
 the community is in a state of threatening agi- 
 tation ; and we have been repeatedly admon- 
 ished, and in very intelligible terms too, to 
 extend our view to consequences. Without at 
 present considering those consequences which 
 have been named, permit me, Mr. President, to 
 inquire, "in what this excitement consists?" 
 and what are the proofs of it ? I believe there 
 is an opinion on this interesting subject ; an 
 opinion deep and strong, and expressed, in va- 
 rious places and on various occasions, in em- 
 phatic language, but in a manner as calm as it 
 is firm. Among the friends of the proposed 
 restriction, I have never heard of any other ex- 
 citement. Surely it does not appear within 
 these walls ; nothing can be more cool and dis- 
 passionate than our discussion thus far : no 
 other warmth is displayed than that which is 
 naturally produced by intellectual exertion. 
 Sir, if the agitations of the community could 
 be heard from our windows, they ought not to 
 disturb the calm of this hallowed hall of legis- 
 lation, or produce an undue effect upon our de- 
 liberations. But, sir, if we look abroad, do we 
 see any thing more than the excitement which 
 I have described ? It is true, there is a lament- 
 ed difference of opinion on this important ques- 
 tion the further extension of slavery. A por- 
 tion of the community believe that Congress 
 have no constitutional authority to interdict 
 this extension of slavery in the new States to 
 be formed west of the Mississippi ; and that, if 
 tney had, it would be unwise and unjust to ex- 
 ercise the authority. Another portion of the 
 community firmly believe that Congress do 
 possess this authority, and that they are under 
 the obligations of duty to exercise it ; and that 
 its exercise would produce lasting and extensive 
 blessings. This opinion, I have before observed, 
 is deep and strong ; but the only proof of it is 
 contained in arguments and statements which 
 have issued from the press, or in the language 
 of respectful resolutions or memorials, which 
 have been transmitted to us for our consider- 
 ation, expressive of the opinions of legislatures 
 or large and respectable bodies of our fellow- 
 VOL. VI. 26 
 
 citizens. If any other proof of unusual and 
 alarming excitement can be found, it is not 
 among those who advocate the proposed amend- 
 ment. Why, then, Mr. President, is the ques- 
 tion to be prejudiced by allusions to circum- 
 stances which have no existence but in imag- 
 ination ; and why should there be an attempt 
 to divert us from our object, by these collateral 
 considerations ? But, sir, we have been again 
 and again cautioned, in the language of terrify- 
 ing prophecy, to pause and consider before it 
 may be too late. We are told, .that if the 
 friends of the amendment should obtain their 
 object, and succeed in excluding slavery from 
 Missouri, and in maintaining a principle that 
 will exclude it from the extensive territory be- 
 yond the Mississippi, sectional jealousies and 
 animosities will be the immediate consequence ; 
 the harmony of our great and happy family 
 will be destroyed: commotion and civil war 
 may next, present their horrors, and a disso- 
 lution of the Union may be the fatal result. 
 This, to be sure, is a dreadful catalogue of evils ; 
 the prospect is dark and melancholy. But, Mr. 
 President, I believe better things of my fellow- 
 citizens. I have better hopes and brighter 
 views ; the bands which unite us are not so 
 easily to be broken ; we are a great, prosperous, 
 and happy people : heaven has showered upon 
 us ten thousand blessings which demand our 
 grateful acknowledgments. We are becoming 
 more assimilated as our intercourse increases : 
 our social attachments are daily strengthened 
 as our commercial connections are multiplied. 
 And shall all these blessings be put in jeopardy, 
 or destroyed ; and all these hopes and promises 
 of our country be thrown away, because Con- 
 gress may feel it their duty to cherish the spirit 
 of liberty in its best estate, in Missouri, and 
 exclude from thence a principle which would 
 impair her health and beauty ? No, sir ; I can 
 never dream of such consequences as these, in 
 this land of good feelings and good sense. We 
 must decide the question before us one way or 
 the other, as our sense of duty may direct ; and 
 it is to be presumed that, in this case as well as 
 in all others, our habitual respect for the laws 
 and the principles by which our rights are se- 
 cured, will lead all to a ready acquiescence in 
 the decision which may be made. On this oc- 
 casion, we cannot pursue a safer course than to 
 act under the influence and guidance of that ex- 
 cellent rule " Do right, and let heaven answer 
 for the rest." 
 
 When Mr. MELLEN sat down 
 
 Mr. EDWAEDS, of Illinois, rose, and addressed 
 the Chair as follows : 
 
 Mr. President : Having long been out of the 
 habit of public speaking, and finding myself un- 
 able to command that composure of mind and 
 self-possession which are so essential to the in- 
 vestigation of a subject as important as the one 
 now under consideration, I should leave the 
 discussion of it to gentlemen who are infinitely 
 more competent to do justice to it, were it not 
 that my silence might seem to sanction the im-
 
 402 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATK.] 
 
 Maine and Missouri. 
 
 [JANUARY, 1820. 
 
 putarion of an honorable gentleman who has 
 thought proper to express the opinion that, by 
 my vote of Friday last, which I thought it my 
 duty to give, I had abandoned the interest of 
 the non-slaveholding States of the West. 
 
 If such a suggestion be well founded, nothing 
 can be more certain than that I have not been 
 misled by personal considerations ; for, my per- 
 manent residence and the most of my property 
 being in one of those States, and holding a seat 
 in this House by the kind partiality of the citi- 
 zens thereof, which I have also often expe- 
 rienced on other occasions, and for which no 
 one could be more thankful ; I should be unjust 
 to myself, ungrateful to them, and equally re- 
 gardless of the dictates of interest and duty, 
 were I not anxiously disposed to promote the 
 best interest of the State which I have the 
 honor in part to represent. 
 
 Were I to consult my popularity only, I well 
 know that it would be much easier, to swim 
 with, than to resist, the present popular current, 
 which threatens to overwhelm all opposition, 
 and to deluge the non-slaveholding States of 
 the West, with what I consider, with all due 
 deference to the opinions of other gentlemen, 
 political heresies, replete with mischiefs calcu- 
 lated to impair their present as well as future 
 prosperity and happiness. 
 
 Sir, I. love popularity so well that I would 
 gladly retain it by the utmost devotion to the 
 interests of my constituents ; but I would far 
 rather surrender all pretensions to it, than pre- 
 serve it at the expense of my conscience. I re- 
 spect public sentiment as much as any man, 
 and should at all times derive the sincerest 
 gratification from being able to discharge the 
 trust confided to me in strict conformity with 
 the wishes of those whom I have the honor to 
 represent but never can I consent to shelter 
 myself even from the tempest and hurricane of 
 popular excitement, by a violation of that con- 
 stitution which I, as well as the gentleman 
 from New Hampshire, (Mr. MOHEILL,) have sol- 
 emnly sworn to support. But more of this bv 
 and by. 
 
 Were an attempt made to introduce slavery 
 into the non-slaveholding States of the West, 
 then, indeed, might there be just cause of alarm ; 
 and I can assure gentlemen that there is no 
 man who would oppose such a proposition with 
 more determined zeal than myself. But, taking 
 for granted what I shall presently endeavor to 
 prove, that neither the slaveholding States, nor 
 any of us who oppose the proposed restriction 
 upon Missouri, are influenced by a desire to in- 
 crease slavery in the United States ; and that 
 the proposed restriction is not necessary to pre- 
 vent, nor its omission calculated to augment, 
 the importation of fresh slaves, it is inconceiv- 
 able to me how the interest of the non-slave- 
 holding States of the West can be cornproinitted 
 by the admission of domestic slaves into Mis- 
 souri, more than to permit them to remain in 
 the States where they now are ; for, if that 
 portion of political power which, under the 
 
 constitution, arises from the slavery that now 
 exists, is to be deprecated and dreaded at all, 
 surely it cannot be worse for us in the hands 
 of those whose identity of interest with our- 
 selves affords additional security against its in- 
 fluence being exerted to our disadvantage. As 
 yet, we have had no cause to regret that a por- 
 tion of such power has been transferred from 
 some of the Southern States to Kentucky and 
 Tennessee, whose sympathies, friendship, and 
 assistance, have never been withheld from us 
 in the hour of need. Our experience, there- 
 frfre, furnishes nothing to cause us to dread the 
 influence of a similar transfer of power to Mis- 
 souri. 
 
 For my part, considering every part of the 
 Western country identified in interest, and that 
 its domestic improvements, commercial pros- 
 perity, and political influence, cannot fail to be 
 promoted by every increase of population, it 
 does appear to me to be the interest of every 
 State in the West, that fair and equal induce- 
 ments to emigration thither should be afforded 
 to the citizens of every section of the Union, 
 whether slaveholding or non-slaveholding. But, 
 in opposition to this very obvious policy, with 
 an extent of territory greatly beyond the de- 
 mands of every description of emigrants, and 
 affording infinitely more than sufficient accom- 
 modation for all, without any necessity for col- 
 lisions of interest, feelings, or prejudices, be- 
 tween them, we are called upon to check the 
 emigration of our Southern brethren, by those 
 who dread our growth, and would gladly put 
 an entire stop to emigration from every other 
 quarter. And thus are we invited to let lay 
 waste and uninhabited an immense frontier of 
 our country rather than permit it to be occu- 
 pied by our Southern brethren, who certainly 
 would not be less our friends by becoming our 
 neighbors. 
 
 There are other considerations of vital im- 
 portance to the Union in general, and to the 
 Western country in particular, which I pur- 
 posely forbear to press, because I do not wish 
 to excite any unpleasant feelings, am anxious to 
 cherish harmony, and most ardently hope that 
 some compromise may take place which will 
 satisfy the reasonable wishes of all parties. 
 
 Mr. President, in attempting to discuss the 
 present proposition, it is not my purpose to ad- 
 vocate slavery in any shape, or to deny that, 
 in its mildest form, it is equally inconsistent 
 with the inherent rights of man, and repugnant 
 to every principle of humanity and philan- 
 thropy. On the contrary, I rejoice most sin- 
 cerely that an increasing sense of its moral in- 
 justice and turpitude, and the happy prevalence 
 of more enlightened and magnanimous views 
 throughout every part of our common country, 
 as well as in various other parts of the civilized 
 world, are eliciting the most zealous efforts not 
 only to prevent its extension, but to ameliorate 
 its present condition, which, with the blessing 
 of IJivine Providence, I trust will, in due season, 
 eventuate in its final extermination.
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 JANUARY, 1820.] 
 
 Maine and Missouri. 
 
 The present subject of discussion, surely, is 
 not the expediency of increasing slavery in the 
 United States by importations from Africa or 
 elsewhere ; nor is it a question of slavery or 
 freedom : and it does not appear to me to be 
 consistent with candor to attempt to give to it 
 the imposing and delusive aspect of either. 
 And how much soever such an artifice may be 
 resorted to, in other places, for the purpose of 
 rendering popular feelings and prejudices sub- 
 servient to political views, I felicitate myself 
 in the firm conviction that such unworthy mo- 
 tives can receive no countenance from this hon- 
 orable body, and that every member of the 
 Senate would disdain to impute to others senti- 
 ments which he does not believe them to 
 entertain. 
 
 Were it, in fact, a question whether the fur- 
 ther introduction of slavery into the United 
 States, by importation from abroad, should be 
 permitted, the universal abhorrence in which a 
 practice so disgraceful to humanity is held by 
 all classes of our fellow-citizens, and the cordial 
 co-operation of gentlemen from every section 
 of the Union, particularly at the last session of 
 Congress, in measures to prohibit it, forbid the 
 belief that such a measure could find one ad- 
 vocate or friend in this House ; nor can there 
 be a doubt that we would all cheerfully unite 
 in such farther legitimate means as experience 
 may demonstrate to be neceasary to render such 
 prohibition complete and effectual, which I have 
 no doubt is perfectly practicable. 
 
 All of us, therefore, entertaining the same 
 abhorrence and repugnance at the further in- 
 troduction and increase of slavery, the only 
 point of difference between us relates to the 
 slaves that are now among us; and, as it is 
 conceded on all sides that Congress possess no 
 power to abolish the slavery that now exists, it 
 follows that the question of slavery or freedom 
 is not involved in the present proposition, and 
 that an opposition to the restriction that is at- 
 tempted to be imposed upon the sovereignty 
 and independence of a State, may well exist with- 
 out any predilection for slavery; for, should our 
 opposition prevail, the State, notwithstanding, 
 like all others in this Union, would be left per- 
 fectly free to abolish slavery ; and I am very 
 ready to admit that she would consult her best 
 interest by doing so. 
 
 I have, Mr. President, viewed, with feelings 
 of the deepest regret, attempts that have been 
 made to excite local and sectional jealousies, 
 particularly against the slaveholding States, 
 upon this subject, in their nature but too well 
 calculated to sap the foundation of that spirit 
 of conciliation which produced this great Con- 
 federacy, and to interrupt that social harmony 
 and mutual friendship and confidence which 
 are so essential to maintain and strengthen the 
 bonds our Union. 
 
 Experience teaches us, that it is much more 
 easy to produce popular discontent than to 
 limit its operation and influence to the first ex- 
 citing causes; and, if the proposed restriction 
 
 upon Missouri is to be carried by arraying 
 popular prejudices in hostility to one principle 
 of compromise that contributed, in no small de- 
 gree, to produce our present happy Union, is it 
 not to be feared that it may be difficult to limit 
 that hostility by any thing short of the power 
 to assail that principle with success ? And if 
 an inequality in the apportionment of represent- 
 atives in the other branch of the National 
 Legislature, with a correspondent obligation to 
 pay direct taxes in proportion thereto, is to be 
 rendered obnoxious to our fellow-citizens, what 
 security is there that the representation in this 
 House, which, with any such correspondent ob- 
 ligation, and without regard to numbers, re- 
 duces the largest States in this Union to a 
 level with the smallest, will share a better fate? 
 
 I confess, sir, that while I cannot perceive 
 that the present subject of deliberation fur- 
 nishes any adequate motives for those attempts 
 at popular excitement, I cannot contemplate 
 them without being penetrated with the most 
 awful apprehensions for the fate of that fair 
 fabric of our freedom, which has hitherto been 
 not more our boast than the admiration of the 
 civilized world. Upon what ground, sir, are 
 those jealousies of our brethren of the slave- 
 holding States predicated ? Take, for example, 
 if you please, the case of Virginia, the largest 
 of those States. Does she wish the extension 
 of slavery? Let her known conduct decide. 
 While yet a colony of Great Britain, she dis- 
 tinguished herself pre-eminently by a noble, 
 magnanimous, and persevering stand against it, 
 and enumerated its toleration in the list of 
 grievances, of which she so forcibly and elo- 
 quently complained against the mother country. 
 True to the principles she professed, she was the 
 first State in the Union to set the example of 
 efficient opposition to a traffic in human flesh, 
 so disgraceful to our country, and so abhorrent 
 to the principles for which we ourselves con- 
 tended, by passing a law to prohibit it by severe 
 penalties, as early as the year 1778, in which 
 she has steadfastly persevered from that time 
 to the present day ; nor has she ever, on any 
 occasion, been less prompt in assisting to inter- 
 pose the shield of federal authority to protect 
 the devoted sons of Africa from such ruthless 
 oppression. 
 
 Having thus, by the most unequivocal acts, 
 so demonstrated the sincerity of her professions 
 upon this subject, as to extort the highest com- 
 mendation from the most distinguished advo- 
 cates of the proposed restriction ; and deplor- 
 ing, as she must do, the evils of slavery, what 
 reason have we to suppose that she is now dis- 
 posed to relinquish those principles, and aban- 
 don a policy which, to her honor, she has for 
 such a series of years, pursued with inflexible 
 perseverance, and the wisdom of which is daily 
 more and more developed ? No, sir, depend on 
 it, Virginia knows too well what she owes to 
 her own character, ever to descend from the 
 proud pre-eminence which she has acquired 
 upon this subject.
 
 404 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 Maine and Missouri. 
 
 [JANUARY, 1820. 
 
 The rest of the slaveholding States have also 
 given such proofs of their decided hostility to 
 the farther introduction of slavery among us, as 
 to leave no ground for even the affectation of 
 incredulity upon the subject. 
 
 As, then, those States, equally -with ourselves, 
 are opposed to the further increase of slavery 
 in the United States, so, with them as with us, 
 the only subject of controversy which the pro- 
 posed restriction presents, relates exclusively to 
 the slaves that are now among them. And can 
 they have any motives for opposing that re- 
 striction which are not truly national, and 
 strictly compatible with the principles of our 
 Confederation ? If they had heretofore desired 
 to increase their political power and aggrandize 
 themselves upon the basis of a slave population, 
 would they themselves have voluntarily inhibit- 
 ed the importation of slaves, and united in 
 every means which the wisdom of the national 
 councils has yet been able to devise for its pre- 
 vention? Were they now even tenacious of 
 that proportion of political power which they 
 derive from the slavery that exists among 
 them, would they be the advocates of a meas- 
 ure calculated to diminish that power, by its 
 tendency to abstract from them, and transfer to 
 a different and distant section of the Union, a 
 large portion of their slaves? And let it be re- 
 membered that, to impute to them a desire 
 merely to diminish the number of their slaves, 
 is to admit the most conclusive evidence of 
 their opposition to the increase of slavery, which 
 is the point I have endeavored to maintain. 
 
 So far, therefore, from those States being ac- 
 tuated by the motives which, for particular 
 purposes, have been attributed to them, it must 
 be evident that the principles for which they 
 contend are calculated not only to diminish the 
 power of their respective States, but to promote 
 the abolition of slavery itself; for, in propor- 
 tion as you permit the slaves now among us, to 
 be dispersed, so do you diminish their relative 
 numbers to the white population in any one 
 State, and to that extent, at least, increase their 
 chances of emancipation, as is evinced by the 
 experience of Massachusetts, New York, Penn- 
 sylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, &c., and which 
 is also conceded by the supposition that the 
 
 Erohibition of the further admission of slaves 
 ito Missouri would be favorable to the emanci- 
 pation of those who are now there, which seems 
 to be a favorite sentiment with a gentleman 
 (Mr. KING, of New York) of pre-eminent 
 talents, who has distinguished himself by his 
 zealous and able support of the proposed re- 
 striction, and who admits that a disposition 
 more favorable to emancipation is gaining 
 ground in the States where slavery exists ; that 
 the disproportionate increase of free people of 
 color can be accounted for upon no other sup- 
 position; and that, whatever would tend to 
 provide more satisfactorily for the comfort and 
 morals of emancipated slaves, would increase 
 the practice of emancipation; to all which I 
 vield the most hearty concurrence. 
 
 It cannot, however, be denied that the diffi- 
 culties and dangers attendant upon emancipa- 
 tion, in any State, must be in proportion to the 
 number of slaves therein ; and it is well known 
 that several of the States have considered 
 emancipation so incompatible with their do- 
 mestic safety and tranquillity, as to feel the 
 necessity of absolutely prohibiting it, which is 
 a policy that it is not presumable they will 
 abandon. While, therefore, confining the slaves 
 to those States, is calculated to render their 
 bondage perpetual, it must be acknowledged 
 that their dispersion into different sections of 
 the Union would remove many of the most im- 
 portant objections to emancipation, at the same 
 time that it would increase the means of pro- 
 viding more satisfactorily for the comfort and 
 morals of those unhappy beings, and would 
 cherish, by rendering more availing, that in- 
 creasing disposition to emancipation which im- 
 parts so much consolation to every true phi- 
 lanthropist. 
 
 Mr. LEAKE, of Mississippi, then rose and said, 
 when he considered the vast importance of the 
 subject now under consideration, it was with 
 great diffidence he arose to address the Senate ; 
 but it was the importance of the subject, to- 
 gether with his having been one of the com- 
 mittee to whom it had been referred, which 
 induced him to be unwilling to give a silent 
 vote. 
 
 He said he did not intend to go into a lengthy 
 discussion of the subject; he should only touch 
 upon some of the principal points which had 
 been relied on by honorable gentlemen who 
 were in favor of the restriction proposed by the 
 amendment introduced by the honorable gen- 
 tleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. ROBERTS.) 
 
 Sir, said Mr. L., we have been told by some 
 honorable gentlemen, that the power to impose 
 this restriction is derived from the first clause 
 of the 3d section of the 4th article of the Con- 
 stitution of the United States. " New States 
 may be admitted by the Congress into this 
 Union," &c. That, as we may admit them, we 
 may also refuse to admit them, unless they will 
 submit to such terms as we may, in the exercise 
 of our discretion, think proper to impose. Sir, 
 said Mr. L., I had always supposed that in the 
 exercise of this power, to " admit new States 
 into this Union," it was only necessary to in- 
 quire, first, what are the claims which the 
 people who petition to be thus admitted have 
 on the Congress for such admission ? Whether 
 their numbers, their increasing population, and 
 the extent of territory which they inhabit, will 
 justify their admission? If in all these respects 
 you find them duly qualified, and you should 
 deem it expedient to admit them ; then the next 
 inquiry is, what is a State within the meaning 
 of the Constitution of the United States? I 
 need not tell the Senate, said Mr. L., that States 
 in different parts of the world mean different 
 tilings ; we all know that a State, separate and 
 unconnected with any other State, means a 
 sovereign independent power, possessing abso-
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 405 
 
 JANUARY, 1820.] 
 
 Maine and Missouri. 
 
 [SENATE. 
 
 lute, unconditional and unlimited authority; 
 and according to the distribution of that power, 
 is the character of the State known. If the 
 whole is lodged in a single individual, it is then 
 an absolute despotism; if it he divided into 
 different branches, and the authority divided 
 between them, it is a limited government ; and 
 whether it is a limited monarchy, or a republic, 
 will depend upon the duration in office, the 
 mode of coming into office, and the source from 
 whence the power emanates. And when a 
 number of sovereign States connect themselves 
 together in a confederacy, and by their compact 
 yield to their federal government a portion of 
 their sovereignty, in order that that govern- 
 ment may be enabled to protect the confedera- 
 tion, those States then become limited sover- 
 eignties, and that portion of sovereign power 
 which each State has a right to exercise, de- 
 pends upon the powers they have delegated to 
 the federal government by their compact, and 
 upon the restraints which they have submitted 
 to have imposed upon them by it. 
 
 Mr. President, so far as I am able to judge of 
 the meaning of this clause of the constitution, 
 the needful rules and regulations which the 
 Congress are, by it, authorized to make, relate 
 to the territory itself, that is, the domain, the 
 land, the actual soil belonging to the United 
 States ; and not the inhabitants of the territory. 
 Sir, the Congress may dispose of dispose of 
 what? of the territory or other property; not 
 the inhabitants of that territory. The Congress 
 may make all needful rules and regulations re- 
 specting the territory, or other property of the 
 United States. Sir, the word "territory," 
 being immediately followed by the words " or 
 other property," proves, satisfactorily, to my 
 mind, that the word " territory " was there in- 
 tended to mean, the domain, which the Con- 
 gress may dispose of by sale or otherwise, and 
 may make such needful regulations respecting 
 its protection from waste or other injury, and 
 to preserve their rights to it unimpaired. 
 
 Sir, said Mr. L., we have already seen that 
 the Congress has a right to dispose of, by sale 
 or otherwise, the territory which is the land of 
 t!ie United States. But a sale cannot be effect- 
 ed without purchasers; no person will purchase 
 unk-ss he can be protected in his person and his 
 property. Hence, in order to effect a sale of 
 the public lands, the Congress has the power 
 " to make all laws which shall be necessary 
 and proper " to protect the purchasers in the 
 enjoyment of their lives, liberty, and property ; 
 and this can only be done by establishing a sys- 
 tem of government for them, until their num- 
 bers entitle them to a claim for admission into 
 this Union, upon an equal footing, in all re- 
 spects whatever, with the original States ; after 
 which, when the Congress deems it expedient 
 to admit them as such, it is then no longer 
 "necessary or proper" for the Congress to 
 make laws for their government, and of course 
 the power of the Congress to make these laws 
 ceases to exist. 
 
 THTRSDAY, January 20. 
 Maine and Missouri. 
 
 The Senate resumed, as in Committee of the 
 Whole, the consideration of the bill, entitled 
 "An act for the admission of the State of 
 Maine into the Union," together with the 
 amendments reported thereto by the Committee 
 on the Judiciary, and the amendment proposed 
 by Mr. ROBERTS. 
 
 Mr. LOWRIE, of Pennsylvania, observed, that 
 so much had been said, and so much had been 
 written, on this subject, it was extremely diffi- 
 cult to say any thing farther that would have 
 any claim to originality ; that it was almost im- 
 possible to support an argument on either side, 
 without repeating some things which had al- 
 ready been said. This he would endeavor to 
 avoid, and, as the Senate must be, in some 
 measure, weary of the debate, he would treat 
 the question with all the brevity of which he 
 
 In this discussion, it is impossible not to ad- 
 vert to the following maxims, which may prop- 
 erly be called first principles : 
 
 "We hold these truths to be self-evident, 
 that all men are created equal ; that they are 
 endowed by their Creator with certain inalien- 
 able rights ; that amongst these are, life, liber- 
 ty, and the pursuit of happiness." 
 
 "He that made the world, and all things 
 therein, hath made of one blood all the nations 
 of man." 
 
 There is no excuse for hereditary slavery, ex- 
 cept self-preservation beyond this it dwindles 
 into mere farce. 
 
 It is not among the natural rights of man to 
 enslave his fellow man. 
 
 Slavery is of such a nature, it must take its 
 rise from positive law. 
 
 These principles, as abstract truths, are not 
 generally denied. How far they have a bear- 
 ing on this subject, is a question I will not, said 
 Mr. L., at this moment, take up. I now mere- 
 ly bring them into view ; I will advert to them 
 in another part of this argument. 
 
 The first question which meets us at the 
 threshold is have Congress the right to pro- 
 pose to the State of Missouri the restriction 
 contained in the amendment? Before disposing 
 of this inquiry, permit me to say a word on 
 State sovereignties. I, for one, Mr. President, 
 cherish the idea, believing that our political 
 salvation depends upon it ; that a consolidation 
 of this extended empire must end in the worst 
 kind of despotism. 
 
 The people of the United States, in forming a 
 Government for themselves, established a com- 
 plex system. The Government of the Union 
 flows as directly from the people as does the 
 government of any of the States. The circum- 
 tance that the delegates who formed the pres- 
 ent constitution, were appointed by the State 
 Legislatures, does not detract from this idea; 
 because the instrument was afterwards submit- 
 ted to the people, and had it not been approved
 
 406 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 by them, it would have had no more authority 
 than the sweeping of your floor. The Govern- 
 ment of the United States, though limited in its 
 powers, is supreme within the proper sphere of 
 its action. The respective Governments of the 
 United States and of the several States are sov- 
 ereign within their proper spheres, and no far- 
 ther. Hence it follows, that the States are lim- 
 ited sovereignties. It follows, also, that the 
 right to admit new States, being within the 
 sphere of the General Government, is a right 
 which, to that Government, is perfect. Every 
 gentleman who hears me, knows that these are 
 not new principles ; that they have been laid 
 down and acted on by some of our ablest and 
 wisest statesmen. 
 
 In the constitution it is provided that " the 
 migration or importation of such persons as any 
 of the States now existing shall think proper to 
 admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress 
 prior to the year 1808, but a tax," &c. In this 
 debate it seems generally to be admitted, by 
 gentlemen on the opposite side, that these two 
 words are not synonymous; but what their 
 meaning is. they are not so well agreed. One 
 gentleman tells us, it was intended to prevent 
 slaves from being brought in by land ; another 
 gentleman says, it was intended to restrain Con- 
 gress from interfering with emigration from 
 Europe. 
 
 These constructions cannot both be right. 
 The gentlemen who have preceded me on the 
 same side, have advanced a number of pertinent 
 arguments to settle the proper meaning of 
 these words. I, sir, shall not repeat them. 
 Indeed, to me, there is nothing more dry or un- 
 interesting, than discussions to explain the 
 meaning of single words. In the present case, 
 I will only refer to the authority of Mr. Madi- 
 son and Judge "Wilson, who were both mem- 
 bers of the Convention, and who gave their 
 construction to these words, long before this 
 question was agitated. Mr. Madison observes, 
 that, to say this clause was intended to prevent 
 emigration, does not deserve an answer. And 
 Judge Wilson says, expressly, it was intended 
 to place the new States under the control of 
 Congress, as to the introduction of slaves. The 
 opinion of this latter gentleman is entitled to 
 peculiar weight. After the Convention had 
 labored for six weeks on the subject of repre- 
 sentation and direct taxes when those great 
 men were like to separate without obtaining 
 their object, Judge Wilson submitted the pro- 
 vision on this subject, which now stands as a 
 part of your constitution. Sir, there is no man, 
 from any part of the nation, who understood 
 the system of our Government better than him ; 
 not even excepting Virginia, from whence the 
 gentleman from Georgia (Mr. WALKEE) tells 
 us, we have all our great men. But, sir, for 
 all the purposes of my argument, I consider 
 this provision of the constitution as an out- 
 post ; and, as I do not intend to rely upon it, 
 gentlemen may have it as a free gift. 
 
 In the constitution it is further provided, 
 
 Maine and Missouri. 
 
 [JANUARY, 1820. 
 
 that " the Congress shall have power to dispose 
 of, and make all needful rules and regulations 
 respecting, the territory or other property be- 
 longing to the United States." From the com- 
 mencement of the Government until lately, this 
 provision of the constitution received but one 
 construction. In pursuance of this authority, 
 Congress proceeded to regulate the government 
 of the respective territories, until from time to 
 time they were admitted into the Union. In 
 pursuance of this provision, the first Congress 
 sanctioned the ordinance of 1787, which some 
 writers affect to call a usurpation. But another 
 construction is now given. It is said that Con- 
 gress have power only to dispose of the soil, as 
 they would of the other property of the United 
 States. This construction appears to me to in- 
 volve an inconsistency, to which gentlemen 
 who make it have not perhaps attended. To 
 dispose of the soil, presupposes a Government 
 to regulate the inhabitants. If this Govern- 
 ment be not established by the United States, it 
 must be established by themselves. Suppose 
 that a large colony had purchased one of your 
 territories. You have disposed of the soil, and 
 your power then ceases ; they may or they may 
 not acknowledge your authority ; they may, if 
 they choose, establish a monarchy. These dis- 
 cordant principles cannot be admitted to flow 
 from the Constitution of the United States. 
 The truth is, Mr. President, that the power to 
 dispose of and make all needful rules and regu- 
 lations for the territories, and the power to ad- 
 mit new States into this Union, have been given, 
 by the people of the United States, to Congress. 
 They are powers of the General Government 
 within the proper sphere of its action, and, of 
 course, sovereign and supreme. This Govern- 
 ment, for the period of thirty years, by its acts, 
 has sanctioned the construction contended for. 
 Territories have been nurtured and protected 
 through their infancy and youth, until, arriving 
 at a proper age, they were admitted into the 
 family of the Republic. 
 
 With respect to Louisiana, and the Territories 
 of Arkansas and Missouri, including the whole 
 country claimed by the United States, west of 
 the Mississippi, besides the right given by the 
 constitution, Congress have another superadded, 
 which, although different, is not discordant. 
 France received this district of country from 
 Spain, and ceded the same to the United States, 
 in " full sovereignty." Our title, therefore, to 
 this territory, is perfect and complete. Con- 
 gress have the same sovereign right to make 
 any provisions, laws, or regulations, which 
 France could have made, had this territory 
 still remained under her jurisdiction. In that 
 case, it will scarcely be contended that France 
 would not have had the right to inhibit the 
 further introduction of slavery. Suppose that 
 the territory of Missouri were now under 
 France, and that the inhabitants had requested 
 of the French Government the privilege of be- 
 coming one of the United States ; in giving her 
 consent, France could have said, you may be-
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 407 
 
 JANUARY, 1820.] 
 
 Maine and Missouri. 
 
 [SENATE. 
 
 come one of those States, on condition that you 
 abolish slavery. In this case, it would have 
 been perfectly competent for France to have 
 proposed this condition. So can the United 
 'States: because \ve have the same sovereignty 
 here that France ever had. 
 
 These principles are so plain, it is difficult to 
 illustrate them farther ; but let us take the cases 
 of two provinces held by different powers, the 
 one to the North, and the other to the South. 
 Suppose that Canada were to apply to the 
 British Government for liberty to join the 
 American Kepublics, that Government could 
 say to her, you may have your wish on condi- 
 tion that you abolish your established religion, 
 and your system of 'villanage ; make these 
 fundamental articles of your constitution, and 
 if Congress will consent, you may become one 
 of them. Let us suppose, further, that the 
 twenty years' Avar which, with pen and ink, we 
 have waged with the Government of Spain, 
 were now to take another direction, and that 
 the inhabitants of Florida were to request His 
 Most Catholic Majesty's permission to join our 
 family. That permission might be granted on 
 any conditions not repugnant to the Constitu- 
 tion of the United States ; and, if agreed to by 
 them, and by the Congress, would be binding, 
 and could not be rescinded without a breach of 
 good faith. 
 
 Mr. President, if we examine the history of 
 the new States which have been admitted into 
 this Union, we will find that none of them were 
 admitted without conditions, which were to be- 
 come fundamental articles, irrevocable without 
 the consent of both parties. The cases of Ken- 
 tucky and Vermont are not exceptions, although 
 they have generally been so considered. Ken- 
 tucky was formed from the territory belonging 
 to Virginia, and a number of conditions were 
 imposed by the one State, and agreed to by the 
 other, which to this day are binding. 
 
 Vermont was not like any of the other States. 
 Her history is briefly this : The territory was 
 claimed both by New York and New Hamp- 
 shire. In l761-'2, New Hampshire granted one 
 hundred and thirty-eight townships west of the 
 Connecticut River. Ne\v York became alarmed 
 at this preceeding, applied for the territory to 
 the British Government, and obtained a decision 
 in her favor. She then endeavored to dispos- 
 sess the settlers who claimed under the New 
 Hampshire grants. But her authority was re- 
 sisted on the part of Vermont, and for twenty- 
 six years this new State maintained her ground. 
 In this contest, the Old Congress pursued an 
 undecided course. In the mean time, Vermont 
 declared itself independent, and so continued 
 till the year 1789, when commissioners were 
 ' appointed by this State and by New York, who 
 finally agreed that Vermont should be admitted 
 into the Union on two conditions : the one re- 
 lated to her boundaries, and the other required 
 tl 10 payment of $30,000 to New York within 
 four years from that period. 
 
 Mr. L. observed, that the whole discussion 
 
 was upon a dry subject, and that this part of it 
 was peculiarly so. I will, therefore, sir, pass 
 over the conditions imposed on the other 
 States. It is the less necessary that I should 
 mention them, as other gentlemen have brought 
 the most of them into view already. Let me 
 observe, however, that in the nine new States, 
 there are seventeen distinct conditions attached, 
 not one of which is applied to the old thirteen 
 States. The new States are restricted in their 
 taxes; they are restricted from touching the 
 right of the soil ; they are restricted in their 
 highways and navigable streams of water ; and 
 three of them, which at no distant day will be 
 three of the brightest stars in our political con- 
 stellation, are restricted as to slavery. Take 
 the constitution of Maine ; restrictions are there 
 imposed by Massachusetts. Nay more, sir, look 
 at the amendment reported by the honorable 
 chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and even 
 to Missouri, this favorite child, we find restric- 
 tions. It is true, these restrictions are placed 
 in the bill under the cover of provisos ; so, let 
 me tell gentlemen, is the restriction offered as 
 an amendment by my colleague. Our right is 
 admitted to impose one restriction ; but to im- 
 pose another restriction, not involving the ne- 
 cessity of a greater or higher degree of sover- 
 eignty, the right is denied. We have called on 
 gentlemen to reconcile these views ; much was 
 expected from their talents, but to perform im- 
 possibilities is beyond their reach. 
 
 The obligation imposed upon this Government 
 by the treaty of cession has been much relied 
 upon. It is said we are all bound to admit Mis- 
 souri, and that upon her own terms ; that, in 
 her case, we have no discretion. Mr. President, 
 it is a sufficient answer to say, that the treaty- 
 making power cannot control the genius of the 
 constitution. New States may be admitted, are 
 the words of this instrument. Sir, it never was 
 in the contemplation of the people, when they 
 passed upon this provision, to suppose that the 
 President and two-thirds of the Senate could 
 change its import. If gentlemen will still con- 
 tend that the treaty differs from the constitution, 
 they must be told that, as far as that is the case, 
 tlie treaty itself is a nullity. 
 
 It is further said, that the treaty guarantees 
 their property to all the inhabitants of Missouri, 
 and that this property embraces slaves. At the 
 date of this treaty of cession almost the whole 
 of this territory was a wilderness, and a large- 
 portion of it is still a wilderness. Admitting 
 for a moment that slaves are property, it must 
 be proved that any others, besides those there 
 at the date of the treaty, were intended to be 
 embraced by its provisions. This 'cannot be 
 shown. The inhabitants then there were the 
 parties we admit to this treaty ; and, whatever 
 may have been their rights or their property, 
 they are not touched by this amendment. But, 
 farther proof is still wanted, because it is denied 
 that the word property, in this treaty, means 
 slaves. Here I ask no rule of construction that. 
 is foreign to the subject. Apply to the writers
 
 408 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 Maine and Missouri. ' 
 
 [JANUARY, 1820. 
 
 on the kw of nations ; let them pass upon these 
 words ; try them by the principles of the con- 
 stitution ; submit them to the test of reason ; 
 there all speak the same language ; they tell 
 you that slates and property are not convertible 
 terms. In the history of our Government, we 
 have a case fully in point : When Virginia ceded 
 the Northwestern territory to Congress, it was 
 ou condition that it should become members of 
 the Federal Union, and have the same rights, 
 sovereignty, freedom, and independence, as the 
 other States. This language is as strong as that 
 of the treaty with France ; neither can it be 
 denied that, at the time Virginia made this ces- 
 sion, there were in this territory a number of 
 inhabitants professing to be her citizens, and 
 owning slaves. 
 
 Congress, with the knowledge of these facts, 
 and the deed of cession before them, passed the 
 ordinance of 1787, by which slavery was ban- 
 ished from this fair portion of our territory. 
 This ordinance was sanctioned by the First 
 Congress ; it has been interwoven in the con- 
 stitution of many of the States; even at the 
 present session, in the admission of the State of 
 Alabama into the Union, it is distinctly recog- 
 nized. Thus, in a case perfectly analogous, we 
 have a legislative sanction, descending from the 
 First Congress, through many of the interme- 
 diate ones, down to the present, which com- 
 pletely covers the ground I have taken. With 
 this example before us, I hazard nothing in as- 
 serting that, if Congress had extended the ordi- 
 nance of 1787 to the territory of Louisiana, ex- 
 cepting from its provisions the slaves then there, 
 this obligation of the treaty would have been 
 fulfilled in good faith. 
 
 I will now, Mr. President, said Mr. L., say a 
 few words on the policy of adopting the pro- 
 posed restriction. We were told the other day 
 by an honorable member from North Carolina, 
 (Mr. MACON,) that we knew nothing about this 
 question, however much we might be disposed 
 to philosophize on the subject. Sir, the expe- 
 rience and integrity of that gentleman have 
 gained him my entire confidence. Although 
 this assertion was not accompanied by any facts 
 or reasoning, it led me to examine anew every 
 principle relating to the policy of this measure. 
 I have also attended to all that has been said 
 against the policy of adopting this restriction, 
 but I have yet found nothing to shake my first 
 convictions on the subject. 
 
 It has not been pretended it cannot be pre- 
 tended that the toleration of slavery is neces- 
 sary for the self-preservation of the people of 
 Missouri. This being the case, the first princi- 
 ples I have already brought into view, bear with 
 their undivided weight upon the question. The 
 gentlemen tell us that slavery is an evil on 
 this floor they have lamented its existence ; and 
 yet, strange as it may seem, they, almost in the 
 same breath, contend for the expediency of ex- 
 tending this evil to the peaceful region west of 
 the Mississippi. 
 
 Humanity to the slaves themselves, it is said, 
 
 requires the rejection of this amendment. Sir, 
 how is the matter of fact on this point ? Let 
 us suppose that one hundred families, with each 
 ten slaves, are about to emigrate to Missouri. 
 Every gentleman here knows the situation of 
 this class of our population the husband is in 
 one family, the wife in another, the children in 
 another. In removing, no respect to these re- 
 lations can be paid all must be disregarded ; 
 the husband and the wife must part, to meet 
 no more ; the father is dragged away, and the 
 mother and the children left, or they are taken 
 and he by force is compelled to stay behind ; 
 or, if he escapes after them, he is pursued, bound, 
 and brought back. This, sir, is not fancy ; these 
 scenes, but a few months ago, I witnessed in 
 person, amongst emigrants going to this said 
 Missouri. Our humanity may be called sickly, 
 but it gives no sanction to scenes like these. 
 
 The gentleman from Illinois, (Mr. EDWABDS,) 
 with great apparent force of reasoning has en- 
 deavored to prove that, by opening the extensive 
 regions of the West to the introduction of slaves, 
 nothing is thereby done to spread slavery ; that 
 whether they are admitted west of the Missis- 
 sippi or not, the number remains the same. I 
 presume, sir, that every gentleman here has paid 
 some attention to the principle which governs 
 the population of the human race. It is capable 
 of demonstration, that the population increases 
 faster than the means of subsistence ; the one 
 increases in a geometrical, the other in an arith- 
 metical progression. The spring which causes 
 one thousand to double their number in a given 
 time, will cause a thousand millions to double 
 in the same time ; in other words, the capability 
 of increase is not affected by the size of the 
 number. Take, for example, an island contain- 
 ing ten thousand farms, of one hundred acres 
 each ; let it be supposed that there is an inhab- 
 itant for each farm, and that they double their 
 number every twenty-five years. In one hun- 
 dred and forty years there would be more in- 
 habitants than acres, and at the end of the third 
 century there would be above three hundred 
 inhabitants for every acre. But the impossi- 
 bility of supporting that number on the given 
 territory would keep the inhabitants down to 
 the level of the food. The principles which 
 govern, in the supposed case of this island, wilJ 
 govern in the case of a nation or of the world. 
 In every nation the population presses more or 
 less against the means of subsistence, and from 
 its very nature, must continue to do so, until 
 the end of time. 
 
 Apply these principles to the case before us, 
 and what becomes of the gentleman's argument ? 
 Seventy years ago the penetrating mind of Dr. 
 Franklin discovered this principle. Go, says he, 
 to Africa, and see if you can discover the gap 
 from whence the negroes have come, that have 
 blackened half America, the West Indies, and 
 many other places 1 Such will be the case at 
 no distant day, if the policy advocated by gen- 
 tlemen is now to prevail. A single century will 
 not have elapsed, until the question may be
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 409 
 
 JANUARY, 1820.] 
 
 Maine and Missouri. 
 
 [SENATE. 
 
 asked : Where is the gap in any of the slave- 
 holding States from whence have come the 
 slaves, that, from the banks of the Mississippi 
 to the Rocky Mountains, have blackened the 
 whole region of the West ? Sir, that opening 
 never will be found, because it never will exist. 
 The spring of population will always keep the 
 number full. A market extended as the forests 
 of your Western regions, is thus opened for the 
 sale of human flesh. Every inducement which 
 avarice or the insatiable love of gain could de- 
 sire, is held out to the slaveholder to increase 
 the number of his slaves. Under such induce- 
 ments this class of population will increase with 
 a rapidity heretofore unknown. Even at the 
 rate of increase from 1800 to 1810, in a single 
 century there will be upwards of twenty-seven 
 millions of slaves in -the United States*. This 
 single fact, founded as it is on arithmetical cer- 
 tainty, is sufficiently alarming ; but, sir, it points 
 you to a very different policy than the one con- 
 tended for by the honorable members on the 
 other side. 
 
 Mr. BUREILL, of Ehode Island, said it might 
 probably be thought that the very full discus- 
 sion which this question had received, rendered 
 it quite unnecessary to add any thing to the 
 elaborate arguments of the honorable gentlemen 
 who had preceded him : I even think so my- 
 self, said he; but, having at the last session 
 taken some share in the debate upon a similar 
 motion, it would be expected of me that the 
 same sense of duty which then prompted me to 
 address you, would still continue its effect, un- 
 less further reflection or the arguments of hon- 
 orable gentlemen had produced a change of 
 opinion. No change of that kind has been 
 wrought, and longer and more careful consider- 
 ation has produced a deeper conviction, not 
 only of the constitutionality, but of the necessity 
 of the proposed restriction. I shall aim, how- 
 ever, to avoid, as far as possible, the repetition 
 of former arguments, for I feel too much im- 
 pressed with the very kind and encouraging at- 
 tention which my humble attempts on this floor 
 have always received from the Senate, to tax 
 their friendly patience for any very great length 
 of time. 
 
 The objection principally relied upon by those 
 who have opposed this restriction is, that the 
 constitution gives us no power to impose it ; and 
 they call upon us, in a manner which implies 
 that they feel themselves strong on this point, 
 to produce the clause or article in which the 
 power is granted. Objections of a constitutional 
 kind, opposed to a measure of legislation, are 
 entitled to respect, and must be answered ; but 
 they have so frequently been urged, in Congress 
 and in the States, against almost every measure 
 proposed or adopted, that they have lost the 
 importance arising out of their name and source, 
 and must stand upon their own merits, or, 
 which is sometimes unfortunately the case, will 
 stand upon the eloquence and ability of those 
 who urge them. In the threshold, I might ask 
 honorable gentlemen whether the burden of 
 
 this argument is not thrown upon their shoul- 
 ders rather than ours. We propose to subject 
 Missouri to no other restrictions than, in 1787, 
 was imposed by the " immortal" ordinance, as 
 the gentleman from Pennsylvania has, with 
 great force and propriety, called it, upon the 
 whole Northwestern Territory, a restriction 
 which was readily and freely assented to, un- 
 der an act of Congress, by the States of Ohio, 
 Indiana, and Illinois, and to which the unparal- 
 leled growth and happy condition of the first of 
 those fertile and extensive States is, in a great 
 degree, to be ascribed. A restriction, then, the 
 propriety of which is strengthened by a refer- 
 ence to the conduct of the old Congress and of 
 the new, of the States and of the Union, ought 
 not hastily to be condemned as unconstitutional. 
 It has often been repeated within doors and 
 without, that our free and happy constitution, 
 in which so many apparent contradictions and 
 jarring interests are reconciled into a strong and 
 harmonious Federal Government, was, in great 
 part, the fruit of compromise. We have often 
 been reminded, and I shall not soon forget it, 
 that the small States are indebted to this prin- 
 ciple of conciliation and compromise for their 
 equal suffrage in this branch of the National 
 Legislature. On such occasions, it is but fair 
 and equal to remind other gentlemen that the 
 same friendly and patriotic principle has given 
 to the slaveholding States a representation upon 
 property in the other House, and that the com- 
 pensation intended to have been made by the 
 apportionment of direct taxes, according to the 
 same ratio, has, owing to the ability or disposi- 
 tion to dispense with such taxes, except in a 
 very few instances, never been received. 
 
 But, Mr. President, this principle of compro- 
 mise went much farther. Almost all the States, 
 and nearly every individual in the Convention, 
 considered slavery as an evil, and an evil, as 
 one of the gentlemen from Georgia has observed, 
 in the course of this debate, to be tolerated, be- 
 cause it could not be remedied. They also 
 agreed that the traffic in slaves on the African 
 coast was inhuman as well as impolitic, and 
 ought, as soon as possible, to be suppressed. 
 There was still, however, an unwillingness in 
 some gentlemen, that Congress should have the 
 immediate power to interdict this trade. The 
 Convention, therefore, in the spirit of compro- 
 mise, agreed to a limitation on that general 
 power which Congress would, by the constitu- 
 tion, have possessed over the migration and 
 importation of slaves, and they inserted in the 
 9th section, 1st article, that u the migration or 
 importation of such persons as any of tho States 
 now existing shall think proper to admit, >h;tll 
 not be prohibited by Congress prior to the year 
 1808, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such 
 importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each 
 person." It is very observable that the con- 
 vention have, throughout the constitution, sed- 
 ulously avoided the words slaves and slavery. 
 One of the most distinguished members of that 
 body proposed tho substitution of other words,
 
 410 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 Maine and Missouri. 
 
 [JANUARY, 1820. 
 
 and said he hoped that the time might arrive, 
 during the existence of this constitution, when 
 slavery would no longer exist, and he wished 
 there might be no memorial in the constitution 
 itself, that it ever had existed. We have the 
 evidence of the venerable Mr. Jay, as to the in- 
 tention of the Convention. There was, in fact, 
 this compromise : Congress s^all have the 
 power of preventing the migration and importa- 
 tion of slaves ; but as to the States then exist- 
 ing, they shall not exercise it till 1808. As to 
 new States, their power was not even tempo- 
 rarily restrained. In truth, there was then, as 
 unfortunately there is not now, a universal dis- 
 position to restrain and limit the extension of 
 slavery. In the same spirit was conceived and 
 enacted the ordinance of 1787, passed unani- 
 mously, assented to by all the States concerned, 
 and ratified hy the first Congress under the new 
 constitution. An ordinance, too, enacted dur- 
 ing the session of the Convention, by persons, 
 sortie of whom were members of both bodies, 
 and having an effect not upon the spirit merely, 
 but upon the frame and phraseology of the con- 
 stitution. In short, those great men considered 
 that henceforth we had adopted, as a basis, a 
 fundamental principle of our polity, that domes- 
 tic slavery was not to be further extended. 
 
 On these grounds, the limitation on the other- 
 wise unlimited power of Congress over this 
 subject was confined to the States then existing. 
 It was already prohibited in the Territories by 
 the ordinance, and Congress were not to be re- 
 strained or limited in this regard by the tempo- 
 rary limitation as to the then existing States. 
 The then existing States were to do as they 
 thought fit till 1808 ; and in fact and to their 
 honor be it said the greater number prohibit- 
 ed immediately, and had already prohibited 
 both migration and importation : but as to the 
 Territories ; as to new States ; as to States not 
 then existing ; the power of Congress was un- 
 fettered was supreme. It has not been suffi- 
 ciently considered, that the clause under consid- 
 eration is not a grant of power, but a limitation 
 of a power which existed in Congress by the 
 force of the express words of the constitution, 
 or by a necessary implication. And this limi- 
 tation, too, we must bear in mind, was tempo- 
 rary, and to expire in the short period of twenty 
 years. But it is urged by honorable gentlemen, 
 that, though Congress might prohibit importa- 
 tion after 1808, they could not prohibit the car- 
 rying of slaves from one State to another, and 
 consequently not into new States. Gentlemen 
 who deny the ordinance of 1787, and resist the 
 force of the argument derived from the various 
 legislative expositions of Congress, ought at 
 least to agree among themselves as to the 
 meaning of the word migration. An honorable 
 gentleman from Georgia says that migration 
 means the coming from a foreign country by 
 land, and that the meaning is that Congress 
 might prevent the migration of slaves from 
 foreign countries or colonies by land, and the 
 importation from abroad by sea. Other gentle- 
 
 men say that the word migration has no refer- 
 ence at all to slaves, but relates to white foreign- 
 ers emigrating from Europe. 
 
 In regard to the first construction, I may ask, 
 if migration relates to slaves coming by land, 
 why has not Congress the power given it of 
 imposing the duty of ten dollars, in the same 
 way as if they were brought by water? In 
 fact, it is in both cases an importation, and the 
 Convention were in this case guilty of the sin 
 of tautology if this construction is correct. In 
 the acts against the slave trade, importation by 
 land or water is prohibited. 
 
 The second construction, which refers this 
 word to the emigration of white free men, is 
 equally inadmissible. What State ever imag- 
 ined that Congress would prevent the emigra- 
 tion from Europe into this country of white 
 freemen ? And, if any jealousy on this head 
 existed, why was the control over Congress to 
 cease in 1808 ? Were they at liberty to do so 
 strange a thing in 1808, why were they forbid- 
 den to do so previous to that epoch ? There 
 never was, there never could have been, any 
 fear on this head ; nor was there any intention 
 to limit the general superintending power of 
 Congress in relation to the intercourse with 
 foreign nations, or the naturalization of aliens ; 
 or, if there was such a fear or such an intention, 
 the ground of the one and the reason of the 
 other would extend far beyond the year 1808. 
 Applying these terms as they Avere intended to 
 be applied that is, to slaves and we have a 
 key to the construction, an explanation of the 
 reason of this limitation of the power of Con- 
 gress, consistent with what I have stnted to 
 have been the general intent of the Convention, 
 which was to restrain and circumscribe slavery. 
 Two of the Southern States would not agree to 
 the immediate prohibition either of importation 
 or migration, and the clause therefore was the 
 fruit of a compromise. A power which two 
 States were apprehensive might be exercised to 
 their injury was to be suspended until 1808. 
 In addition to the fair import of the constitution 
 itself, and to the evidence derived from the or- 
 dinance of 1787, and the history of the times, 
 we have a decided legislative exposition of the 
 meaning of the new word migration, and the 
 confinement of the restriction to the powers of 
 Congress within the old States, in the conduct 
 of the Executive and Legislature after the ac- 
 quisition of Louisiana, in 1803. 
 
 Under the administration of Mr. Jefferson, 
 when Mr. Madison, a member of the Conven- 
 tion, was Secretary of State, Congress passed 
 an act, March 26, 1804, (vol. 3, p. 603,) for 
 erecting Louisiana into two Territories, one of 
 which was called Orleans ; and in regard to 
 Orleans there were enacted, and without (so 
 far as we know) any opposition, important re- 
 strictions upon the introduction of slaves. 
 Congress not only interdicted the introduction 
 of slaves from abroad, but they expressly for- 
 bade the introduction of any slaves from the 
 old States, which had been imported after May,
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 411 
 
 JAXUARY, 1820.] 
 
 Maine and Missouri. 
 
 [SENATE. 
 
 1798; and also the introduction of slaves, di- 
 rectly or indirectly, except by a citizen of the 
 United States removing into the Territory for 
 actual settlement, and being at the time of such 
 removal bona fide owner of such slave or slaves ; 
 otherwise, the slave to be restored to his free- 
 dom. The residue of the old province of Louis- 
 iana was . placed under the jurisdiction of the 
 Governor and other authorities of Indiana, 
 where, by the ordinance of 1787, slavery was 
 already prohibited. Here then we have, upon 
 a most important occasion, a legislative con- 
 struction of the constitution on the subject of 
 migration, and also on the power of Congress 
 over Territories, so far forth as relates to sla- 
 very ; and it is also, as I shall have occasion to 
 show, a commentary upon the treaty of cession 
 of the province of Louisiana. 
 
 Indeed, Mr. President, if we look through all 
 the acts of cession and acts for admitting new 
 States from the admission of Kentucky, Feb- 
 ruary 4. 1791, to the admission of Alabama at 
 this Mission we shall find a continual reference 
 to and acknowledgment of the ordinance of 
 1787, and a recognition of the power in Con- 
 id a constant exercise of it, too, of im- 
 posing such restrictions on the new States, not 
 inconsistent with their perfect equality in fed- 
 eral rights, as were necessary for the security of 
 the rights and property and supremacy of the 
 Federal Government; and of those principles 
 (among which was the prevention of the further 
 spread of slavery) which were and are and al- 
 ways must be the vital and fundamental princi- 
 ples of the Federal Union. Thus, in the acts 
 for the admission of Tennessee, April 2, 1790, 
 and May 25, 1797, though a part of an old State, 
 there is no other reserve on the part of North 
 Carolina, as to the ordinance of 1787, than this : 
 " That no regulation, to be made by Congress, 
 should tend to emancipate slaves." At that 
 time there was a general consent and under- 
 standing that this pestilence of slavery was not 
 to be further diffused. But the times are 
 changed, and we are changed with them. 
 
 In opposition to the amendment now under 
 consideration, it has been urged that the adop- 
 tion of it would place the States upon a footing 
 of inequality, and the honorable gentleman from 
 Georgia (Mr. ELLIOT) has said, with great force 
 and elegance, and has supported the proposition 
 by a reference to the history of various confed- 
 eracies, ancient and modern, that inequality 
 among the members of a confederacy has always 
 proved a source of jealousy and dissension, and, 
 in many cases, of dissolution and ruin. But, 
 sir, the inequalities to which ho alluded were 
 inequalities in federal rights. In regard to such 
 rights, can it be pretended that Misxmri will be 
 on a footing of inferiority after her admission? 
 Will she not have her Senators, her Repn M-IU- 
 ative, her Electors, by the same rules as other 
 Must not all the regulations of her 
 commerce, all her relations to the Union, and 
 to other States, be the same as those of Ohio or 
 Vermont? Will she not, according to her pop- 
 
 ulation, have the same power and weight as 
 other States? It were to be wished that a 
 greater absolute equality existed among the 
 States as to extent, wealth, and population; 
 but these inequalities are not of the sort which 
 have endangered or destroyed other federal 
 leagues. In regard to the navigation of rivers 
 and other subjects, there is already an inequal- 
 ity, and, from the nature of things, must be, 
 among the States. Louisiana has, by compact, 
 renounced any right to impose tolls upon the 
 passage of the Mississippi and other navigable 
 rivers. Pennsylvania and New Jersey have re- 
 nounced none of their rights over the river Del- 
 aware, nor has New York renounced hers over 
 the Hudson. Louisiana, moreover, has agreed 
 to establish the right of habeas corpus, of trial 
 by jury in criminal cases, and to keep her re- 
 cords in the English language. In fact, she has 
 agreed to exchange, to a certain extent, the 
 principles of the civil or Roman law for those 
 of the common law. In some of the StatesTthe 
 trial by jury does not exist in all criminal cases, 
 especially in minor offences ; and, in one State, 
 the right to the writ of habeas corpus stands 
 not upon a written constitution, but upon a 
 legislative act. No one will, on these accounts, 
 pretend that there is any inferiority in the fed- 
 eral rights of Louisiana to the rights of any 
 other State. 
 
 Mr. MACOX, of North Carolina, said he agreed 
 in opinion with the gentleman who had declared 
 this to be the greatest question ever debated in 
 the Senate, and that it ought to be discussed in 
 the most calm and cool manner, without at- 
 tempting to excite passion or prejudice. It 
 was, however, to be regretted, that while some 
 of those who supported the motion were quite 
 calm and cool, they used a good many hard 
 words, which had no tendency to continue the 
 good humor which they recommended. He 
 would endeavor to follow their advice, but 
 must be pardoned for not following their exam- 
 ple in the use of hard words. If, however, one 
 should escape him, it would be contrary to his 
 intention, and an act of indiscretion, not of de- 
 sign or premeditation. He hoped to examine 
 the subject with great meekness and humility. 
 
 The debate had brought forcibly to his recol- 
 lection the anxiety of the best patriots of the 
 nation, when the present constitution was ex- 
 it. The public inind was then greatly excited, 
 and men in whom the people properly placed 
 the utmost confidence were divided. There 
 was then no whisper about disunion, for every 
 one considered the Union as absolutely neces- 
 sary for the good of all. But to-day, we have 
 been told, by the honorable gentleman from 
 Pennsylvania, (Mr. LOWRIE,) that he would pre- 
 fer disunion, rather than slaves should be car- 
 ried west of the Mississippi. Age, Mr. M. said, 
 may have rendered him timid, or education 
 may have prevailed on him to attach greater 
 - to the Union and the constitution than 
 they deserve. If this be the case, and it be an
 
 412 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OP THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 Maine and Missouri. 
 
 [JANUARY, 1820. 
 
 error, it was one he had no desire to be free 
 from, even after what he heard in this de- 
 bate. Get clear of this Union and this consti- 
 tution, and it will be found vastly more difficult 
 to unite again and form another than it was to 
 form this. There were no parties in the coun- 
 try at the time it was formed ; not even upon 
 this question. The men who carried the nation 
 through the Kevolution were alive, and mem- 
 bers of the Convention. WASHINGTON was at 
 their head. Have we a "Washington now ? No. 
 Is there one in the nation to fill his place? No. 
 His like, if ever, has been rarely seen ; nor can 
 we, rationally, expect another in our day. Let 
 us not speak of disunion as an easy thing. If 
 ever it shall, unfortunately, come, it will bring 
 evils enough for the best men to encounter; and 
 all good men, in every nation, lovers of free- 
 dom, will lament it. This constitution is now 
 as much an experiment as it was in the year 
 1789. It went into operation about the time 
 the French revolution commenced. The wars 
 which grew out of that, and the difficulties and 
 perplexities which we had to encounter, in con- 
 sequence of the improper acts of belligerents, 
 kept the people constantly attached to the Gov- 
 ernment. It has stood well the trial of trouble 
 and of war, and answered, in those times, the 
 purposes for which it was formed and adopted ; 
 but now is to be tried, in time of universal 
 peace, whether a government within a govern- 
 ment can sustain itself and preserve the liberty 
 of the citizen. When we are told, disunion, 
 rather than slaves be carried over the Missis- 
 sippi 1 it ought not to be forgotten that the 
 union of the people and the confederation car- 
 ried us through the Eevolutionary war a war 
 of which no man can wish to see the like again 
 in this country but, as soon as peace came, it 
 was found to be entirely unfit for it ; so unfit, 
 that it was given up for the present constitu- 
 tion. Destroy it, and what may be the condi- 
 tion of the country, no man, not the most saga- 
 cious, can even imagine. It will surely be much 
 worse than it was before it was adopted, and 
 that must be well remembered. 
 
 The amendment is calculated to produce geo- 
 graphical parties, or why admonish us to dis- 
 cuss it with moderation and good temper? No 
 man who has witnessed the effect of parties 
 nearly geographical, can wish to see them re- 
 vived. Their acts formerly produced uneasi- 
 ness, to say the least of them, to good men of 
 every party. General Washington has warned 
 us against them ; but he is now dead, and his 
 advice may soon be forgotten ; form geographi- 
 cal parties, and it will be neglected. Instead 
 of forming sectional parties, it would be more 
 patriotic to do them away. But party and pa- 
 triotism are not always the same. Town meet- 
 ings and resolutions to inflame one part of the 
 nation against another can never benefit the 
 people, though they may gratify an individual. 
 A majority of them want things right. Leave 
 them to form their own opinions, without the 
 aid of inflammatory speeches at town meetings, 
 
 and they will always form them correctly. 
 What interest or motive can the good people of 
 one part of the country have for meeting and 
 endeavoring to imitate those of another? No 
 town meeting was necessary to inform or in- 
 flame the public mind against the law giving 
 members of Congress a salary instead of a daily 
 allowance. The people formed their own opin- 
 ions, disapproved it, and it was repealed. So 
 they will always act, if left to themselves. Let 
 not parties, formed at home for State purposes, 
 be brought into Congress, to disturb and distract 
 the Union. The General Government hitherto 
 has been productive enough of them to satisfy 
 those who most delight in them, that they are 
 not likely to be long wanted in it. Enough, 
 and more than enough, has been produced, by 
 the difficulty of deciding what is and what is 
 not within the limits of the constitution. And, 
 at this moment, we have difficulties enough to 
 scuffle with, without adding the present ques- 
 tion. The dispute between the Bank of the 
 United States and those of the States ; the want 
 of money by the Government, the people not in 
 a condition to increase the taxes, because more 
 indebted at home than they ever were ; and the 
 dispute with Spain, might serve for this session. 
 But the beginners of these town meetings may 
 be like the beginners of the addresses of old 
 want office. If this should be the case, the 
 Government is too poor to gratify them. It is 
 more easy to influence the public mind than to 
 quiet it when inflamed. A child may set the 
 woods on fire, but it requires great exertions to 
 extinguish it. This now very great question 
 was but a spark at the last session. 
 
 Ah 1 the States now have equal rights, and all 
 are content. Deprive one of the least right 
 which it now enjoys in common with the others, 
 and it will no longer be content. So, if Govern- 
 ment had an unlimited power to put whatever 
 conditions it pleased on the admission of a new 
 State into the Union, a State admitted with a 
 condition unknown to the others would not be 
 content, no matter what might be the character 
 of the condition, even though it was not to steal 
 or commit murder. The difference in the terms 
 of admission would not be acceptable. All the 
 new States have the same rights that the old 
 have ; and why make Missouri an exception ? 
 She has not done a single act to deserve it; 
 and why depart, in her case, from the great 
 American principle, that the people can govern 
 themselves ? No reason has been assigned for 
 the attempt at the departure, nor can one be 
 assigned which would not apply as strong to 
 Louisiana. In every free country that ever 
 existed, the first violations of the principles of 
 the Government were indirect, and not well 
 understood, or supported with great zeal, by a 
 part of the people. 
 
 All the country west of the Mississippi was ac- 
 quired by the same treaty, and on the same 
 terms, and the people in every part have the same 
 rights ; but, if the amendment be adopted, Mis- 
 souri will not have the same rights which Louis-
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 413 
 
 JANUARY, 1820.J 
 
 Maine and Missouri. 
 
 [SENATE. 
 
 iana now enjoys. She has been admitted into 
 the Union as a full sister, but her twin sister 
 Missouri, under the proposed amendment, is to 
 be admitted as a sister of a half-blood, or rather 
 as a step-dauirhter, under an unjust step-mother : 
 for what ? Becaxise she, as well as Louisiana, 
 performed well her part during the late war ; and 
 because she has never given the General Govern- 
 ment any trouble. The operation of the amend- 
 ment is unjust as it relates to the people who 
 have moved there from the other States. They 
 carried with them the property which was com- 
 mon in the States they left, secured to them by 
 the Constitution and laws of the United States, as 
 well as by the treaty. There they purchased 
 public lands and settled with their slaves, with- 
 out a single objection to their owning and 
 carrying them ; but now, unfortunately for 
 them, it is discovered that they ought not to 
 have been permitted to have carried a single 
 one. What a pity it is the discovery had not 
 been made before they sold their land in the 
 old States and moved. They must now sell 
 their land and move again, or sell their slaves 
 which they have raised, or have them taken 
 from them, and this after they have been at the 
 trouble and expense of building houses and 
 clearing plantations in the new country ; not, 
 it seems, for themselves and children, but for 
 those who are considered a better people. The 
 country was bought with the money of all, slave- 
 holders as well as those who are not so ; and 
 every one knew, when he bought land and 
 moved with his property, he had a perfect 
 right to do so. And no one, till last session, ever 
 said to the contrary, or moved the restriction 
 about slaves. The object, now avowed, is to 
 pen up the slaves and their owners, and not 
 permit them to cross the Mississippi, to better 
 their condition, where there is room enough for 
 all, and good range for man and beast. And 
 man is as much improved by moving and range, 
 as the beast of the field. But, what is still more 
 unaccountable, a part of the land granted to the 
 soldiers for their services in the late war, was 
 laid off in Missouri expressly for the soldiers who 
 had enlisted in the Southern States, and would 
 prefer living where they might have slaves. 
 These, too, are now to leave the country of their 
 choice, and the land obtained by fighting the 
 battles of the nation. Is this just, in a Govern- 
 ment of law, supported only by opinion for it 
 is not pretended that it is a Government of 
 force ? In the most alarming state of our affairs 
 at home and some of them have an ugly ap- 
 pearance public opinion alone has corrected 
 and changed that which seemed to threaten 
 disorder and ill will, into order and good will, 
 except once, when the military was called out, 
 in 1791. Let this be compared to the case of 
 individuals, and it will not be found to be more 
 favorable to the amendment than the real case 
 just stated. A. and B. buy a tract of land large 
 enough for both, and for their children, and 
 settle it, build houses, and open plantations. 
 When they have got in a good way to live com- 
 
 fortably, after ten or fifteen years, A. thinks 
 there is not to6 much for him and his children, 
 and that they can, a long time hence, settle and 
 cultivate the whole land. He, then, the first 
 time, tells B. that he has some property he does 
 not like, and that he must get clear of it, or 
 move. B. states the bargain. A. answers, it 
 is true, that he understood it so till of late ; but, 
 that move he must, or get clear of the property ; 
 for that property should not be in his way. The 
 kind or quality of property cannot affect the 
 question. Xay, if it was only a difference in 
 the color of their cattle one preferring red, the 
 other pied. Would this be just ? The answer 
 must settle the question with all men who are 
 free from prejudice. 
 
 A wise Legislature will always consider the 
 character, condition, and feeling, of those to be 
 legislated for. In a Government and people like 
 ours, this is indispensable. The question now 
 under debate demands this consideration. To a 
 part of the United States, and that part which 
 supports the amendment, it cannot be important, 
 except as it is made so by the circumstances of the 
 times. In all questions like the present in the 
 United States, the strong may yield without 
 disgrace even in their own opinion ; the weak, 
 cannot ; hence, the propriety of not attempting 
 to impose this new condition on the people of* 
 Missouri. Their numbers are few, compared to 
 those of the whole United States. Let the 
 United States, then, abandon this new scheme ; 
 let their magnanimity, and not their power, be 
 felt by the people of Missouri. The attempt to 
 govern too much has produced every civil war 
 that ever has been, and will, probably, every 
 one that ever may be. Ah 1 Governments, no 
 matter what their form, want more power and 
 more authority, and all the governed want less 
 government. Great Britain lost the United 
 States by attempting to govern too much, and 
 to introduce new principles of governing. The 
 United States would not submit to the attempt, 
 and earnestly endeavored ,to persuade Great 
 Britain to abandon it, but in vain. The United 
 States would not yield ; and the result is known 
 to the world. The battle is not to the strong, 
 nor the race to the swift. What reason have 
 we to expect that we can persuade Missouri to 
 yield to our opinion, that did not apply as 
 strongly to Great Britain ? They are as near 
 akin to us as we were to Great Britain. They 
 are " flesh of our flesh, and bone of our bone." 
 But, as to kin, when they fall out, they do not 
 make up sooner than other people. Great 
 Britain attempted to govern us on a new prin- 
 ciple, and we attempt to establish a new prin- 
 ciple for the people of Missouri, on becoming a 
 State. Great Britain attempted to lay a three- 
 penny tax on the tea consumed in the then 
 colonies which were not represented in Parlia- 
 ment ; and we to regulate what shall be prop- 
 erty, when Missouri becomes a State, when she 
 has no vote in Congress. The great English 
 principle of no tax without representation was 
 violated in one case, and the great American
 
 414 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 Maine and Missouri. 
 
 [JANUARY, 1820. 
 
 principle, that the people are able to govern 
 themselves, will be, if the amendment be 
 adopted. Every free nation has had some prin- 
 ciple in their government to which more im- 
 portance was attached than to any other. The 
 English was not to be taxed without their con- 
 sent given in Parliament ; the American is to 
 form their own State government, so that it be 
 not inconsistent with that of the United States. 
 If the power in Congress to pass the restriction 
 was expressly delegated, and so clear that no 
 one could doubt it, in the present circumstances 
 of the country, it would not be wise or prudent 
 to do so ; especially against the consent of those 
 who live in the territory. Their consent would 
 be more important to the nation than a restric- 
 tion which would not make one slave less, un- 
 less they might be starved in the old States. 
 
 Let me not be understood as wishing or in- 
 tending to create any alarm as to the intentions 
 of the people of Missouri. I know nothing of 
 them. But in examining the question, we ought 
 not to forget our own history, nor the character 
 of those who settle on our frontiers. Your 
 easy, chimney-corner people, the timid and fear- 
 ful, never move to them. They stay where 
 there is no danger from an Indian, or any wild 
 beast. They have no desire to engage the pan- 
 'ther or the bear. It is the bravest of the brave, 
 and the boldest of the bold, who venture there. 
 They go not to return. 
 
 The settling of Kentucky and Tennessee, dur- 
 ing the war of the Revolution, proves, in the 
 most satisfactory manner, what they can do, 
 and will undergo, and that they will not return. 
 The few people who first settled there, had to 
 contend, without aid from the States, against 
 all the Indians bordering on the United States, 
 except the Chickasaw and Choctaw nations, 
 and maintained their stations. The Northern 
 tribes, unaided by the Southern, attacked the 
 United States, since the adoption of the consti- 
 tution, defeated two armies, and it required a 
 third to conquer them. The frontier people, in 
 the Revolutionary war, as well as in the late, 
 astonished everybody by their great exploits. 
 Vermont, though claimed in the Revolutionary 
 war, by New Hampshire and New York, was 
 not inferior to any of the States in her exertions 
 to support independence. The gentleman from 
 Pennsylvania will pardon me for stating, that 
 that State had had some experience of their 
 government managing a few people, who would 
 not yield obedience to their authority, though 
 settled within their limits. They were obliged 
 to compromise. I mean the "Wyoming settlers. 
 Again, since this Government was in operation, 
 a few people settled on the Indian lands : they 
 were ordered to move from them, but did 
 not obey. The military were sent to burn their 
 cabins. The commanding officer told them his 
 business, and very humanely advised them to 
 move what property they had out of them. 
 This they did, and their cabins were burnt. 
 They waited till the troops marched, and very 
 soon after built new cabins on the same places. 
 
 and to the same backs where the old ones had 
 been burnt. These facts are stated to show th:it 
 a contest with people who believe them- 
 selves right, and one with a Government, are 
 very different things. It would have been very 
 gratifying to me to have been informed by some 
 one of the gentlemen who support the amend- 
 ment, what is intended to be done if it be 
 adopted, and the people of Missouri will not 
 yield, but go on and form a State Government, 
 (having the requisite number, agreeably to the 
 ordinance,) as Tennessee did, and then apply 
 for admission into the Union, "Will she be ad- 
 mitted, as Tennessee was, on an equal footing 
 with the original States, or will the application 
 be rejected, as the British government did the 
 petitions of the Old Congress? If you do not 
 admit her, and she will not return to the terri- 
 torial government, will you declare the people 
 rebels, as Great Britain did us. and order them 
 to be conquered, for contending for the same 
 rights that every State in the Union now enjoys ? 
 Will you for this order the father to march 
 against the son, and brother against brother ? 
 God forbid ! It would be a terrible sight to be- 
 hold these near relations plunging the bayonet 
 into each other, for no other reason than be- 
 cause the people of Missouri wish to be on an 
 equal footing with the people of Louisiana. 
 "When territories, they were so. Those who 
 remember the Revolution will not desire to see 
 another civil war in our land. They know too 
 well the wretched scenes it will produce. If 
 you should declare them rebels, and conquer 
 them, will that attach them to the Union? No 
 one can expect this. Then do not attempt to 
 do that for them which was never done for 
 others, and which no State would consent for 
 Congress to do for it. If the United States 
 are to make conquests, do not let the first be at 
 home. Nothing is to be got by American con- 
 quering American. Nor ought we to forget 
 that we are not legislating for ourselves, and 
 that the American character is not yielding 
 when rights are concerned. 
 
 But why depart from the good old way, 
 which has kept us in quiet, peace, and harmony 
 every one living under his own vine and fig- 
 tree, and none to make him afraid ? Why leave 
 the road of experience, which has satisfied all, 
 and made all happy, to take this new way, of 
 which we have no experience ? The way leads 
 to universal emancipation, of which we have no 
 experience. The Eastern and Middle States fur- 
 nish none. For years before they emancipated 
 they had but few, and of these apart were sold to 
 the South, before they emancipated. We have 
 not more experience or book learning on this sub- 
 ject than the French Convention had which 
 turned the slaves of St. Domingo loose. Nor 
 can we foresee the consequences which may re- 
 sult from this motion, more than the conven- 
 tion did in their decree. A clause in the De- 
 claration of Independence has been read, de- 
 claring " that all men are created equal ;" follow 
 that sentiment, and does it not lead to universal
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 415 
 
 JANUARY, 1820.] 
 
 Jfaine, and Missouri. 
 
 [SENATE. 
 
 emancipation ? If it will justify putting an end 
 to slavery in Missouri, will it not justify it in 
 the old States ? Suppose the plan followed, and 
 all the slaves turned loose, and the Union to 
 continue, is it certain that the present constitu- 
 tion would last long ? Because the rich would, 
 in such circumstances, want titles and heredi- 
 tary distinctions ; the negro food and raiment ; 
 and they would be as much or more degraded, 
 than in their present condition. The rich might 
 hire these wretched people, and with them at- 
 tempt to change the Government, by trampling 
 on the rights of those who have only property 
 enough to live comfortably. 
 
 Opinions have greatly changed in some of 
 the States in n few years. The time has been 
 when those now called slaveholding States were 
 thought to be the firm and steadfast friends of 
 the people and of liberty. Then they were op- 
 posing an Administration and a majority in 
 Congress, supported by a sedition law; then 
 there was not a word heard, at least from one 
 side, about those who actually did most towards 
 changing the Administration and the majority 
 in Congress, and they were from slaveholding 
 States. And now it would be curious to know 
 how many members of Congress actually hold 
 seats in consequence of their exertions at the 
 time alluded to. Past services are always 
 forgotten when new principles are to be intro- 
 duced. 
 
 It is a fact, that the people who move from 
 the non-slaveholding to the slaveholding States, 
 when they become slaveholders by purchase or 
 marriage, expect more labor from them than 
 those do who are brought up among them. To 
 the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. BTJEKILL) 
 I tender my hearty thanks, for his liberal and 
 true statement of the treatment of slaves in the 
 Southern States. His observations leave but 
 little for me to add, which is this, that the 
 slaves gained as much by independence as the 
 free. The old ones are better taken care of 
 than any poor in the world, and treated with 
 decent respect by all their white acquaintances. 
 I sincerely wish that he, and the gentleman 
 from Pennsylvania, (Mr. ROBERTS,) would go 
 home with me, or some other Southern member, 
 and witness the meeting between the slaves and 
 the owner, and see the glad faces and the hearty 
 shaking of hands. This is well described in 
 General Moultrie's History of the Revolution- 
 ary War in South Carolina ; in which he gives 
 the account of his reception by his slaves the 
 first time he went home after he was exchanged. 
 He was made prisoner at the surrender of 
 Charleston. Could Mr. M. have procured the 
 book in the city, he intended to have read it, 
 to 'show the attachment of the slave to his 
 owner. A fact shall be stated. An excellent 
 friend of mine he, too, like the other charac- 
 ters which have been mentioned in the debate, 
 was a Virginian had business in England, 
 which made it necessary that he should go to 
 that country himself, or send a trusty agent. 
 He could not go conveniently, and sent one of 
 
 his slaves, who remained there near a year. 
 Upon his return he was asked by his owner how 
 he liked the country, and if he would have liked 
 to stay there ? He replied, that to oblige him 
 he would have stayed ; the country was the 
 finest country he ever saw ; the land was work- 
 ed as nice as a square in a garden ; they had 
 the finest horses, and carriages, and houses, and 
 every thing ; but that the white servants abused 
 his country. What did they say ? They said 
 we owed them (the English) a heap of money, 
 and would not pay. To which he added, their 
 chief food was mutton he saw very little bacon 
 there. 
 
 The owner can make more free in conversa- 
 tion with his slave, and be more easy in his 
 company, than the rich man, where there is no 
 slave, with the white hireling who drives his 
 carriage. He has no expectation that the slave 
 will, for that free and easy conversation, expect 
 to call him fellow-citizen, or act improperly. 
 
 Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, 
 have been often mentioned in the debate ; and 
 it has frequently been said, that the two first 
 had emancipated their slaves ; from which an 
 inference seemed to be drawn that the other 
 might have done so: emancipation, to these 
 gentlemen, seems to be quite an easy task. It 
 is so where there are but very few ; and would 
 be more easy if the color did not everywhere 
 place the blacks in a degraded state. Where 
 they enjoy the most freedom, they are there de- 
 graded. The respectable whites do not permit 
 them to associate with them, or to be of their 
 company when they have parties. But if it be 
 so easy a task, how happens it that Virginia, 
 which before the Revolution endeavored to put 
 an end to the African slave trade, has not at- 
 tempted to emancipate? It will not be pre- 
 tended that the great men of other States were 
 superior; or greater lovers of liberty, than her 
 Randolph, the first President of the First Con- 
 gress, her Washington, her Henry, her Jeffer- 
 son, or her Nelson. None pf these ever made 
 the attempt and their names ought to convince 
 every one that it is not an easy task in that 
 State. And is it not wonderful, that, if the 
 Declaration of Independence gave authority to 
 emancipate, that the patriots who made it never 
 proposed any plan to carry it into execution ? 
 This motion, whatever may be pretended by its 
 friends, must lead to it. And is it not equally 
 wonderful, that, if the constitution gives the 
 authority, this is the first attempt ever made, 
 under either, by the Federal Government, to 
 exercise it? For if, under either, the power is 
 given, it will apply as well to States as Terri- 
 tories. If either intended to give it, is it not 
 still more wonderful that it is not given in di- 
 rect terms? The gentlemen would not then be 
 put to the trouble of searching the confedera- 
 tion, the constitution, and the laws, for a sen- 
 tence or a word to form a few doubts. If the 
 words of the Declaration of Independence be 
 taken as part of the constitution, and that they 
 are no part of it, is as true as that they are no
 
 416 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 Maine and Missouri. 
 
 [JANUARY, 1820. 
 
 part of any other book, what will be the condi- 
 tion of the Southern country when this shall be 
 carried into execution ? Take the most favor- 
 able which can be supposed, that no convulsion 
 ensue that nothing like a massacre or war of 
 extermination takes place, as in St. Domingo : 
 but that the whites and blacks do not marry 
 and produce mulatto States will not the whites 
 be compelled to move and leave their land and 
 houses, and leave the country to the blacks ? 
 And are you willing to have black members of 
 Congress ? But if the scenes of St. Domingo 
 should be reacted, would not the tomahawk and 
 scalping- knife be mercy? 
 
 MONDAY, January 24. 
 
 Admission of Missouri New Jersey Resolution*. 
 Mr. WILSON communicated the resolutions 
 of the Legislature of the State of New Jer- 
 sey, protesting against the admission of Mis- 
 souri without a prohibition of slavery, and di- 
 recting a copy of the Resolutions to be commu- 
 nicated to its Senators and Representatives in 
 Congress. 
 
 TUESDAY, January 25. 
 
 The VICE PRESIDENT having retired from the 
 Chair, the Senate proceeded to the choice of a 
 President pro tempore, as the constitution pro- 
 vides ; and the honorable JOHN GAILLAED was 
 elected. 
 
 On motion by Mr. SANFOBD the Secretary 
 was directed to wait on the President of the 
 United States, and acquaint him that the Senate 
 have, in the absence of the /Vice President, 
 elected the honorable JOHN GAJLLARD, President 
 of the Senate pro tempore, and that the Secre- 
 tary make a similar communication to the House 
 of Representatives. 
 
 RUFUS KING, appointed a Senator by the Le- 
 gislature of the State of New York, for the 
 term of six years, commencing on the fourth 
 day of March last, produced his credentials, was 
 qualified, and took his seat in the Senate. 
 
 Maine and Missouri. 
 
 The Senate resumed, as in Committee of the 
 Whole, the consideration of the bill, entitled 
 " An act for the admission of the State of Maine 
 into the Union," together with the amendments 
 proposed thereto. 
 
 Mr. OTIS addressed the Senate this day, at 
 considerable length, in reply to Mr. PINKNEY, 
 and in favor of the restriction on Missouri. His 
 speech is given entire, as follows : 
 
 Mr. OTIS, of Massachusetts, observed, that 
 when the bill for admitting Missouri into the 
 Union, at the last session, passed the Senate, he 
 was among those who voted in its favor. It 
 was introduced only a few days before the ad- 
 journment, and was certainly not regarded as a 
 measure pregnant with the important interest 
 which had since been attached to it. There 
 was hardly a serious debate about its passing, 
 
 in which two or three gentlemen only took part- 
 Having, at that time, but imperfect means of 
 examining the merits of the question, he first 
 voted with those who were in favor of a post- 
 ponement ; but finding this was lost, he thought, 
 under the best view he could then take of the 
 question, that the people of that territory, hav- 
 ing migrated thither under an expectation of 
 being placed on the same footing with the 
 States already carved out of the same cession, 
 had some claims to a similar indulgence. But 
 his idea was, that it should stop here, and that 
 all would concur in measures to prevent the 
 further extension of slavery into the territories 
 and the States in future to be erected within 
 them. And if this could now be effected, and 
 the bill for admitting Missouri could be accom- 
 panied by such guards and provisions as would 
 forever preclude the spread of that moral pesti- 
 lence, he should not repent of the oblation he 
 had then offered to the spirit of conciliation. 
 He should, on the other hand, with his pres- 
 ent impressions, be inclined to repeat ife. 
 But perceiving, as yet, no disposition promising 
 such a result, and considering that the ground 
 now taken by the friends to the bill involved 
 an absolute denial of the powers of the General 
 Government to make any compact binding on 
 States hereafter to be admitted into the Union ; 
 a doctrine against which he altogether protest- 
 ed; he felt it to be his duty to support the 
 amendment. These circumstances would ac- 
 count for, and excuse his indiscretion, in at- 
 tempting to engage the attention of the Senate, 
 after the display of eloquence with which they 
 had been regaled for two entire days. He 
 was sensible of the disadvantage under which 
 he labored, and could only forewarn the Senate 
 of the disappointment which awaited them, if 
 his rising should be thought to indicate an in- 
 tention of replying in detail to the argument of 
 the gentleman from Maryland, (Mr. PINKNEY.) 
 Various considerations forbad his making any 
 such effort. He was quite sensible of his own 
 incompetency to follow him through his en- 
 chanted grounds. To many of his principles 
 he was disposed to assent. Some of them his 
 recollection could not embody : like the rays 
 of the diamond they sparkled, dazzled, and 
 were gone. And a very large class of his re- 
 marks he could regard merely as the gold and 
 silver tissue wherewith the honorable gentle- 
 man had enriched the splendid dress in which 
 he had thought fit to present himself to the 
 Senate for the first time. "With these excep- 
 tions enough would still be left for him to un- 
 dertake, and this he should do in the order in 
 which his mind had been led to investigate and 
 decide on the question, noticing incidentally, 
 and in his own course, those objections of the 
 honorable gentleman which appear to have the 
 most immediate bearing on the subject. 
 
 It was asserted by gentlemen that a more 
 grave and portentous question had never been 
 agitated within these walls. This he would not 
 deny; and yet he could not consider it a new
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 417 
 
 JANUAKT, 1820.] 
 
 Maine and Missouri. 
 
 [SENATE. 
 
 question. If a stranger to our country, but 
 familiar with our history, upon arriving here, at 
 this moment, and witnessing the perturbation 
 of men's minds, within doors and without, 
 should be told, upon inquiring the cause, that it 
 arose from a discussion of the question whether 
 slavery should be inhibited in your territorial 
 possessions ; his first impression would certainly 
 be that this question had been put to rest some 
 three and thirty years ago. I have " read (he 
 would be inclined to say) that the earliest exer- 
 cise of your authority over the domain ceded to 
 the United States, was manifested in a solemn 
 
 Protest against the introduction of slavery into 
 , and that you thus afforded an earnest of your 
 future policy and intentions in regard to all 
 similar acquisitions of ceded territory. Where- 
 fore, in the ordinance for governing the North- 
 western Territory, did you, with such grave de- 
 liberation establish, as one of the fundamental 
 principles of civil and religious liberty, for the 
 regulation of your territories in all future time, 
 the exclusion of involuntary servitude, and why 
 would you now relax a system established in 
 the healthful vigor and freshness of your newly- 
 acquired liberty, and bring into doubt princi- 
 ples which were then so solemnly determined ?" 
 To these inquiries, he said, he should only be 
 able to answer, " Tempora mutantur et nos mu- 
 tamur in illis." 
 
 If the obligations imposed upon us by the 
 constitution were rigorous to the extent which 
 gentlemen seemed to insist, our condition was 
 indeed deplorable. If, while the nations of the 
 old world were forming confederations in order 
 to exclude from their own dependencies the fu- 
 ture introduction of slaves, and to propitiate 
 Heaven by an attempt to atone for the past 
 abominations of that traffic of the human spe- 
 cies, we are not only inhibited from coming into 
 their system, but are really obliged, by treaty, 
 to open a new and illimitable market within 
 our own territories ; and while they are con- 
 tracting the sphere of human misery and servi- 
 tude, we are compelled to widen its expanse 
 from the Mississippi to the setting sun : then, 
 indeed, is our situation most humbling. It will 
 be in vain, he feared, to compare the youth and 
 purity of our institutions with the decrepitude 
 of the old world, and the rottenness of their 
 systems, if this be our predicament. 
 
 If the President and Senate can, by treaty, 
 acquire possessions in all parts of the globe, and 
 bind us to admit them into our Union, without 
 any restriction upon their laws and usages; 
 should he chance to travel any part of Europe, 
 after these should be admitted as acknowledged 
 principles of constitutional law, and hear his 
 country branded as a region of hypocrisy, and 
 its people as a race of men, who, with liberty 
 in their mouths, carried rods for the backs and 
 chains for the feet of unborn millions, into a 
 new world ; he should stand in need of the 
 speech of the honorable gentleman from Mary- 
 land, as the only panoply competent to enable 
 him to repel the point of such injurious accusa- 
 VOL. VL 27 
 
 tions, as his own invention would not supply him 
 with a satisfactory answer. Still, if in reality 
 our faith, by treaty, was thus plighted, though 
 he should deem the acquisition of the whole 
 territory a vital misfortune, and should think 
 it would have been happier for us if the Missis- 
 sippi had been an eternal torrent of burning 
 lava, impassable as the lake which separates the 
 evil from the good, and the regions beyond it 
 destined to be covered forever with brakes and 
 jungles, and the impenetrable haunts of the 
 wolf and the panther ; yet, he would not then 
 advocate a breach of the public faith, but he 
 should think it the duty of Congress to recom- 
 mend a new negotiation with the present bene- 
 ficent monarch of France, to the end of obtain- 
 ing his release from the provisions of a treaty so 
 fatal to our best interests. 
 
 "Without this power of annexing conditions, 
 the United States, he said, would be a strange 
 anomaly in the society of nations compelled to 
 admit to their bosom, and to a participation of 
 their fundamental powers and privileges, with- 
 out terms or restrictions, any people in what- 
 ever part of the world, which the Executive 
 Government should acquire by treaty, however 
 alien their laws and usages might be from those 
 of our own nation. For it is insisted that a 
 colonial policy is abhorrent, from the genius of 
 our constitution, and that States must be formed 
 as soon as possible in all our possessions. He 
 believed no nation on earth but ourselves were 
 ever placed in such a predicament, nor did he 
 perceive how a sovereign State could ever form 
 a union with a foreign sovereign or people with- 
 out such a power. On the same foundation, 
 alone, could Scotland be held to the restrictions 
 imposed by the articles of union with England. 
 Cases, and those by no means extreme, might 
 be imagined, in which the exercise of such 
 a power would be indispensable to the safety 
 and policy of the principal State. It is not 
 long, for example, since the feudal system pre- 
 vailed in France ; and the Inquisition, though 
 with features somewhat relenting, still holds its 
 iron sway in Spain. Louisiana has belonged to 
 these nations in succession. He knew not 
 whether feudal tenures had been ever intro- 
 duced into that country ; but there was nothing 
 extravagant in the supposition that they, or at 
 least some of the badges of feudality, might 
 have been there tolerated. If such had been 
 the circumstances, should the United States be 
 held to admit new States in that territory, with- 
 out stipulating for the abolition of these ten- 
 ures ? Must we have subjected our citizens mi- 
 grating thither to all the oppressions of villanage, 
 of aids and services, and the detestable bondage 
 of the feudal vassals? Or, if a branch of the 
 Inquisition had been established there, could we 
 not have interposed to put down that pillar of 
 an established religion? Or, if the torture had 
 been practised as it was under the civil law in 
 France and Spain, could no controlling power 
 be retained by any compact or agreement to 
 extirpate that abomination?
 
 418 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 Maine and Missouri. 
 
 [JANUARY, 1820. 
 
 Mr. O. said he would suppose another case, 
 not likely to happen, but yet, as he trusted, not 
 outrageo'usly improbable. There were, as was 
 well known, in many parts of this country, so- 
 cieties of persons called Shakers, of good moral 
 characters, and exemplary habits of industry, 
 whose fundamental doctrines were founded on 
 the duty of celibacy. They are also a rich peo- 
 ple, arid, in some of the States, experience inter- 
 ruptions in their endeavors to augment their 
 numbers, and inconveniences from laws which 
 press upon their consciences, especially in mili- 
 tary concerns. Imagine, sir, said he, all these 
 sects combined and determined to make a pil- 
 grimage, and become sojourners in this new 
 country of promise. Figure to yourself four or 
 five thousand adults of both sexes, with their 
 children, in separate and dismal processions, 
 marching beyond the Mississippi until they 
 should find a spot suited to their occasions; 
 then halting, and sending you a missionary, 
 with the intelligence of their demand to be ad- 
 mitted as a State. Are you bound to admit 
 them without a stipulation that they shall make 
 no laws prohibiting marriage, at the moment 
 you know this to be the main design of their 
 emigration, and thus secure to a sect of those 
 peculiar and anti-social tenets a monopoly of 
 the entire State, and a power of virtually ex- 
 cluding from its jurisdiction the great mass of 
 your citizens? There is no end to the instances 
 which might be multiplied, wherein your inter- 
 ference would be indispensable for the protec- 
 tion of your citizens, and the prevention of con- 
 tagious customs and institutions adverse to the 
 policy and nature of our Government. The 
 consequences of the doctrine maintained on the 
 other side would be detrimental to the Territo- 
 rial inhabitants ; it would create a reluctance 
 to admit them all into the Union. Besides, if 
 compacts of this description would not be ob- 
 ligatory hereafter, those already framed are 
 void, and being void in part, are wholly null. 
 Hence would arise uproar and confusion wild : 
 all things done under the ordinance, and the 
 laws which recognize it, are liable to be abro- 
 gated. The great and flourishing State of 
 Ohio, and her contiguous neighbors, and all that 
 is fixed to their soil, should of right revert to 
 the Union, and the grants of Georgia and North 
 Carolina are ipso facto rescinded ; for the sub- 
 ject-matter being not within the powers of the 
 constitution, all contracts respecting it, or grow- 
 ing out of it, must be void. 
 
 Here, then, Mr. 0. said, he might safely rest 
 the question. Language could not furnish a 
 power more clear and express than the constitu- 
 tional article to admit new States ; and, having 
 these express words for his basis, he would 
 again request nothing better than the speech of 
 the gentleman from Maryland ; not his speech 
 of yesterday, but the model of forensic argu- 
 ment and eloquence which he had exhibited- in 
 the case of the Bank of the United States, to 
 show that the faculty of imposing conditions 
 was among the necessary derivative powers, 
 
 even if the meaning of the word states was not 
 as explicit as he had shown it to be. 
 
 In the view which he had thus presented of 
 the subject, Mr. O. said, he had endeavored to 
 establish principles, which, if sound, contained 
 a substantial refutation of the most important 
 dogmas advanced by the honorable gentleman 
 from Maryland, though not in the order in 
 which they had been arranged by him. He 
 would, therefore, pass rapidly over a review of 
 some of his objections, though his answers 
 might seem like repetitions in another form, of 
 a portion of his previous remarks ; and if, among 
 the specimens of brilliant ores and gems that 
 were scattered through the honorable gentle- 
 man's collection, he should occasionally find 
 some whose genuineness he doubted, he would 
 take leave to point them out, though his unskil- 
 ful finger might disturb the beauty of the whole 
 arrangement. The honorable member had 
 dwelt with great pathos upon the enormous 
 character of the power claimed for Congress 
 under the constitution, and its consequent li- 
 ability to abuse. But the power of full sov- 
 ereignty is in its nature enormous. If the 
 United States are capable of taking and holding 
 a grant in full sovereignty, there is no security 
 against their abuse of powers, except what 
 arises from the character of the people and 
 their institutions. Here, however, limitations 
 are provided by the treaty. There can be no 
 abuse of power where the inhabitants are enti- 
 tled to all the rights of citizens of the United 
 States. 
 
 It has been also contended, that as Congress 
 has not the constitutional power to establish, 
 so neither is it competent to abolish slavery. 
 To this he answered, that the attempt was 
 neither to do the one nor the other ; but to pre- 
 vent its introduction, by a fair compact, into a 
 new region, where it had not been ^Established 
 by law. He disavowed entirely the right of 
 Congress to interpose its authority in relation 
 to slavery in the old States, and protested 
 against the wish or design to promote a general 
 emancipation of their slaves, nothing doubting 
 but that such a measure would be pregnant 
 with evil to master and man. A more impor- 
 tant principle asserted by the honorable gentle- 
 man, he said, was this: That when Missouri 
 becomes a State, she would acquire, ipso facto, 
 the right to abrogate our restrictions as an in- 
 cident to State sovereignty. This assertion is, 
 in fact, begging the question. If, by the consti- 
 tution, conditions may be imposed as precedent 
 to her becoming a State, they cannot be re- 
 scinded by Missouri in her capacity of State. 
 There is the widest possible distinction between 
 legislating upon the internal concerns of a State, 
 after she assumes that character, and framing a 
 compact by a legislative act previously to that 
 event, which is to constitute, prospectively, the 
 fundamentals of their future constitution. In 
 order to effect the latter object, it is necessary 
 only to settle the question, whether the inhab- 
 itants of a territory have a capacity to con-
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 419 
 
 JANUARY, 1820.] 
 
 Maine and Missouri. 
 
 [SENATE. 
 
 tract? If they are destitute of this power, 
 there is no safety in dealing with them, no se- 
 curity for any of your reservations, for your ex- 
 emption from taxation on your own lands, for 
 securing the trial by jury, or habeas corpus, or 
 any other privilege. If they, on the contrary, 
 are capable of making a compact, how can they 
 become entitled to commit a fraud by breaking 
 it, in consequence of changing the form of their 
 community ? If they can bind the United States 
 they can bind themselves. If they can claim 
 charter rights, they must be held to the perform- 
 ance of charter obligations and conditions. The 
 people of the United States have framed a con- 
 stitution ; but their debts, contracts, and obliga- 
 tions, antecedently incurred, have not been, and 
 can never be, with justice or honor, renounced. 
 It would be a most unhappy exposition of State 
 rights that should render the opposite theory 
 convincing to the nation : its moral would be, 
 that no good faith could be expected from a 
 territorial population, and its corollary, that no 
 bargain should be made with them. 
 
 WEDNESDAY, January 26. 
 Maine and Missouri. 
 
 The Senate then resumed the consideration 
 of the Missouri question. 
 
 Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina, observed, that, 
 after the Senate had heard from the honorable 
 gentleman from Maryland, (Mr. PETKNTEY,) a 
 speech of five hours in continuance, not less 
 distinguished for its logical and unsophisticated 
 reasoning, and its pure, classical style, than for 
 its unrivalled eloquence and brilliancy of fancy, 
 and which had been preceded by a number of 
 eloquent speeches from other gentlemen, on the 
 same side of the question, he could hardly in- 
 dulge a hope that the Senate would believe, at 
 this late hour of the discussion, any further 
 light could be shed upon it. But, as he be- 
 lieved this to be a more important subject than 
 any wliich had agitated the public mind since 
 this Government had been established, if the 
 Senate would have the goodness to give him 
 their attention, he would beg leave to present 
 his humble views. He knew many gentlemen 
 thought the subject already exhausted ; and he 
 would, therefore, that he might not contribute 
 further to weary the patience of the Senate, 
 carefully avoid touching those points which had 
 already been so ably treated, and so luminously 
 explained by others. If he should, it would be 
 to give them a different construction, and from 
 reasons different from those which had as yet 
 been applied. 
 
 The first clause of the ninth section of the 
 first article of the Constitution of the United 
 States, in the following words, " the migration 
 or importation of such persons as any of the 
 States now existing shall think proper to admit, 
 shall not be prohibited by Congress prior to the 
 year 1808, but a tax or duty may be imposed 
 on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars 
 for each pi-rson,'' has received a different con- 
 struction by different gentlemen, on both sides 
 
 of this question ; and he would beg leave to 
 give it his construction. The Constitution of 
 the United States is the supreme law of the 
 land, and, like all other laws, when any doubts 
 arise as respects its meaning, some fixed rules 
 must be resorted to by which these doubts can. 
 be solved. The rule laid down by one of the 
 greatest jurists known to us, (Judge Black- 
 stone,) is, to ascertain, by the fairest and most 
 rational means, the intention of the law-giver 
 at the time the law was made or enacted. This 
 is done in various ways ; either by the words 
 of the law, by the subject-matter, the context, 
 the effects and consequences, or the reason and 
 spirit of the law itself. This rule has not only 
 the sanction of Judge Blackstone's opinion, but 
 it has the sanction of reason on its side, and 
 which no honorable gentleman of the Senate 
 would controvert. 
 
 In looking to the reasons, you must employ 
 all the grounds necessary to ascertain for what 
 purpose a particular principle was adopted ; 
 and, if the words of a law are doubtful, to as- 
 certain what particular cause led to the use of 
 those words in that law. In doing this, djffer- 
 ent gentlemen had presented to the view of the 
 Senate, different reasons why the words " mi- 
 gration or importation " were used in this sec- 
 tion of the constitution. Those gentlemen who 
 pressed the principle of restriction, did it on 
 the authority of the words migration or im- 
 portation. They say the slaveholding States 
 refused to subscribe to the Federal Constitu- 
 tion, unless it should be conceded to them by 
 the non-slaveholding States, that they should 
 be permitted to continue the further importa- 
 tion of slaves from Africa, until the year 1808 ; 
 and in compromising the principles upon which 
 the constitution should be framed, they yielded 
 to the General Government the right, after that 
 period, to restrain the migration of slaves from 
 one State to another, and hence they pretend 
 to derive the power vested in Congress, to in- 
 hibit the admission of slavery into the State of 
 Missouri. They have some other grounds, 
 which they deem auxiliary, and which he would 
 examine presently, but the preceding was their 
 strong ground. For this construction they of- 
 fer no reasons but that it comports with the 
 general principles of free government, and the 
 spirit of the Declaration of Independence. 
 
 On the other hand, gentlemen who oppose 
 the right of restriction have given a different 
 construction, and think that the word " migra- 
 tion " is coupled with the word " importation," 
 and is synonymous, and that the import of it is 
 entirely foreign ; that it does not relate to our 
 domestic relations, and could never be intended 
 to regulate the internal distribution of our 
 slaves, [Mr. PIXKNEY, of Maryland.] Some 
 other constructions had been presented, and 
 enforced by strong arguments, [Mr. WALKEB, of 
 Georgia.] These grounds of construction had 
 been in abler hands than his, and he would not 
 disturb them ; but he would repose his solution 
 of these words on a ground which had not yet
 
 420 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 Maine and Missouri. 
 
 [JANUARY, 1820. 
 
 been presented to the Senate, by any gentle- 
 man on either side. He would draw it from 
 the Declaration of Independence itself; and, 
 for that purpose, would beg leave to read the 
 first clause of that declaration, in these words : 
 
 ' When, in the course of human events, it be- 
 comes necessary for one people to dissolve the politi- 
 cal bonds which have connected them with another, 
 and to assume, among the powers of the earth, the 
 separate and equal station to which the laws of na- 
 ture and of nature's God entitle them, a decent re- 
 spect to the opinions of mankind requires that they 
 should declare the causes which impel them to a 
 separation." 
 
 Sir, said Mr. S., the gentleman has been a 
 lawyer of the first respectability, and a judge 
 of high standing, in the State he represents ; 
 and he could not suppose the gentleman could 
 conceive there was any force in the analogy 
 which he had attempted. The cases were not 
 parallel. Missouri had a claim founded in 
 right ; and had the uncle been under any obli- 
 gation to make titles, he could prescribe no 
 conditions as to what kind of property the 
 nephew should hold on the land. He would 
 have as much right to stock it with dogs, as he 
 would to stock it with cattle or horses. Here 
 he appealed to the legal judgment of that hon- 
 orable gentleman, to say if he,. Mr. S., was not 
 correct. As a sound lawyer, he defied him to 
 negative the position. 
 
 Sir, that honorable gentleman, whose mind 
 and eloquence had so often illumined and de- 
 lighted this Senate, seemed to have fallen far 
 short of his usual greatness. Instead* of dis- 
 cussing the constitutional question with his 
 technical abilities, he had been presenting to 
 the Senate the horrid spectacle of bears, pan- 
 thers, the Mississippi rolling with liquid fire, 
 mad dogs, and hydrophobia ! This gentleman 
 has made such a departure from the subject, 
 and has been so incoherent in his arguments, 
 if he had not, at setting out, intimated that he 
 should speak one way and vote the other, he, 
 Mr. S., would have entertained serious appre- 
 hensions that the gentleman had really been bit 
 by some of his own mad dogs, and was labor- 
 ing under the hydrophobia. 
 
 There was but one more view which he 
 would take of this case. Much had been said 
 of the effects of slavery upon society. He 
 would compare the morality of the slavehold- 
 ing States with that of the non-slaveholding 
 States. He did not mean the morality of indi- 
 viduals, but he would compare the political 
 morality of the States. South of the State of 
 Pennsylvania you had heard of no rebellions, 
 no insurrections, no delays in performing all 
 the requisitions of the State and General Gov- 
 ernments. The State of Massachusetts had 
 emancipated what slaves she had left, shortly 
 after the Treaty of Peace in 1783. In three 
 years after, they had a rebellion which shook 
 the State to its centre. The courts of justice 
 were broken up throughout the State. The 
 civil authority was put down. Kecourse was 
 
 had to arms, from one end of the State to the 
 other. Battles ensued ; some were killed, oth- 
 ers wounded, others taken prisoners, and some 
 hanged, or rather condemned, and pardoned by 
 the Executive. It raged to such a degree, that 
 the principal citizens had at one time deter- 
 mined to make no efforts to check it, that the 
 imbecility of a republican Government might 
 be fully manifested, and some Government of 
 greater energy resorted to. What that Gov- 
 ernment would have been, he knew not ; but 
 he supposes they would have chosen a King. 
 This statement was contained in Minot's history 
 of that transaction, which he had then before 
 him, and which had been furnished him from 
 the public library. 
 
 The State of Pennsylvania had freed her 
 slaves in 1780. In January, 1791, the Congress 
 of the United States had under consideration 
 the subject of excise. The Legislature of Penn- 
 sylvania were then in session. They took up 
 the subject with the same temper with the 
 same enthusiasm and heat which they have 
 so lately manifested on the Missouri question, 
 and passed the following resolutions for in- 
 structing their members of the Senate to op- 
 pose the measure : 
 
 " HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 
 
 "January 22, 1791. 
 
 " The Legislature of the Commonwealth, ever at- 
 tentive to the rights of their constituents, and con- 
 ceiving it a duty incumbent on them to express their 
 sentiments on such matters of a public nature as, in 
 their opinion, have a tendency to destroy their rights, 
 agree to the following resolutions : 
 
 " Resolved, That any proceedings on the part of the 
 United States tending to the collection of a revenue 
 by means of excise, established upon principles sub- 
 versive of the peace, liberty, and rights of the citi- 
 zens, ought to attract the attention of this House. 
 
 "Resolved, That no public exigency within the 
 knowledge or contemplation of this House, can, in 
 their opinion, warrant the adoption of any species of 
 taxation which shall violate those rights which are the 
 basis of our Government, and which would exhibit 
 the singular spectacle of a nation resolutely opposing 
 the oppression of others, in order to enslave itself. 
 
 " Resolved, That these sentiments be communica- 
 ted to the Senators representing the State of Penn- 
 sylvania in the Senate of the United States, with a 
 hope that they will oppose every part of the excise 
 bill, now before the Congress, which shall militate 
 against the just rights and liberties of the people." 
 
 This was a high-handed measure, to oppose 
 the constituted authorities in this bold and me- 
 nacing form, because they were about to lay a 
 small duty on whiskey, that delicious beverage. 
 This law was passed by Congress, and, the year 
 following, Mr. Neville, the inspector of the rev- 
 enue, was often menaced. At length they 
 broke out into an open insurrection in the 
 neighborhood of Pittsburg. The public mind 
 was much agitated. Companies armed them- 
 selves, and marched into the neighborhood of 
 the inspector. Brackenridge, in his history of 
 that insurrection, which Mr. S. had in his hand, 
 gives the following account :
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 421 
 
 JANUARY, 1820.] 
 
 Missouri Question. 
 
 [Sow 
 
 " TLe next morning, after daybreak, the inspector, 
 having just got oat of bed and opened the door, dis- 
 covered a number of armed men about the house, 
 and, demanding of them who they were and whence 
 they came, the answer was such as induced him to 
 consider their intentions to be hostile ; and, on re- 
 fusing to disperse, he fired on them. The fire was 
 returned, and a contest ensued. The negroes, from 
 some adjoining small buildings, fired on the flank of 
 the assailants, and they were repulsed with six 
 wounded, one mortally." 
 
 He wished to call the attention of gentlemen 
 to this faithful attachment of the slaves ; they 
 repelled the insurgents, without an order even 
 from the master. They wounded six, one mor- 
 tally. This all passed in Pittsburg, and not a 
 white man ever approached the scene. The 
 inspector's houses were all burned down the 
 next day, and no man attempted to oppose 
 them. These slaves have presented an exam- 
 ple of fidelity and bravery in defence of their 
 master, while the whole population of Pitts- 
 burg were terrified into submission. He pre- 
 sented this for the view of Marcus and his as- 
 sociates. It may serve them as a beacon. 
 
 This insurrection extended itself over a great 
 part of the western section of Pennsylvania. 
 It required the strong arm of the General Gov- 
 ernment to quell it. A regular armed force 
 was called out before its impetuosity could be 
 checked ; an impetuosity which threatened to 
 overwhelm that State, if not the whole Union. 
 Does Pennsylvania and Massachusetts wish 
 those feelings and those scenes renewed? If 
 they do, the course they have taken may lead 
 them directly to it. The American people, of 
 whom it was his pride and his glory that he 
 was one, were as honest as any other people in 
 the world, and only wanted to be correctly in- 
 formed, to do justice to every policy and every 
 measure. But if, under the misguided influ- 
 ence of fanaticism and humanity, the impetu- 
 ous torrent is once put in motion, what hand 
 short of Omnipotence can stay it ? 
 
 New York has been a slaveholding State, 
 until very lately, in the strictest sense of the 
 word. The Governor of New York recom- 
 mended to the Legislature of that State, only 
 three years ago, to take measures for the eman- 
 cipation of their slaves. Two years ago these 
 measures were taken ; and, at the next session 
 of Congress thereafter, their Representatives 
 and Senators came out upon this very Missouri 
 question, as the champions of freedom ; and 
 that State has given as hopeful signs of a tur- 
 bulent temper as either Pennsylvania or Massa- 
 chusetts, for the time that she has had after 
 emancipation. "What progress she will make 
 in revolutions time will develop. 
 
 When Mr. SMITH had concluded the Senate 
 adjourned. 
 
 THURSDAY, January 27. 
 Delaware Resolutions against admitting Slavery 
 
 in Missouri. 
 Mr. VAN DYKE communicated the following 
 
 resolutions of the Legislature of the State of 
 Delaware, which were read: 
 
 " Resolved by the Senate and House of Representa- 
 tives of the State of Delaware, in General Assembly 
 met, That it is, in the opinion of this General Assem- 
 bly, the constitutional right of the United States ia 
 Congress assembled, to enact and establish, as one of 
 the conditions for the admission of a new State into 
 the Union, a provision which shall effectually pre- 
 vent the further introduction of slavery into such 
 State : and that a due regard to the true interest of 
 such State, as well as of the other States, requires 
 that the same should be done. 
 
 " Resolved, That a copy of the above and foregoing 
 resolution be transmitted by the Speaker of the Sen- 
 ate to each of the Senators and Representatives from 
 this State in the Congress of the United States." 
 
 FRIDAY, January 28. 
 Missouri Question. 
 
 The Senate resumed, as in Committee of the 
 Whole, the consideration of the bill, entitled 
 " An act for the admission of the State of 
 Maine into the Union," together with the 
 amendments proposed thereto. 
 
 Mr. VAN DYKE, of Delaware, rose and ad- 
 dressed the Senate as follows : 
 
 Mr. President : Conscious that I cannot add 
 to the force of arguments which have been al- 
 ready urged against the proposed amendment, 
 with unrivalled powers of eloquence, nothing 
 but a sense of duty, growing out of the pecu- 
 liar situation in which I stand in relation to 
 this question, could induce me to trespass on 
 the patience of the Senate. This subject, sir, 
 has produced much excitement in different sec- 
 tions of the Union ; that excitement has per- 
 vaded the State which I have the honor in part 
 to represent ; there, too, public meetings have 
 been called ; opinions in favor of the proposed 
 restriction have been expressed, and are pub- 
 lished under the sanction of names deservedly 
 esteemed for talents and integrity. The Legis- 
 lature of that State also, in their wisdom, have 
 resolved, that the proposed restriction is com- 
 patible with the constitution, and ought to be 
 adopted as a measure of sound policy. That 
 resolution is now upon your table. The opin- 
 ion of that honorable Legislature justly merits, 
 and will ever command, my sincere respect. 
 To their confidence in me I am indebted for a 
 place in this dignified assembly; to deserve 
 and retain the good opinion of that honorable 
 body will ever be my highest ambition. But, 
 sir, as it is my misfortune to differ from them 
 in sentiment on the great constitutional ques- 
 tion, I am not satisfied to give a silent vote. 
 
 The honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania 
 who moved the amendment, remarked, that it 
 was a question of great importance between 
 the people of the United States and those of 
 Missouri. It is, sir, a question of importance, 
 because it involves the construction of the great 
 charter of our liberties. The zeal with which 
 the amendment has been urged and opposed, 
 evinces that it excites more than common in-
 
 422 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 Missouri Question. 
 
 [JANUARY, 1820. 
 
 terest. A question touching the extent of pow- 
 ers delegated to Congress by the constitution, 
 must ever be deeply interesting ; for in its de- 
 cision are implicated the rights reserved to the 
 people, and the sovereignty of the States. It 
 was, however, not anticipated that the Decla- 
 ration of Independence would be resorted to, 
 as furnishing a key to the construction of the 
 constitution of 1787, or that arguments would 
 be drawn from that source to give color to a 
 claim of power under the latter instrument. 
 Much less was it expected that the recital of 
 abstract theoretical principles, in 'a national 
 manifesto in 1776, would be gravely urged at 
 this day, to prove that involuntary servitude 
 does not lawfully exist within the United 
 
 tleman has referred, with an air of triumphant 
 confidence, reminding us that the whole people 
 then united in proclaiming to the world, " that 
 all men are created equal ; that they are en- 
 dowed by their Creator with certain inaliena- 
 ble rights ; that among these are life, liberty, 
 and the pursuit of happiness." Sir, these prin- 
 ciples are correct, and intelligible in the politi- 
 cal sense in which they were used by the 
 statesmen who signed that manifesto. They 
 are the received doctrines of schools, in rela- 
 tion to man, as he is supposed to exist in the 
 fancied state of nature. But that individuals, 
 entering into society, must give up a share of 
 liberty to preserve the rest, is a truth that re- 
 quires no demonstration. Those principles 
 formed correct premises from which to draw 
 the conclusion, "that, to secure these rights, 
 governments are instituted among men, deriv- 
 ing their just powers from the consent of the 
 governed ; that the people have a right to alter 
 or to abolish one form of government, and to 
 institute new government." They also formed 
 correct premises from which (under existing 
 oppression) was drawn the inference, "that 
 these united colonies are, and of right ought to 
 be, free and independent States." But, Mr. 
 President, the distinguished statesmen who 
 pledged to each other " their lives, their for- 
 tunes, and their sacred honor," in support of 
 that declaration, were not visionary theorists ; 
 they were men of sound, practical, common 
 sense, and, from the premises assumed, arrived 
 at sound practical conclusions. When we call 
 to mind the state of this young country at that 
 awful moment, struggling for the right of self- 
 government, engaged in a war with the most 
 powerful nation of Europe, pressed on all sides 
 with accumulating difficulties and dangers, can 
 it be credited that the Declaration of Inde- 
 pendence was designed to dissolve the bonds of 
 social order throughout the Stated to reduce 
 all men to a state of nature, and to set at large 
 a host of slaves, the readiest instruments to be 
 employed by the enemy in the work of destruc- 
 tion, in the very bosom of the nation ? Think 
 you, sir, that it was meant to invoke the genius 
 of universal emancipation, and to proclaim lib- 
 erty and equality to every human being who 
 
 breathed the air, and trod the soil of this new 
 Republic? The faith of that man who can be- 
 lieve this, is much stronger than mine. No, 
 sir, that manifesto was not intended was not 
 understood to abolish or to alter any law then 
 existing in any State for the security of prop- 
 erty, or for the regulation of their internal con- 
 cerns. Self-preservation a regard for their 
 own personal safety, and that of their families, 
 and a regard for the best interests of the nation 
 forbade those sages to do such an act. But, 
 sir, were slaves liberated in any State of the 
 Union by virtue of the Declaration of Inde- 
 pendence ? Never. On the contrary, wherev- 
 er emancipation has been effected, it has been 
 by the authority of State laws; and every 
 State has assumed, and invariably exercised, at 
 its discretion, the right of legislating about this 
 class of persons, down to the present day. 
 Pennsylvania, so justly applauded for her be- 
 nevolence towards these persons, did not admit 
 that they obtained freedom under the Declara- 
 tion of Independence, for she undertook to 
 loose their chains gradually, by her own legis- 
 lative authority, in 1780 ; and even at this mo- 
 ment some are held in involuntary servitude in 
 that State. In truth, sir, we cannot advance a 
 step in the history of the Revolution, without 
 meeting evidence that there were in the nation 
 two separate classes free men, and those who 
 were not free. Consult the articles of Confed- 
 eration, emanating immediately from the act of 
 Independence, and signed by many of the same 
 men who signed that declaration, and, in arti- 
 cle 4, " free inhabitants of each State," and 
 " free citizens," designate the persons who were 
 to enjoy privileges and immunities under that 
 Government, plainly indicating that there was 
 another class of persons in the country who 
 were not free, and not entitled to those privi- 
 leges. Consult the Treaty of 1783, which 
 acknowledged the independence of these States, 
 and you will read a stipulation, on the part of 
 the British, for the restoring "of negroes or 
 other property of the American inhabitants." 
 
 Another war with the same power has been 
 recently waged, and is happily terminated by 
 the Treaty of Ghent, in which you again find a 
 stipulation for the restoration of " slaves or 
 other property." Sir, the Federal Constitution, 
 whose powers are now under examination, in 
 providing for the delivering up of fugitives from 
 labor, held to service under the laws of a State, 
 recognizes as well the existence of such a class 
 of persons, as that they are held under the State. 
 Open your statute book, examine the different 
 acts which have been passed at different periods, 
 in which it became necessary to notice this class 
 of persons, and you shall be forced to acknowl- 
 edge that Congress has enacted laws recogniz- 
 ng them as property ; sometimes describing 
 them as fugitives from labor, at others calling 
 them slaves. Thus, sir, the act of 12th Febru- 
 ary, 1793, provides for executing the constitu- 
 tional provision relative to fugitives from labor. 
 The statute erecting Louisiana into two Terri
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 423 
 
 JANUARY, 1820.] 
 
 Missouri Question. 
 
 [SENAI 
 
 tories in 1804, in the same tenth section which 
 was read by the honorable gentleman from Penn- 
 sylvania, speaks in plainer language where it 
 provides, " that no slave or slaves shall, directly 
 or indirectly, be introduced into said Territory, 
 except by citizens of the United States removing 
 into suidTerritory for actual settlement, and be- 
 ing at the time of such removal bona fide owner of 
 such slave or slaves." This section, sir, establishes 
 t\vo facts : First, that a citizen of the United 
 States may be bona fide owner of slaves. Second, 
 that such citizen had the right of removing 
 with his slaves from any State into the newly 
 acquired Territory of Louisiana. 
 
 I proceed, sir, to examine the constitutional 
 question which the amendment presents. Hap- 
 pily, Mr. President, we are not investigating 
 the principles of a Government whose origin is 
 buried in the rubbish of antiquity whose 
 powers are to be collected from history or tra- 
 dition which relies on precedent and usage to 
 give color to the usurpation of power in every 
 emergency : acquiring new vigor from every 
 succeeding precedent; and often from prece- 
 dents created in times of foreign war and do- 
 mestic violence. Happily for this nation, its 
 constitution is a written instrument, framed in 
 a time of peace, with care and deliberation, by 
 the most enlightened men, and penned with all 
 the accuracy and precision that serious thought 
 and calm reflection could insure. Its history is 
 brief, and known to all : the time and manner 
 of its creation, the circumstances attending its 
 adoption, are familiar. Many of the enlightened 
 statesmen whose talents and- labors were de- 
 voted to this great work, yet live to share the 
 honors which their grateful country bestows, 
 as a reward due to their distinguished merit. 
 
 We must remember, then, Mr. President, that 
 it is a written compact, thus created, thus 
 adopted, whose powers we examine. To insure 
 a correct result, it is proper to bring into 
 view certain rules of reason and common sense, 
 applicable to the construction of all written in- 
 struments. That we must look to the intention 
 of the parties, as the polar star, is the great 
 leading rule of construction. This rule applies 
 with equal force to the contracts of individuals 
 in private life to compacts between sovereign, 
 independent States, as public treaties, and to a 
 compact between the people and Government, 
 in the form of a constitution. To ascertain the 
 intention of the parties, and to execute the com- 
 pact in good faith, is the duty of an honest 
 statesman. The intention, sir, is most naturally 
 and safely collected from the language and ex- 
 pressions used in relation to the subject-matter. 
 If the expressions be so indefinite or inartificial 
 as to leave the intention doubtful, a comparison 
 may be made of different parts of the instru- 
 ment for elucidation, and from that comparison 
 an intention may be inferred not incompatible 
 with what is plainly and certainly expressed. 
 Should doubts still remain, the mind recurs to 
 the situation of the parties at the time of the 
 compact, and judges, from the known condition 
 
 of the parties, how far the proposed construc- 
 tion may comport with reason and good sense. 
 These are means used, under different circum- 
 stances, to arrive at truth. In examining a 
 claim of power under this constitution, when 
 we recur to the specific enumeration of powers, 
 attend to the prohibitions there written, and 
 read that jealous declaration of the tenth 
 amendment, that all power not granted is re- 
 served, the conclusion is irresistible, that the 
 United States Government is one of limited 
 powers ; that although supreme and sovereign 
 as to all matters within its legitimate sphere of 
 action, yet it cannot claim a general, unlimited 
 sovereignty. The people have created State 
 governments also, and have delegated to them 
 other portions of power within the State limits 
 for the regulation and management of their 
 internal domestic concerns. A British states- 
 man may boast of the omnipotence of a British 
 Parliament ; but an American statesman will 
 never claim the attribute of omnipotence for an 
 American Congress. 
 
 To the advocates of power, in any instance, 
 the people may with propriety say, show the 
 grant of the power in the constitution. It is in- 
 cumbent on you to show either that it is granted 
 as a substantive, independent power, or that it 
 is incidental to such a power, by being necessary 
 and proper to be used as a mean to carry such 
 a power into execution. If you cannot show 
 this, your claim is bad, your pretension must 
 fail. In the present instance you search in vain 
 among the enumerated powers of the Congress : 
 examine the whole catalogue, with the most 
 scrutinizing eye, it is not found there : proceed 
 to the section which enumerates all that is pro- 
 hibited to the States, nothing there written can 
 furnish a plausible ground to infer that such a 
 power was intended to be delegated to Congress. 
 It is not then a substantive, independent power, 
 specified and defined in the general enumeration 
 of powers ; nor can it, in \my view, be raised by 
 necessary implication. Can it with any color 
 of right be asserted, as a power necessary and 
 proper for carrying into effect any of the speci- 
 fied powers? Here, sir, the advocates of th 
 amendment are equally embarrassed. With 
 which of the specified powers is it connected ? 
 which of them calls upon it for aid, or which of 
 them can receive any aid from it? Is it neces- 
 sary to aid in laying and collecting taxes, bor- 
 rowing money, or regulating commerce? Sir, 
 you shall name in succession every power enu- 
 merated in this instrument, examine and con- 
 sider them in all their various bearings and re- 
 lations to the interests and concerns of this 
 nation, and reason and candor shall compel you 
 to acknowledge that the power now claimed to 
 impose this restriction has not the remotest 
 connection with any of them. 
 
 Sir, it must be admitted by every statesman, 
 that this constitution never was designed to 
 have jurisdiction over the domestic concerns of 
 the people in the several States. No, sir, these 
 are wisely left exclusively to the State sover-
 
 424 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 New York Resolutions against the Extension of Slavery. 
 
 [JANUARY, 1820. 
 
 eignties, as their natural guardians. The pro- 
 posed amendment, if adopted, will regulate, by 
 an irrevocable provision in a statute, one of the 
 domestic relations of the people of the State of 
 Missouri. Can this be denied ? Need I name 
 to this Senate what are appropriately termed 
 the domestic relations of civil life ? They are 
 those of husband and wife to which happily 
 succeeds that of parent and child, too often fol- 
 lowed by that of guardian and ward ; with all 
 of which is connected that of master and ser- 
 vant, either by voluntary or involuntary servi- 
 tude. These, sir, with peculiar propriety and 
 truth, are denominated "the domestic rela- 
 tions." They exist in the bosom of the family, 
 in the humble walks of private life, and have 
 no connection with the general political in- 
 terests of the Union. If Congress can regulate 
 one, why not all of these domestic relations ? 
 They all stand on the same level, and if one be 
 within the grasp of your power, what shall ex- 
 empt or protect the rest? Even the contract 
 of marriage, and the period of release from 
 guardianship, may become the subject of dis- 
 cussion in some future Congress, on the admis- 
 sion of some future State. If such a power ex- 
 ists, who shall stay its hand or prescribe its 
 limits ? Sir, the proposed restriction is a direct 
 invasion of the sovereignty of the State it will 
 wrest from Missouri that power which belongs 
 to every State in the Union, to regulate its do- 
 mestic concerns according to the will of the 
 people. But further, Mr. President, it cannot 
 escape observation, that, to accomplish the pro- 
 posed object, Congress must invent a new mode 
 of legislation a legislation in perpetuity. In 
 the common course of legislation, every law is 
 subject to be altered, or repealed, according to 
 the wisdom and discretion of any future Legis- 
 lature. Here you transcend the power of any 
 legislative body known to a Republic you im- 
 pose by statute a restriction to be and remain 
 irrevocable forever. To such a dilemma the 
 usurpation of power leads. What, then, Mr. 
 President, is the true character of this bill, with 
 such an amendment ? Not simply a law, but a 
 law to make, in part, a constitution for the 
 future State of Missouri; nay, more, to make 
 her constitution in that point unalterable for- 
 ever, and place it beyond the power of the 
 people. Is not this depriving the people of 
 their acknowledged rights, and the State of 
 part of its legitimate sovereignty ? If Congress 
 can thus, by anticipation, make part of a con- 
 stitution for a State, and force it upon her as a 
 condition precedent to her admission, why may 
 not Congress make other parts of her constitu- 
 tion under the form of other conditions ? The 
 power is the same, the right is equal. If, sir, 
 the people of Missouri be thus compelled to 
 mould their State constitution according to the 
 mandate of Congress, must not Missouri enter 
 the Union shorn of some of those beams of 
 sovereignty that encircle her sister States ? Can 
 she be said to stand upon an equal footing with 
 them ? Let truth and candor answer. 
 
 But. sir, to this objection it is replied that 
 similar terms were prescribed to the States of 
 Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois. True. Recollect, 
 however, that the condition of those States was, 
 in every respect, different from the condition 
 of Missouri. The ordinance of 1787, passed by 
 Congress under the Articles of Confederation, 
 was tendered to the settlers in the Northwestern 
 Territory, (whether with or without authority, 
 is immaterial now,) as a compact and agree- 
 ment. The settlers there knew of this compact 
 made their arrangements accordingly society 
 there was formed and moulded on the principles 
 of that ordinance, and was thus gradually pre- 
 pared to adopt the -same principles in the State 
 constitutions; and, under these circumstances, 
 the terms were proposed, without opposition, 
 and met the approbation of the people. The 
 maxim, " volenti non fit injuria" applies with 
 peculiar force to such a case. Different, in all 
 respects, is the case of Missouri : part of a terri- 
 tory acquired by treaty from a foreign power 
 never subject to the ordinance of 1787 in- 
 voluntary servitude existed there at the time of 
 cession, and still exists the people object to 
 this restriction insist upon their rights under 
 the treaty, and deny your power to impose 
 such a condition. Under circumstances so en- 
 tirely dissimilar, the Northwestern States fur- 
 nish not even the frail authority of precedent 
 to bind Missouri. 
 
 MONDAY, January 31. 
 
 New York Resolutions against the Extension of 
 
 Slavery. 
 
 Mr. SANFOKD communicated the following 
 resolutions of the Legislature of the State of 
 New York, which were read : 
 
 STATE OF NEW YOBK, IN ASSEMBLY, 
 
 January 17, 1820. 
 
 " Whereas the inhibiting the further extension of 
 slavery in these United States is a subject of deep 
 concern among the people of this State : and whereas 
 we consider slavery as an evil much to be deplored ; 
 and that every constitutional barrier should be inter- 
 posed to prevent its further extension ; and that the 
 Constitution of the United States clearly gives Con- 
 gress the right to require of new States, not comprised 
 within the original boundaries of these United States, 
 the prohibition of slavery, as a condition of its admis- 
 sion into the Union : therefore, 
 
 " Resolved, (if the honorable Senate concur herein,) 
 That our Senators be instructed, and our Representa- 
 tives in Congress be requested, to oppose the admis- 
 sion as a State into the Union of any Territory not 
 comprised as aforesaid, without making the prohibi- 
 tion of slavery therein an indispensable condition of 
 admission : therefore, 
 
 " Rexolved, That measures be taken by the Clerks 
 of the Senate and Assembly of this State, to transmit 
 copies of the preceding resolutions to each of our Sen- 
 ators and Representatives in Congress. 
 
 " Ordered, That the Clerk deliver a copy of the 
 preceding resolutions to the honorable the Senate, 
 and request their concurrence in the same. 
 
 " By order of the Assembly, 
 
 AARON CLARK, Clerk."
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 425 
 
 FEBRUABY, 1820.] 
 
 Missouri Question. 
 
 [SENATE. 
 
 " STATE OF NEW YORK, IN SENATE, 
 
 " January 20, 1820. 
 
 ' Resolved, That the Senate do concur with the 
 honorable the Assembly in their said resolutions. 
 
 " Ordered, That the Clerk deliver a copy of the 
 preceding resolution of concurrence to the honorable 
 the Assembly. By order. 
 
 "JOHN T. BACON, Clerk? 
 
 TUESDAY, February 1. 
 Missouri Question. 
 
 The Senate then resumed the consideration 
 of the Missouri question. 
 
 Mr. BAEBOUB, of Virginia, said : 
 
 Mr. President, the Senate will do justice to 
 my sincerity when I declare that it is with un- 
 feigned reluctance I rise to address them at this 
 stage of the discussion that, had I yielded to 
 my feelings, instead of obeying a sense of duty, 
 I should have remained silent. Whatever the 
 human mind could well conceive has been either 
 spokea or written on this subject, and no su- 
 periority of intellect could add an additional ray 
 of light. So vain a hope, therefore, with my 
 humble pretensions, would be the height of folly. 
 
 The question, however, involves such impor- 
 tant consequences, whether we view it in its 
 constitutional light, or as it regards the honor 
 of the nation, plighted by treaty, or consider it 
 as to its expediency, as involving the duration 
 of the Union, or in any event its tranquillity, it 
 seems to justify, if not to require, any man to 
 disclose the reasons of his vote. But, personal 
 considerations apart, the feeling which this 
 policy, as insulting as it is unjust, has so justly 
 excittd in the South and West, in which my 
 constituents so naturally participate, seems to 
 require that their Representative on this floor 
 should raise his voice, however feeble, in solemn 
 protest against its adoption. 
 
 In the contemplation of this subject, and the 
 sentiments avowed in its discussion, I had ex- 
 pected to have felt nothing but unmixed re- 
 gret ; I had expected to have travelled an 
 unpleasant path, filled only with thorns. To 
 my relief, I have found here and there a solitary 
 spot of verdure, on which my eye delighted to 
 dwell. I have seen the most prodigious display 
 of the powers of the human mind ; I have seen 
 its empire enlarged far beyond my most san- 
 guine hopes. I do not intend to confine my 
 remarks to one or two, but to extend them to 
 most of those who have engaged in the debate. 
 They have surrounded this body with deserved 
 renown ; to which, although I feel a conscious- 
 ness I cannot add, yet I must be permitted, as 
 a member of this body, to claim some partici- 
 pation. But I have seen more ; I have seen a 
 degree of firmness and magnanimity most enno- 
 bling to human nature Senators rising superior 
 to clamor and popular excitement, and tilling 
 the measure assigned them by the constitution, 
 at the expense of office, with the sacrifice of 
 popularity, firmly discharging their duty. Such 
 men, compared with the supple politician, who 
 bends like a reed to the blast who, to promote 
 
 his own aggrandizement, practises upon the 
 prejudices of mankind will, by an impartial 
 posterity, when the false fire of the moment 
 shall have subsided, be placed in the zenith, 
 while the latter will be consigned to the nadir 
 of the moral world. Go on, illustrious Senators, 
 in the career of glory you have commenced ! 
 Abide whatever sacrifice the faithfal discharge 
 of your duty may produce with fortitude, and 
 reap your re ward' in the consolation of reflect- 
 ing that you have saved your country from ruin, 
 and in the justice of all trying time! With 
 these exceptions, all that I have heard has filled 
 me with solicitude and pain. I have heard 
 sentiments uttered that go to shake the founda- 
 tions of the Union, and to produce a revolution 
 in the Government principles avowed directly 
 hostile to the compact on which reposes our 
 Union, and the doctrine avowed that all power 
 not prohibited belongs to the General Govern- 
 ment. To combat these to deprive them of 
 all authority, by showing their fallacy will be 
 the object of my endeavors. 
 
 I appeal, without the fear of contradiction, to 
 every member of the Senate, from every quarter 
 of the Union, when I ask if the Southern mem- 
 bers have not invariably supported, with unani- 
 mity, every proposition which had for its object 
 the suppression of the slave trade ; and whe- 
 ther, during the last session, we did not indulge 
 them in the project, as wild as it was well de- 
 signed, of expending thousands for the accom- 
 modation of the unfortunate victims of that 
 abominable trade, by authorizing the Govern- 
 ment to provide them an asylum in Africa, to 
 be maintained at the public expense. Can, then, 
 any man believe we wish to multiply the num- 
 ber ? The question we are called to discuss is 
 not whether slaves shall be multiplied. If it 
 was, there would be but one sentiment here. 
 What is the real question ? Shall we violate 
 the constitution, by imposing restrictions on 
 the people of Missouri? While exercising the 
 great privilege of forming their government, 
 shall we disregard the solemn obligations im- 
 posed by treaty? And shall we finally do an 
 immeasurable act of injustice, in excluding the 
 people of one-half the Republic from participa- 
 ting in that country bought by a common treas- 
 ure and their exclusive councils? And for 
 what ? Not to diminish slavery, but to confine 
 it within its present limits destructive to the 
 slaves themselves, and fatal, eventually, to the 
 whole population instead of ditfusing them 
 over a wide-spread country, where their com- 
 forts would be increased, and by their dispro- 
 portionate numbers they might be within the 
 reach of the suggestions of policy and of hu- 
 manity. Not to diminish slavery, I repeat 
 again ; but to seduce the white population from 
 this portion of country thus interdicted, and to 
 increase the disproportion of the blacks to such 
 an extent as forever to shut the door of hope 
 upon them ; or to drive us from the country, 
 and surrender it exclusively to them. 
 
 Let us examine them respectively. 1st, let
 
 426 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 Missouri Question. 
 
 [FEBRUARY, 1820. 
 
 us consider the 1st clause of the 9th section, 1st 
 article. Gentlemen contend that the word 
 " migration," is the magical word in which is 
 contained the power about to be exercised. The 
 plain answer to this is, that it produces a con- 
 fusion of ideas, to assert that a clause, whose 
 palpable design was to restrain Congress from 
 exercising an authority, imparts a substantive 
 grant of power; but, it is reasoned, why re- 
 strain Congress, till the year 1808, from exercis- 
 ing an authority which they did not possess f 
 Do gentlemen mean to say that all power inter- 
 dicted by the 9th section would belong to Con- 
 gress, had not such restriction been inserted? 
 The gentleman from New Hampshire contends 
 for this monstrous doctrine, and asks, had it not 
 been for the clause interdicting titles of nobility, 
 would not Congress have had the power to have 
 created a nobility ? The gentleman seems not 
 to understand the first principles of the Gov- 
 ernment for, if his doctrine be acted upon, it 
 is equal to a revolution, and a Government of 
 limited powers would instantly be converted 
 into one of absolute authority. I should have 
 paid less attention to this doctrine by supposing 
 that the gentleman had not reflected upon it, 
 had he not uttered the same thing during the 
 last session. It seems, therefore, that this is 
 one of his fixed principles. A more heretical 
 or a more dangerous one, cannot well be con- 
 ceived. But, sir, were I for a moment to yield 
 a point so palpable as this, still, I might contend 
 that the gentlemen would be without the power 
 contended for. What is the argument on their 
 part, that "migration" and "importation" 
 equally relate to slaves ? That " importation" 
 relates to foreign slaves, while " migration" 
 refers to domestic slaves passing from one State 
 to another, and that Congress, therefore, has a 
 right to prevent their passage to the Missouri. 
 Now, I contend that " migration" was intended 
 to refer to free foreigners, coming to this coun- 
 try, while " importation" was intended to ap- 
 ply to slaves from abroad. This conclusion is 
 warranted, as well by the phraseology of the 
 section, as by the circumstances of the country. 
 "What is its language ? That the migration or 
 importation of such persons as any of the States 
 now existing shall think proper to admit, shall 
 not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the 
 year 1808 : but a tax or duty may be imposed 
 on such importation not exceeding ten dollars 
 for each person. If this interpretation be re- 
 ceived, the meaning of the clause is intelligible 
 and natural. By dropping " migration" when 
 speaking of a tax or duty, it may be fairly in- 
 ferred that the migration spoken of was that of 
 freemen, to tax whom would be absurd. But 
 the circumstances of the country at that time 
 are entitled to great weight in forming our 
 opinion. A large portion of the Middle, South- 
 ern, and Western States, were sparsely inhab- 
 ited. It was among the grievances enumerated, 
 as leading to the Revolution, that the Crown of 
 Great Britain had indicated a hostility to the 
 migration of foreigners. Hence, lest the most 
 
 populous portions of the United States should 
 indulge in a similar abuse of power, Congress 
 was expressly interdicted from taking any step 
 in relation thereto, prior to the year 1808. 
 
 That this was the true import of this clause 
 isnot only sustained by the consideration to which 
 I have just referred, but is supported by an ex- 
 position given us at a period near the adoption 
 of the constitution. Those who opposed the 
 alien law in Congress insisted upon this inter- 
 pretation, and none with more force than my 
 predecessor, Judge Tazewell, one of the most 
 distinguished men of whom Virginia can boast. 
 In his speech, which I have now before me, on 
 the alien law, he holds the language I now do, 
 and contended that Congress was virtually 
 violating this clause. The Senate will recollect 
 this discussion was in 1798; and it is worthy of 
 remark, that the application of this word to 
 slaves was first made by the friends of the alien 
 law, to elude the force of this argument. The 
 committee of the House of Representatives, in 
 an elaborate report, drawn with a view to de- 
 fend this law, assert that " migration" related 
 to slaves ; but even the authors of that report 
 contend only that it relates to the importation 
 of slaves from abroad. But, we are told, Con- 
 gress has fixed the meaning of this clause by the 
 law of 1804, interdicting the bringing of slaves 
 into Louisiana from any place in the United 
 States, except by removal with their owners. 
 But nothing is to be gained by this precedent 
 1st. Louisiana was a Territory, and not a State. 
 2d. It was the result of an excitement produced 
 by peculiar causes, which have been amply de- 
 tailed by the gentleman from South Carolina, 
 and passed probably without discussion. 3d. 
 It was repealed at the next session, by the law 
 relative to the Territory of Mississippi, in which 
 Louisiana was placed on the same footing with 
 that territory. So that, if it weigh any thing, 
 it is against the interpretation contended for, as 
 Congress retraced its steps within one year 
 after the passage of the law of 1804. 
 
 Have we not a right to contend, that, if the 
 Convention had intended to give to Congress 
 the power of admitting on conditions, it would 
 have said so ? The constitution has not author- 
 ized the exercise of such a pow r er directly, and 
 there is nothing to justify the exercise of such 
 a power by implic'ation, if implication were 
 allowable. 
 
 If, then, it be true, that your discretion, even 
 as to admission, is limited, as I have endeavored 
 to show, and in the present case all the constit- 
 uent qualifications exist on the part of the peo- 
 ple of Missouri for self-government, you are 
 bound to say that she shall be admitted as a 
 State into this Union. If she be admitted as a 
 State, all the attributes of the old States instant- 
 ly devolve on her, and the most prominent of 
 those attributes is the right to fashion her gov- 
 ernment according to the will and pleasure of 
 the good people of that State; whereas your 
 restriction deprives her of that privilege for- 
 ever ; and your restriction applies to a species
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 427 
 
 FEBRCABY, 1820.] 
 
 Missouri Question. 
 
 [SENATE. 
 
 of property that most peculiarly belongs to the 
 jurisdiction of the State government. For, can 
 it be believed that the States holding slaves could 
 ever have intended to impart to non-slavehold- 
 ing States an authority over a property in which 
 they had no common interest ; a property, in 
 relation to which, so far from the necessity of 
 surrendering the power to control it to the Gen- 
 eral Government, self-preservation required that 
 it should be left exclusively to the State govern- 
 ments ? 
 
 To all this it is replied, that the uniform course 
 of the Government, since the ordinance of 1787, 
 amounts to a precedent not now to be canvassed. 
 
 In cases of doubt, it is readily admitted that 
 decisions, after mature deliberation, upon full 
 discussion of distinguished men, are entitled to 
 great weight in analogous cases. Now, sir, 
 how far will the proceedings of Congress, under 
 the ordinance, operate as a precedent? The 
 ordinance itself was founded in usurpation. No 
 such power had been granted Congress by the 
 Confederation. Lest I should be charged with 
 an assumption myself, I will call to my aid the 
 work so frequently referred to the Federalist. 
 In page 235, this is expressly admitted. It is 
 there stated that it was an assumption on the 
 part of Congress. I have seen it stated, indeed, 
 in a pamphlet or speech, (for I know not what 
 to call it,) that Congress had the power, as in- 
 cident to their character. Mark the facility 
 with which every usurpation of power is justi- 
 fied ! AVhat is not expressly given, may be im- 
 plied ; or, if there be nothing to justify implica- 
 tion, it may be incidental ; and, if it be neither 
 the one nor the other, the next step is, that it 
 ought to have been given ; and thus, by some 
 means, every power which, it is desirable to 
 exercise, will be, or may be, claimed. But, re- 
 jecting these claims as entirely untenable, I 
 assert, the ordinance itself was an assumption 
 of power. It is admitted that it has been ac- 
 quiesced in, and all its provisions have been 
 carried into effect. It is not now to be disturb- 
 ed. But it still is nothing as a precedent ; be- 
 cause it attached to a wilderness, and not to 
 men. Those who subsequently settled this 
 country adopted it from choice. Their senti- 
 ments and habits were fashioned by the princi- 
 ples of the ordinance, and, when admitted into 
 the Union, instead of the right of Congress to 
 impose a restriction on them being denied, and 
 discussed, and seriously decided, I am warranted 
 in saying that the question was never stirred. 
 Why inquire into a condition that was perfectly 
 useless, the people themselves not wishing to 
 hold slaves ? But this 1 assert, that the people 
 of the States, embraced by this ordinance, when 
 in convention, considered themselves unre- 
 strained, and considered the question with an 
 exclusive eye to its expediency. 
 
 The course, therefore, pursued by the Gov- 
 ernment, under this ordinance, is not entitled to 
 the least weight as a precedent ; but, if it were, 
 I beg leave to present various precedents of a 
 directly different character. The States of 
 
 Kentucky, Tennessee, Louisiana, Mississippi, and 
 Alabama, have all been admitted without re- 
 striction. To what, then, does the history of 
 our proceedings amount? That, in every in- 
 stance, other than those connected with the 
 ordinance, Congress has admitted without re- 
 striction. Congress has never before dared to 
 apply it to a portion of country where slaves 
 were ; in effect, where it was to amount to a 
 restriction. It is, however, urged that condi- 
 tions were imposed on Louisiana. The princi- 
 pal part of these were merely in conformity to 
 the great principles of freedom ; were incorpo- 
 rated in the law in reference to the peculiar peo- 
 ple whom we were about to introduce into the 
 Union people who had before lived under a 
 different form of government, and who were 
 supposed not sufficiently versed in the principles 
 of our Government; and were justifiable only, 
 if at all, under the power of Congress to guar- 
 antee to each member of the Confederacy a 
 Republican form of Government. I doubt, 
 however, the power of Congress to impose them 
 at all ; but sure I am that they had no power to 
 restrict/ them as to the language which they 
 should employ in promulgating their laws. The 
 best criterion to test the right of Congress to 
 impose this restriction is, to inquire by what 
 means will they enforce obedience, were Louis- 
 iana to refuse a compliance. For, to every 
 legitimate power, you have the corresponding 
 one of enforcement. Where the latter is want- 
 ing, the former does not exist. This, I think, 
 may be assumed as an axiom in our Govern- 
 ment. The exercise, therefore, of this power 
 was without right, and serves no other purpose 
 than to show the facility with which all gov- 
 ernments advance in the acquisition of power. 
 They well may be likened to a screw : they 
 never retrograde ; every acquisition becomes a 
 temptation to new aggressions, and, not uiifre- 
 quently, the means by which they are realized. 
 There is one idea so repeatedly urged, that those 
 who entertain it must have credit for their 
 sincerity, and that is, that we have greater 
 power with the States to be formed out of ac- 
 quired territory than in that originally a part of 
 the United States. 
 
 By what course of argument this conclusion 
 is arrived at, I am at a loss to discover. There 
 is but one distinction acknowledged in the con- 
 stitution, between the then existing States and 
 those thereafter to be admitted, and that is con- 
 fined to the importation of slaves. This shows 
 that, in all other respects, they were to be on 
 an equal footing with the old States ; for, had 
 not such been the design of the Convention, as 
 they discriminated in the one case, they would 
 have done so in every particular where it was 
 intended. In addition, it may be remarked, 
 that in the third clause of the second section of 
 the first article, the same principle of represen- 
 tation, as it regards slaves, was to be extended 
 to such States as may be admitted ; pointing 
 directly to the clause of course, that new States 
 might be admitted into the Union.
 
 428 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 Missouri Question. 
 
 [FEBRUARY, 1820. 
 
 But, the gentleman from Pennsylvania asks, 
 shall we suffer Missouri to come into the Union 
 with this savage mark on her countenance ? I 
 appeal to that gentleman to know whether this 
 be language to address to an American Senate, 
 composed equally of members from States pre- 
 cisely in the condition that Missouri would be 
 in, were she to tolerate slavery. Are these sen- 
 timents calculated to cherish that harmony and 
 affection so essential to any beneficial results 
 from our Union ? But, sir, I will not imitate 
 this course, and I will strive to repress the feel- 
 ing which such remarks are calculated to 
 awaken. 
 
 How has it happened that these doctrines 
 have slept till this moment? Where were 
 they at the adoption of the constitution, in 
 which slavery is recognized, and the property 
 guaranteed by an express clause ? And shall 
 we, the mere creatures of that instrument, pre- 
 sume to question its authority ? To every 
 other sanction imposed by our situation, is the 
 solemn oath that we will support it. Where 
 are the consciences of gentlemen who hold this 
 language ? But they assure us that they-do not 
 mean to touch this property in the old States. 
 What, this eternal, and, as they say, immutable 
 principle, consecrated by this famous instru- 
 ment, and in support of which we have ap- 
 pealed to God, is to have no obligatory force on 
 the very parties who made it, but attaches in- 
 stantly you cross the Mississippi ! What kind 
 of ethics is this, that is bounded by latitude and 
 longitude, which is inoperative on the left, but 
 is omnipotent on the right bank of a river? 
 Such doctrines are well calculated to excite our 
 solicitude ; for, although the gentlemen who 
 now hold it, are sincere in their declarations, 
 and mean to content themselves with a triumph 
 in this controversy, what security have we that 
 others will not apply it to the South generally ? 
 This, sir, is no longer matter of speculation ; 
 you have heard the doctrine contended for al- 
 ready not at cross roads, or in the city taverns, 
 but in the legislative hall of a State. When it 
 shall be resorted to by faction, who can pretend 
 to prescribe its limits ? Every page of history 
 is full of melancholy proofs of the feebleness 
 of that security, which reposes upon the mod- 
 eration of the ambitious and designing. The 
 means are always made to yield to the end. I, 
 therefore, heard the doctrine with unmixed re- 
 gret. I fear it is the beginning of new counsels, 
 whose disastrous effects no one can foresee. 
 
 But the principal feature in a legislative act 
 is, that it is in the power of our successors to 
 change it ; here, on the contrary, you seek to 
 make the regulation immortal. The constitu- 
 tion itself contains a principle of alteration, so 
 as to adapt itself to the progress of human 
 affairs, and yet you place a legislative act be- 
 yond all human power of change or modifica- 
 tion. I will forbear any further remarks on 
 this branch of the subject, and proceed in the 
 order I proposed. I will now inquire whether, 
 by treaty, we are not restrained from restrict- 
 
 ing Missouri ? By the third clause of the treaty, 
 by which we acquired this country, the inhab- 
 itants are to be incorporated, &c. 
 
 I consider it not of moment to inquire, 
 whether their admission, according to tl*e prin- 
 ciples of the Federal Constitution, relates to 
 the time or the terms of such admission, be- 
 cause they are, when admitted, to enjoy all the 
 rights, privileges, and immunities, of American 
 citizens. An attempt has been made to dis- 
 criminate between Federal and State rights iu 
 a celebrated tract denominated " The Substance 
 of Two Speeches," &c. For my part I have been 
 utterly unable to comprehend the meaning of 
 the author. Does he mean to assert that there 
 may be one or more citizens entitled to Federal 
 privileges and not to State privileges ? On the 
 converse, to me it has always appeared as not 
 admitting of a question, that these were indis- 
 solubly united in an American citizen. A citi- 
 zen of the United States must be a citizen of 
 some one of the States, and, as such, entitled to 
 every right or privilege secured by the Federal 
 or State government. If there be any right 
 pertaining to citizens of the United States, it is 
 that of fashioning their Government according 
 to their own will and pleasure. This right 
 was, therefore, secured by compact to the in- 
 habitants of the territory in question, and any 
 attempt to impair or abridge it, is in violation 
 of that treaty. In the same tract it is said, 
 slaves are not property; the gentleman from 
 Massachusetts (Mr. OTIS) frankly admits that 
 this is an unwarrantable assertion, and such 
 must be the award of all mankind. Did not 
 both the contracting parties recognize slaves as 
 property ? Were they not known to abound in 
 the territory ceded, and constituting the largest 
 proportion of the property of the people ? Is 
 it consistent with reason to suppose that, when 
 such care was taken to secure the people of the 
 territory in the undisturbed enjoyment of their 
 property, the principal part was intended to be 
 excluded ? It is mortifying to have to contend 
 with such a shadow. The whole territory 
 ceded was to be admitted into the Union. The 
 letter of the treaty required that it should have 
 been admitted as a whole. You thought proper 
 to divide it; but you suffered the Louisiana 
 part to come in without restriction in this re- 
 gard. Upon what principle can you reconcile 
 with good faith, the distinction you now set up 
 between Missouri and Louisiana ? 
 
 Lest I weary you, sir, I will now proceed to 
 the last branch of this interesting subject, 
 which I proposed to discuss : Is it expedient or 
 just? 
 
 The first objection that presents itself, is its 
 mmeasurable injustice. By whom was the 
 country acquired? By the common treasure 
 of every part of the Union, and by the exclu- 
 sive counsels of that portion which you seek to 
 interdict by your measure. Yes, sir, I say the 
 exclusive counsels. The opposition which was 
 made to the treaty by which we acquired it, is 
 too recent and too notorious to require proof.
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 429 
 
 FEBRUABY, 1820.] 
 
 Missouri Question. 
 
 [Siou 
 
 Nay, sir, so inveterate is the opposition, that 
 \ve have a portion of its leaven mingled with 
 the present discussion. The gentleman from 
 Rhode Island has told us that we acquired it 
 by treaty with a man who has become a pri- 
 vate gentleman, and who had no title himself. 
 A country thus acquired, of boundless extent, 
 is to be shut against us. "Were our opponents 
 not under the influence of an insatiable ambi- 
 tion, they would content themselves with the 
 enjoyment of a large and disproportionate share 
 of this country, to which they would exclusively 
 succeed, independently of any legal regulation 
 on this subject. This is too obvious to be de- 
 nied, when we take as our guide the history of 
 our own country, which furnishes indubitable 
 proof that slaves, to any considerable number, 
 are never seen beyond a given parallel of lati- 
 tude. When you cast your eye on the map of 
 the country hi question, it is palpable that much 
 
 a slave. Why are they not content with this 
 great natural advantage ? Can you bring your 
 minds to believe that we shall sit quietly under 
 this act of iniquity, as insulting as it is injuri- 
 ous ? Sir, no portion of the United States has 
 been more loyal than the South. Amid all the 
 vicissitudes of party and the violence of faction 
 in peace and in war in good and in evil re- 
 portwe have respected the laws, and rallied 
 around the constitution and the Union. To the 
 Union we have looked, as the ark of our salva- 
 tion, and the resting-place of our hopes. Is 
 this your reward for our loyalty? Sir, there 
 is a point where submission becomes a crime, 
 and resistance a virtue. In despotic countries 
 even the despot is obliged to keep some terms 
 with his subjects: in free States you more 
 readily arrive at the point to which I allude. 
 Beware how you touch it, in regard to the 
 South ! Our people are as brave as they are 
 loyal. They can endure any thing but insult. 
 The moment you pass the Rubicon, they will 
 redeem their much-abused character; they 
 will throw back upon you your insolence and 
 your aggression. But let us suppose they will 
 quietly submit to the wrongs you inflict, what 
 must be their feelings friendly to union to 
 that harmony so essential to our common pros- 
 perity? What is the foundation of our con- 
 nection? The Federal compact. He must, 
 indeed, be profoundly ignorant of human na- 
 ture, if he suppose the Union reposes on such 
 a foundation. No, sir, it is a common interest, 
 and those kind and affectionate sentiments which 
 the preservation by a parental government of 
 that interest generates, form its prop and secu- 
 rity. Withdraw these, you may preserve the 
 form, but the vital part is gone. To what end 
 do you encounter this great risk ? To exclude 
 slavery from Missouri ? That cannot be your 
 object. You have slaves there already. These, 
 you say, you do not mean to touch. The 
 principle, then, is given up; the stock they 
 have already there will multiply and fill the 
 land. 
 
 But we are gravely told, and upon it all the 
 changes have been rung to excite the prejudices 
 of the non-slaveholding States, that the political 
 influence resulting from the slaves which will 
 be carried to this country, is the principal 
 ground of objection to Missouri's coming in 
 without restriction. You reduce, say they, 
 the white man to an equality with the slave. 
 What sophistry is this! Will not the slave 
 have the same influence in Georgia or Virginia, 
 as in Missouri? His removal to the latter 
 State is, in no way, to increase it. But they 
 will, we are told, multiply faster in Missouri 
 than in the old States. Mark the dilemma in 
 which gentlemen are placed ; at one time they 
 weep over the condition of the slave; their 
 tender souls are overflowing with kindness and 
 compassion to their sufferings. To ameliorate 
 their condition, is their professed object. What 
 course do they pursue to accomplish it? To 
 pen them up, as my honorable friend from 
 North Carolina has justly remarked, and cut 
 them off from those benefits which await them 
 in a new and fertile country, the enjoyment of 
 which produces that increase they so much 
 affect to dread. Let us hear no more of hu- 
 manity it is profaning the term. Their object 
 is power. They assume the mask of humanity 
 for the purpose of seducing tender consciences, 
 and they, as far as their policy can effect it, de- 
 vote the very beings whose welfare they pre- 
 tend to urge as a reason for the measure of 
 which we so justly complain. Yes, humanity 
 is their motto. The interest, the peace, the 
 happiness of the whites, form with them the 
 dust of the balance ; their affections are alive 
 only to the condition of the slave. They speak 
 of their measures with great deliberation, and 
 invite us to be calm. They are afar off while 
 this new drama is performing. Turn out 
 comedy or tragedy, they are equally unaffected. 
 On the contrary, we are to be involved in the 
 catastrophe. It is not left to us to stand aloof 
 as mere spectators. We shall have to act a 
 part. We may lose, but cannot gain. We fur- 
 nish the stakes ; and they are nothing less than 
 the vital interests of our country. The gentle- 
 man from Massachusetts (Mr. OTIS) has been 
 edifying in his suggestions as to what we are 
 to fear from St. Domingo, unless we adopt his 
 counsels. The mention of St. Domingo calls 
 up a train of unpleasant recollections. Its his- 
 tory is replete with instructive lessons upon 
 this subject. Let us alone, and we have noth 
 ing to fear. It is your pretended solicitude foi 
 our welfare that constitutes our danger. It is 
 the doctor, and not the disease, we dread. 
 Yes, sir, the pseudo friends of humanity, in 
 France, far beyond the reach of the effects of 
 their own policy, in the spirit of fanaticism, 
 issued the celebrated decree that involved the 
 fate of that devoted island. Its caption was 
 " liberty and equality." It no sooner reached 
 its object, than the bands of society were dis- 
 solved. Monsters stalked over the face of this 
 wretched country, and their footsteps were
 
 430 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 Missouri Question. 
 
 [FEBRUARY, 1820. 
 
 everywhere traced by conflagration, and rapine, 
 and murder, and lust, and all the unutterable 
 horrors which the most ferocious passions, 
 coupled with unbridled power, could inflict. 
 The few wretched survivors, who fled before 
 the fury of the storm, carried to every part of 
 Christendom their tale of suffering and of woe, 
 which, by its irresistible pathos, drew tears of 
 pity from every eye. But, where or when has 
 it been known that fanaticism has paused to 
 reflect on consequences ? Experience, the les- 
 sons of prudence and of caution, are presented 
 to it in vain. But, sir, let us analyze this argu- 
 ment of the gentleman from Massachusetts, if, 
 indeed, argument it may be called. If, says he, 
 you extend slavery to Missouri, the emissaries 
 of St. Domingo will penetrate this interior re- 
 gion, and preach the doctrines of insurrection. 
 Indeed! If, then, according to the logic of this 
 gentleman, the slaves be retained in the Atlan- 
 tic States, to which the access is the most easy, 
 and swell to a disproportionate number, we 
 have nothing to apprehend; but, if removed to 
 the interior, and so diffused as to, be entirely 
 outnumbered by the white population, then, 
 and not till then, are we in danger. Can any 
 thing be necessary to refute a proposition, 
 when to state it is to destroy it? 
 
 We have heard much of the moral and politi- 
 cal effects of slavery. Instead of the picture 
 furnished by theorists and enthusiasts on this 
 subject, let us consult the testimony of history 
 from the first to the present age. In the master 
 States of antiquity, Greece and Eome, it exist- 
 ed in its worst form. And yet, such was the 
 march of the human mind, in these distinguish- 
 ed Republics, in all that was ennobling in mor- 
 als and science, that it continued to shine 
 through the long eclipse of interposing dark- 
 ness. And in the modern world the lamps of 
 science and of liberty were lighted up from its 
 yet unexpired embers. I will not pretend to 
 retouch the picture delineated by the masterly 
 hand of my distinguished friend from Maryland. 
 His glowing and sublime eloquence, the exclu- 
 sive companion of superior genius, lifted the 
 curtain which separates us from past ages, and 
 caused to pass in review the heroes of Ma- 
 rathon, Salamis, and Thermopyl splendid 
 achievements, that lose nothing in comparison 
 with all that has since intervened. If you de- 
 scend to modern times, the result of experience 
 in our own country is no less opposed to the 
 suggestions of theory. I will not enter into the 
 invidious task of contrasting the South with the 
 North. How disastrous must be that question 
 whose discussion permits a member of this 
 body, in recounting the splendid monuments of 
 American skill and bravery, to content himself 
 with naming Bunker's Hill, Bennington, and 
 Saratoga ! Could not the gentleman from New 
 Hampshire permit his national feelings to sur- 
 vive so long as to have recounted the Cowpens, 
 King's Mountain, Guilford, Eutaw, York, and, 
 finally, the victory of New Orleans, whose mem- 
 ory will live co-extensively with the flood on 
 
 whose margin it was achieved? -"Why this in- 
 vidious distinction? Does the honorable gen- 
 tleman imagine I take less interest in indulging 
 my pleasing recollection of the prowess of my 
 country in the first than in the last ? No, they 
 were my countrymen ; the fame they acquired 
 was a common stock ; my portion of the in- 
 heritage I will not surrender. 
 
 Let it not, however, be supposed, that in the 
 abstract I am advocating slavery. Like all other 
 human things, it is mixed with good and evil 
 the latter, no doubt, preponderating. 
 
 The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. MEL- 
 LEN) tells us he is legislating for after ages. His 
 view disdains the limited horizon of the present. 
 Poor arrogant man, not content to act well his 
 part in the little span assigned him by his Crea- 
 tor, he builds his mole-hill, and challenges im- 
 mortality for his labors! A few revolving 
 years, they are erased with the same facility as 
 are the characters by the flood, on whose sandy 
 margin they have been inscribed. Tell me at 
 what pure fountain of knowledge have you 
 drunk in the holy inspiration which enables 
 you to penetrate the dark cloud which hangs on 
 the future, and to adapt your counsels to the 
 endless vicissitudes of human affairs ? Satisfy 
 me on this, before I surrender present happi- 
 ness. I fear you have commenced this distant 
 voyage under the most unhallowed auspices. 
 You violate the constitution ; you trample un- 
 der feet the plighted faith of the nation ; you 
 do an immeasurable act of injustice to one-half 
 of the nation ; you lay the foundation of incu- 
 rable hatred; and all this for consequences 
 which none can see, but that Providence, in 
 whose hands is the destiny of nations. Sir, re- 
 flections of this kind call up a fearful subject of 
 contemplation. Your Government, upon its 
 present scale, is as yet but an experiment. 
 While the people are virtuous, it may equal all 
 our fond hopes and anticipations ; but when it 
 shall reach from ocean to ocean, become pop- 
 ulated to excess, and poverty and vice shall 
 have shed their baneful influence ; when ma- 
 terials of this kind shall be subjected to the in- 
 trigues of the wicked and ambitious; who, 
 judging even from the present time, is sanguine 
 enough to hope that we alone are to be exempt 
 from the calamities to which man has been 
 born heir ? Who can pretend to predict that the 
 present order of things will be able to ride out 
 the storm ? And if, conforming to all human 
 things, we, too, shall experience adversity it 
 this last hope of afflicted humanity shall, as the 
 precursor of its final doom, be rent in twain, 
 what then will be the fruits of your policy ? On 
 this side the Mississippi a black population, on 
 the other a white. The latter, you tell us, is 
 feeble, inadequate to its own defence; we 
 present only a temptation to conquest. Instead 
 of presenting a rampart, you have surrendered 
 us, by your policy, an unresisting prey to our 
 now hostile neighbors. It may perhaps be con- 
 sistent with retributive justice that, our country 
 overrun, you in turn may severely feel the ter-
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 431 
 
 FEBRUARY, 1820.] 
 
 Missouri Question, 
 
 [SENATE. 
 
 rible effects of your present injustice. Let me 
 conjure the gentleman to return from his dis- 
 tant voyage, and unite with us in consulting the 
 happiness of the present generation. Whether 
 slavery was ordained by God himself in a par- 
 ticular revelation to his chosen people, or whe- 
 ther it be merely permitted as a part of that 
 moral evil which seems to be the inevitable 
 portion of man, are questions I will not ap- 
 proach : I leave them to the casuists and the 
 divines. It is sufficient for us, as statesmen, to 
 know that it has existed from the earliest ages 
 of the world, and that to us has been assigned 
 such a portion as, in reference to their number 
 and the various considerations resulting from a 
 change of their condition, no remedy, even 
 plausible, has been suggested, though wisdom 
 and benevolence united have unceasingly brood- 
 ed over the subject. 
 
 However dark and inscrutable may be the 
 ways of heaven, who is he that arrogantly pre- 
 sumes to arraign them? The same mighty 
 power that planted the greater and the lesser 
 luminary in the heavens, permits on earth the 
 bondsman and the free. To that Providence, 
 as men and Christians, let us bow. If it be con- 
 sistent with his will, in the fulness of time, to 
 break the fetter of the slave, he will raise up 
 some Moses to be their deliverer. To him com- 
 mission will be given to lead them up out of 
 the land of bondage. At his approach, seas 
 will subside and mountains disappear. "When 
 the revelation shall be made, and the jubilee of 
 emancipation be proclaimed, philanthropy will 
 lift its voice to swell the joyful note, which, 
 sweeping the continent and the isles of the new 
 world, and resounding through the old, shall 
 cause the oppressor to let go his prey, the dun- 
 geon to surrender its victim, and give emanci- 
 pation to the slave. Till -then, let us draw 
 consolation from the reflection that, however 
 incomprehensible this dispensation may be to 
 us, it is a link in that great concatenation which 
 is permitted by omnipotent power and good- 
 ness, and must issue in universal good. 
 
 Mr. ROBERTS said : I rise, with unfeigned re- 
 luctance, to claim the indulgence of a further 
 hearing from the Senate. I cannot, however, 
 reconcile silence with what I deem to be a faith- 
 ful discharge of duty. I have listened, with 
 equal surprise and regret, to hear gentlemen, 
 with whom in this place I have long been grat- 
 ified to act and think, deny or explain away 
 what I deem to be the sound and fundamental 
 principles of political truth. The gentleman 
 who has just preceded me (Mr. BARBOUB) has 
 informed us there is much public excitement 
 existing relative to this question. The same 
 thing has frequently been alluded to by others 
 speaking on the same side. They, one and all, 
 anticipate the most fearful consequences, it" the 
 proposition before you be agreed to. We have 
 been reminded of our unratified treaty with 
 Spain, our embarrassed currency and deficient 
 revenue, as reasons why we should forbear 
 doing what we find to be right. I have no rev- 
 
 erence for that wisdom which would decide 
 questions of the highest order questions inter- 
 woven in the very web of our destiny, by a ref- 
 erence to the transitory embarrassments which 
 may beset us at any particular moment. The 
 question has fairly met us, whether freedom or 
 slavery is to be the lot of the regions beyond 
 the Mississippi. It ought to be deliberately de- 
 cided, under a proper exercise of authority, 
 with a view to the ultimate consequences the 
 decision we come to may produce. It is, now, 
 as to Missouri only we are called upon to act ; 
 but it will yet arise in Arkansas and other ter- 
 ritories, which, in the fulness of time, may offer 
 themselves for admission into this Union. 
 
 The people to the South, says the gentleman 
 just sat down, (Mr. BABBOUB,) who compose 
 one-half of the Union, are to be put, by this pro- 
 position, under the ban of the empire, as, from 
 its operation, they cannot settle in the new 
 State. If he be correct, which I do not admit, 
 reject the proposition, and you put the other 
 and larger half under the ban. A man who is 
 conscientiously averse to holding slaves, and 
 who cannot, therefore, employ the slaves of 
 others, is forbidden to settle in a land where 
 free labor cannot be procured. Such must be 
 the case where slavery exists unrestricted. Ad- 
 mit Missourij a slaveholding State, without lim- 
 itation, and you place the citizens of the non- 
 slaveholding States under an interdict, as to 
 settlement, that they cannot overcome. Thus 
 is the argument brought to an equation. With 
 this dilemma are we beset. The gentleman has 
 pronounced an eloquent and just eulogium on 
 those who, in doing what they believe to be 
 right, breast the storm of public opinion at 
 home. To gentlemen who act thus, I am ready 
 to afford an equal tribute of applause. Where 
 the gentleman finds the supple politicians, who 
 yield so obsequiously to every breeze of public 
 opinion from that quarter which affords him so 
 consoling a contrast, I cannot so well conceive. 
 In this part of his compliment I can take no 
 share. I have been glad to learn the opinion 
 of the Legislature of Pennsylvania accorded 
 with signal unanimity. Having no doubt of 
 my duty before, I still hail with gladness this 
 strengthening evidence of their concurrence.* 
 With us, there can be no recognition of slavery 
 as a matter of right. An abhorrence of it, on 
 all principles but those of supreme necessity, is 
 interwoven into the very texture of our hearts 
 and habits of thought. 
 
 The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
 SMITH) has asked, why we did not propose this 
 restriction earlier ? In this at least I have not 
 been wanting. My maiden voice was ; 
 in the House of Representatives, in favor of the 
 inhibition of slavery north of the parallel of 
 latitude which passes through the mouth of the 
 Ohio, in, I believe, 1811, when the bill estab- 
 lishing the present Territorial -government was 
 under consideration. We were not then told 
 the proposition was unconstitutional, nor in 
 violation of the treaty ; but that we were on
 
 432 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 Missouri Question, 
 
 [FKBKUAUY, 1820. 
 
 the eve of a war, with almost one-half of the 
 community infatuated with the spirit of opposi- 
 tion to the Government; that further dissen- 
 sion at that time might be fatal. The question 
 was thus deferred until a more convenient 
 season. What I then thought right, I think 
 so now. I rejoice to see this question excite 
 public interest. Melancholy would be our 
 prospects, if it did not. It must be settled 
 some time, and better now than later. The 
 gentleman who has preceded me has spoken of 
 intemperate doctrine brought into discussion in 
 a Northern State Legislature. Where, let me 
 ask, has any thing more intemperate appeared 
 than in the resolutions of that of Virginia? 
 Dictation to the Congress has been uttered 
 there without qualification or reserve. The 
 gentleman tells us he has heard, too, the lan- 
 guage of reproach where he had hoped that of 
 kindness. He has been good enough to read 
 me a lecture on moderation ; but, how has he 
 observed his own precepts. He charges us, 
 without qualification, of wishing to do an act 
 of enormous injustice to insult Virginia ; and 
 although she is disposed to submit to much in- 
 sult and injustice, there is a point beyond 
 which submission ceases to be a virtue. As to 
 where the charge of inflicting reproaches, or the 
 merit of extending kindnesses, may be most 
 justly claimed, it is not for me, but those who 
 hear us to decide. If it were a question, says the 
 gentleman, whether or not we should multiply 
 slaves, he should be as much against it as any 
 man ; but, he adds, it is not a question of this 
 kind, but one which determines only if they 
 shall be confined to the spot where they now 
 are. We do soberly hold, that it is a question 
 whether slavery shall be extended, and slaves 
 increased. No art nor subtlety in the use of 
 language can successfully be applied to make it 
 appear otherwise. Establish slavery over this 
 territory, and you, of consequence, increase the 
 value of slave property. Extend the market, 
 and you perpetuate this interest, by increasing 
 the power of the holders of it. Reject this pro- 
 position, and to whose benefit does the conse- 
 quence enure? clearly to the slaveholding in- 
 terest, pecuniarily and politically The scale of 
 political power will preponderate in favor of 
 the slaveholding States. The effect of such an 
 event is hardly problematical. While the gen- 
 tleman tells us this is not a question of slavery, 
 he tells us that all sovereignty possessed on this 
 subject is in the States; and that, so far as 
 power is not given to the Federal Government, 
 or withheld from the States, they are despotic 
 sovereignties. Despotic indeed, if they can 
 transform freemen into slaves. We have heard 
 from gentlemen, that the right of establishing 
 slavery is a legitimate attribute of State sover- 
 eignty ; that the States northwest of the Ohio 
 may now constitutionally and lawfully intro- 
 duce it, compact notwithstanding : that it was 
 indulged under the Jewish theocracy, which 
 was a government of God; that Christianity 
 does not forbid it ; that the constitution of this 
 
 Government sanctions it, and recognizes the 
 sovereginty of the State laws relating to it. 
 Nay, more, the gentleman from South Carolina 
 (Mr. SMITH) pronounces it right, views it as a 
 benefit, and looks for its perpetuity. Without 
 reserve, I deny that there is any power in a 
 State to make slaves, or to introduce slavery 
 where it has been abolished, or where it never 
 existed, or even to permit its existence only as 
 an evil admitting of no immediate remedy. 
 The gentlemen have further alleged the ordi- 
 nance of 1787 was in fraud of the articles of 
 Confederation ; that it was sheer assumption, 
 and even downright usurpation. All this I 
 must also deny, without reserve. The consti- 
 tution provides that new States may be admit- 
 ted into this Union, and that the United States 
 shall gurantee to every State in this Union a re- 
 publican form of government. To ascertain 
 what is a State and & republican form of govern- 
 ment, we shall very unprofitably follow gentle- 
 men through the history of ancient times, the 
 middle ages, or periods of modern date, as re- 
 garding foreign communities even Britain her- 
 self. We must search for their meaning in 
 our own history only ; here a different system 
 of political morality has prevailed, and political 
 truth taught without corruption. In this reply 
 I shall assume no new ground of defence ; it 
 will only be necessary to take that trodden be- 
 fore a little more closely when it was declar- 
 ed, on the part of these States, that all men are 
 created equal; that they are endowed by their 
 Creator with certain inalienable rights, among 
 which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of hap- 
 piness ; that to secure these rights governments 
 are instituted among men, deriving their just 
 powers from the consent of the governed. Two 
 conclusions most clearly result from these prem- 
 ises ; that a Government founded on these 
 principles neither make slaves nor kings. That 
 is to put some, by birth, below, and some above 
 the law. The exercise of creative power em- 
 ployed on one principle is just as reasonable as 
 on the other. 
 
 In 1780, the Congress invited the States to 
 cede their wilderness territory, from causes I 
 need not revert to. It was then promised such 
 territory should be formed into States, and ad- 
 mitted into the Union, with the same rights of 
 sovereignty, freedom, and independence, as the 
 original States. Can any one doubt that the 
 freedom, sovereignty, and independence, here 
 spoken of, meant the " boon of making slaves," 
 as it is called. No; it most clearly results, 
 that what of these rights the old States were 
 held to possess were such only as recognize the 
 inalienable rights of man, and which were con- 
 formable to the principle that government was 
 instituted to secure those rights, not to effec- 
 tuate their violation. When the Congress of 
 1784, and subsequently in 1787, came to apply 
 these principles of sovereignty, freedom, and 
 independence, to the Northwestern Territory, 
 they evidently acted on such an understanding. 
 The 6th article of compact is a proof too strong
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 433 
 
 FEBRUARY, 1820.] 
 
 Missouri Question. 
 
 [SENATE. 
 
 of this to admit of denial, or even 'doubt. All 
 the articles of compact are prefaced by the 
 most unequivocal declaration by the Congress, 
 that they contain the essential principles of the 
 governments of the old States, and what they 
 deemed the essential principles of all free gov- 
 ernments ; that is, in brief, republican govern- 
 ment. We first find the phrases " Republican 
 States," and Republican Government," used, in 
 reference to new States, in the resolutions of 
 Congress in 1780 and 1784, and in the ordi- 
 nance of 1787, from whence the phrase has 
 been transplanted into the constitution. .A new 
 State admitted into the Union, therefore, must 
 be a State with a republican government. 
 Though gentlemen have looked abroad to de- 
 fine this phrase, to get at a conveniently en- 
 larged definition, it follows, most clearly, that it 
 stands in the constitution an insuperable inter- 
 dict to slave-making. 
 
 We have been told, as before remarked, that 
 the ordinance of 1787 was an act of usurpation. 
 The Congress, under the Confederation, had the 
 power of making treaties. The States were not 
 forbidden under that Government, to cede ter- 
 ritory to the United States. The parties to the 
 cession of the Northwestern Territory were 
 parties competent to treat. The Congress be- 
 came vested, by virtue of their several cessions, 
 with all the powers the States had over the 
 ceded territory, excepting so far as the stipula- 
 tions abridged that power. These stipulations 
 provided that the said territory should be form- 
 ed into States, and admitted into the Union. 
 Nine States were competent to admit new 
 members. The ordinance of 1787 was virtually 
 an admission of States into the Union. This 
 vote of admission was unanimous. The ordi- 
 nance was supervised by Virginia first by her 
 delegates in the Congress, and next by her 
 Legislature, who, at the desire of Congress, 
 modified the terms of cession. It is thus im- 
 possible there could have been any doubt, on 
 the part of either of the contracting parties, as 
 to the meaning of what was termed the same 
 rights of freedom, sovereignty, and independ- 
 ence, as to the original States, as well as to the 
 power of the Congress to prescribe terms of 
 admission. 
 
 The Congress have now the power over the 
 Territory of Missouri it has had over that north- 
 west of the Ohio, restricted alike by the treaty 
 of cession. That treaty certainly does not re- 
 quire the unrestricted introduction of slaves. 
 We admit it guarantees the property in those 
 that now exist. We therefore hold Congress 
 
 to be as free to require of the new State to in- 
 hibit their further introduction, as they were 
 formerly to forbid the existence of slavery in 
 the States northwest of the Ohio. 
 
 To show that slavery is fruitful of elevation 
 of national character, the achievement-; <>t' 
 Thermopyla), Marathon, Salamis, and Platsea, 
 have been instanced. Say, was Grecian prow- 
 ess less in the Ten Thousand, and at Arbela? turn of property is necessary to the enjoyment 
 Men will encounter much for their liberty; they I of the elective franchise, and that the white 
 VOL. VI. 28 
 
 will sometimes perform bold deeds in pursuit of 
 mere glory, or through attachment to a leader. 
 Generally, I admit that great actions are the 
 result of strong moral motives. I should rather 
 ascribe the memorable exploits of the ancient 
 republics to the free principles of their govern- 
 ment, than to the existence of slavery, which 
 seems at last to have been their bane. 
 
 In depicting the effects of the very limited 
 proposition before you, gentlemen have in- 
 dulged in the most extravagant figures of lan- 
 guage. On the one hand, they have drawn 
 Missouri in chains prostrate at your feet, the 
 limbs of her sovereignty mangled by a sort of 
 political surgery, with a brand on her face, and 
 the .collar of servitude about, and your feet 
 upon, her neck ; the victim of the most odious 
 reproach, with her spirit broken ; a State 
 squeezed to a pigmy, and made the shadow of 
 a shade, and the scorn of every tongue. We 
 are next warned to beware of awakening the 
 sturdy spirit of Missouri; she is, it is said, 
 snuffing oppression in every breeze. We are 
 called upon to look at her, filled with a mighty 
 population, dissatisfied and rebellious ; to sow- 
 not such seeds, lest we reap a lamentable har- 
 vest. Really, like the gentleman from Mary- 
 land, I want intellect to comprehend the force 
 of such reasoning, if it be to be called by so sober 
 a name. To what desperate acts of folly must 
 this compassionating and anon terrifying style 
 of address lead, if it be allowed to have any 
 effect. In the midst of the tumult of the pas- 
 sions of fear and pity, reason and a sense of 
 right can hardly fail to be obliterated. Id it, 
 exclaims the gentleman from Maryland, (Mr. 
 PINKNEY,) that you wish to force manumission 
 on the South ? I answer, not at all. It is to 
 do nothing more nor less than to prevent, as far 
 as possible, the extension of slavery. 
 
 Gentlemen have taken much offence at the 
 pamphlets which have been published, reason- 
 ing against the extension of slavery in Missouri. 
 Why this disturbance ? We have not relied on 
 them, nor plead them in the argument. I &at 
 aware it has been broadly intimated that we 
 have found it cut and dried to our hand. If it 
 were even so, it is still argument, and gen- 
 tlemen must meet it for what it is worth. We 
 claim no merit further than that of doing what 
 we find to be right in the best way we can, and 
 the plain course for gentlemen is, after meeting 
 us here, if they be disturbed by what is said 
 elsewhere, to sit down in their closets and re- 
 fute these offensive publications. I should be 
 pleased to find them at such a work. It would 
 
 be fairly to enter the lists with the pam- 
 phleteers, and to oppose Pharsalia to Pharsalia. 
 Perhaps, however, these officious authors will 
 be sufficiently noticed in gentlemen's speeches. 
 The gentleman from Maryland says, if slavery 
 be incompatible with republican Government, 
 that State must retire from the Union, perhaps, 
 for her sins. In some States, says he, a quan-
 
 434 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 Ohio Resolutions. 
 
 [FEBRUARY, 1820. 
 
 man who has it not is as much disfranchised as 
 the slave of the South. How strange an asser- 
 tion ! Is the white man under the control of 
 a master whom he has not chosen, liable to 
 punishment at his will, bound to labor for his 
 exclusive benefit, and to receive his pittance 
 of food and raiment from the hand and at the 
 discretion of him who holds him in bondage ? 
 To hear observations so vague and unreasonable 
 may be matter of surprise, but hardly fit sub- 
 ject for reply. The government of slaves, we 
 are told, is a patriarchal one, and that, in nine 
 cases out of ten, the slaves which may be taken 
 to Missouri will go with their masters. At 
 least, then, in one case out of ten, they will be 
 taken there manacled, under the lash of the 
 driver, who holds them in no other estimation 
 than as property the creature of municipal 
 law. I have witnessed such exhibitions from 
 the windows of this Capitol. But more. Though 
 in persons so degraded the severance of the ties 
 of husband and wife may be less painful to the 
 sufferers than if the parties were of free con- 
 dition, but ties of maternal fondness are govern- 
 ed by other laws. Nor can it be necessary 
 to paint to your imagination the distress that 
 a severance of these ties by violence must 
 awaken. 
 
 Slaves, says the gentleman from South Caro- 
 lina, (Mr. SMITH,) are the happiest poor people 
 in the world, and the gentleman from Virginia 
 (Mr. BAEBOUR) tells us the parting of a slave 
 from his master is not like parting the hired 
 man from his employer. I have had occasions 
 to listen before now to comparisons drawn by 
 Southern gentlemen between the laborer of the 
 North and the Southern slave. In ordinary 
 cases such a parallel could hardly justify a re- 
 ply. The white laborer is always a free man, 
 generally an honest man ; often an intelligent 
 and informed man. He knows his rights, and 
 understands his duties. Free laborers, who are 
 housekeepers, are seldom without their news- 
 papers and means of information. These chan- 
 nels of intelligence are everywhere established 
 with us. It is a successful business to the pub- 
 lishers almost always. Can there be a stronger 
 evidence of a reading people ? The relation be- 
 tween laborer and employer, where the latter 
 is a free man, is that of equals. Each looks to 
 the other for the. fulfilment of the covenant be- 
 tween them. They often stand in the relation 
 of friends. Their intercourse is almost always 
 respectful and courteous. I have been forcibly 
 struck with how equal a share of happiness, to 
 say the least, was enjoyed by the man of opu- 
 lence and the cottager in the Northern States. 
 The later, being of good conduct, always has the 
 boon of substantial freedom, and can hardly 
 want the comforts of life, while the cares and 
 anxieties of the former seem proportioned to 
 his desire of increasing his wealth. Under any 
 aspect, however, there can be no just resem- 
 blance, nor any comparison of advantages, com- 
 mon to the freeman and slave. I must beg 
 leave to correct the gentleman from South 
 
 Carolina, (Mr. SMITH,) when he says that the 
 Colonization Society was formed to rid the 
 non-slaveholding States of their free people 
 of color. The associated friends of African 
 emancipation in those States have explicitly 
 published to the world, they consider the pro- 
 ject as having originated in the South ; that its 
 object is the perpetuation of slavery ; and that 
 they can neither participate in it, nor counte- 
 nance it. 
 
 "When gentlemen claim for Missouri this boon 
 of slavery, as it has been called, and paint its 
 advantages, and plead for its legality, let them 
 look at its origin. Whence have they derived 
 their claims as owners and masters? From the 
 violence of savage warfare; from the frauds 
 and crimes of the man-stealer. Here is the 
 foundation of their pretensions. What was 
 originally wrong can never become right, while 
 there is a living subject to suffer. While I most 
 readily admit, a sudden and general emancipa- 
 tion in a large portion of this Union would be 
 the frenzy of madness, I hold it the incumbent 
 duty of all to believe it desirable, and to look 
 and hope for its consummation in the fulness of 
 God's providence. 
 
 No other gentleman rising to speak, the ques- 
 tion was taken on the restrictive amendment 
 offered by Mr. EOBEBTS, which is in the follow- 
 ing words: "Provided, also, that the further 
 introduction into the said State of persons to be 
 held in slavery or involuntary servitude within 
 the same, shall be absolutely and irrevocably 
 prohibited;" and decided in the negative, by 
 yeas and nays, as follows : 
 
 YEAS. Messrs. Burrill, Dana, Dickerson, King of 
 New York, Lowrie, Mellen, Morrill, Noble, Otis, Rob- 
 erts, Ruggles, Sanford, Taylor, Tichenor, Trimble, 
 and Wilson 16. 
 
 NAYS. Messrs. Barbour, Brown, Eaton, Edwards, 
 Elliot, Gaillard, Hunter, Johnson of Kentucky, John- 
 son of Louisiana, King of Alabama, Lanman, Leake, 
 Lloyd, Logan, Macon, Palmer, Parroti, Pinkney, 
 Pleasants, Smith, Stokes, Thomas, Van Dyke, Wal- 
 ker of Alabama, Walker of Georgia, Williams of 
 Mississippi, and Williams of Tennessee 27. 
 
 THURSDAY, February 8. 
 
 Ohio Resolutions against the existence of Slavery 
 in the Territories or New States. 
 
 Mr. KTJGGLES communicated the following 
 resolutions of the State of Ohio, which were 
 read: 
 
 " Whereas the existence of slavery in our country 
 must be considered a national calamity, as well as a 
 great moral and political evil ; and whereas the ad- 
 mission of slavery within the new States or Territo- 
 ries of the United States is fraught with the most 
 pernicious consequences, and calculated to endanger 
 the peace and prosperity of our country ; therefore, 
 
 Resolved, That our Senators and Representatives in 
 Congress be requested to use their utmost exertions 
 to prevent the admission or introduction of slavery 
 into any of the Territories of the United States, or 
 any new State that may hereafter be admitted into 
 the Union."
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 435 
 
 FEBRUABY, 1820.] 
 
 Restriction on the State of Missouri. 
 
 [SENATE. 
 
 The Compromise Proposed. 
 
 Mr. THOMAS, of Illinois, submitted the follow- 
 ing additional section, as an amendment to the 
 Missouri bill, (which, it was proposed, by a re- 
 port of the Judiciary Committee, to incorporate 
 with the Maine bill,) viz : 
 
 " And be it further enacted, That in all that tract 
 of country 'ceded by France to the United States, un- 
 der the name of Louisiana, which lies north of thirty- 
 six degrees and thirty minutes north latitude, except- 
 ing only such part thereof as is included within the 
 limits of the State contemplated by this act, there 
 shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, 
 otherwise than in the punishment of crimes whereof 
 the party shall have been duly convicted : Provided 
 always, That any person escaping into the same, from 
 whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in any 
 State or Territory of the United States, such fugitive 
 may be lawfully reclaimed, and conveyed to the per- 
 son claiming his or her labor or service as aforesaid." 
 
 The amendment having been read, the further 
 consideration of the subject was, on motion of 
 Mr. THOMAS, postponed to Monday next. 
 
 FRIDAY, February 11. 
 Restriction on the State of Missouri. 
 
 The Senate resumed the consideration of the 
 Maine bill, and the amendment reported thereto 
 by the Judiciary Committee, (adding provisions 
 for the formation of a State government in Mis- 
 souri.) 
 
 Mr. KING, of New York, agreeably to the in- 
 timation which he gave on Wednesday, rose and 
 addressed the Senate about two hours, in sup- 
 port of the right and expediency of restricting 
 the contemplated State of Missouri from per- 
 mitting slavery therein ; and then, on motion of 
 Mr. SMITH, the subject was postponed to Mon- 
 day ; to which day the Senate adjourned. 
 
 TUESDAY, February 15. 
 Restriction on the State of Missouri. 
 
 Mr. PnrexEY, of Maryland, rose and addressed 
 the Senate nearly three hours against the re- 
 striction, and in reply to the remarks of Mr. 
 KING, of New York. His speech is as follows :* 
 
 Mr. President : As I am not a very frequent 
 speaker in this Assembly, and have shown a 
 desire, I trust, rather to listen to the wisdom of 
 others than to lay claim to superior knowledge 
 by undertaking to advise, even when advice, by 
 being seasonable in point of time, might have 
 some chance of being profitable, you will, per- 
 haps, bear with me if 1 venture to trouble you 
 once more on that eternal subject which has 
 lingered here, until all its natural interest is ex- 
 hausted, and every topic connected with it is 
 literally worn to tatters. I shall, I assure you, 
 sir, speak with laudable brevity not merely on 
 account of the feeble state of my health, and 
 
 * Mr. Pinkney spoke twice on this subject once to the 
 restriction itself, before Mr. King took his seat, and now in 
 reply to Mr. King. The first speech of Mr. Pinkney was 
 not reported, nor has that of Mr. King been .to which he 
 replied. 
 
 from some reverence for the laws of good taste 
 which forbid me to speak otherwise, but also 
 from a sense of justice to those who honor me 
 with their attention. My single purpose, as I 
 suggested yesterday, is to subject to a friendly, 
 yet close examination, some portions of a speech, 
 imposing certainly on account of the distin- 
 guished quarter from whence it came not very 
 imposing, if I may so say, without departing 
 from that respect which I sincerely feel and in- 
 tend to manifest for eminent abilities and long 
 experience, for any other reason. 
 
 I believe, Mr. President, that I am about as 
 likely to retract an opinion which I have formed 
 as any member of this body, who, being a lover 
 of truth, inquires after it with diligence before 
 he imagines that he has found it ; but I suspect 
 that we are all of us so constituted as that 
 neither argument nor declamation, levelled 
 against recorded and published decision, can 
 easily discover a practicable avenue through 
 which he may hope to reach either our heads 
 or our hearts. I mention this lest it may excite 
 surprise, when I take the liberty to add, that 
 the speech of the honorable gentleman from 
 New York, upon the great subject with which 
 it was principally occupied, has left me as great 
 an infidel as it found me. It is possible, indeed, 
 that if I had had the good fortune to hear that 
 speech at an earlier stage of this debate, when 
 all was fresh and new, although I feel confident 
 that the analysis which it contained of the con- 
 stitution, illustrated as it was by historical anec- 
 dote rather than by reasoning, would have been 
 just as unsatisfactory to me then as it is now, I 
 might not have been altogether unmoved by 
 those warnings of approaching evil which it 
 seemed to intimate, especially when taken in 
 connection with the observations of the same 
 honorable gentleman on a preceding day, " that 
 delays in disposing of this subject in the manner 
 he desires are dangerous, and that we stand on 
 slippery ground." I must be permitted, how- 
 ever, (speaking only for myself,) to say that the 
 hour of dismay is passed. I have heard the 
 tones of the larum bell on all sides, until they 
 have become familiar to my ear, and have lost 
 their power to appal, if, indeed, they ever pos- 
 sessed it. Notwithstanding occasional appear- 
 ances of rather an unfavorable description, I 
 have long since persuaded myself that the Mis- 
 souri question, as it is called, might be laid to 
 rest, with innocence and safety, by some con- 
 ciliatory compromise at least, by which, as is 
 our duty, we might reconcile the extremes of 
 views and feelings, without any sacrifice of con- 
 stitutional principle ; and in any event, that the 
 Union would easily and triumphantly emerge 
 from those portentous clouds with which this 
 controversy is supposed to have environed it. 
 
 I confess to you, nevertheless, that s< >me of the 
 principles announced by the honorable gentle- 
 man from New York, (Mr. KINO,) with an ex- 
 plicitness that reflected the highest credit on his 
 candor, did, when they were first presented, 
 startle me not a little. They were not, perhaps,
 
 436 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 Restriction on the State of Missouri. 
 
 [FEBRUARY, 1820. 
 
 entirely new. Perhaps I had seen them befdre 
 in some shadowy and doubtful shape, 
 
 If shape it might be called, that shape had none 
 Distinguishable in member, joint, or limb. 
 
 Bat in the honorable gentleman's speech they 
 were shadowy and doubtful no longer. He ex- 
 hibited them in forms so boldly and accurately 
 denned, with contours so distinctly traced, with 
 features so pronounced and striking, that I was 
 unconscious for a moment that they might be old 
 acquaintances. I received them as novi hospites 
 within these walls, and gazed upon them with 
 astonishment and alarm. I have recovered, how- 
 ever, thank God, from this paroxysm of terror, 
 although not from that of astonishment. I have 
 sought and found tranquillity and courage in my 
 former consolatory faith. My reliance is that 
 these principles will obtain no general currency ; 
 for, if they should, it requires no gloomy imag- 
 ination to sadden the perspective of the future. 
 My reliance is upon the unsophisticated good 
 sense and noble spirit of the American people. I 
 have what I may be allowed to call a proud and 
 patriotic trust, that they will give countenance 
 to no principles which, if followed out to their 
 obvious consequences, will not only shake the 
 goodly fabric of the Union to its foundation, 
 but reduce it to a melancholy ruin. The people 
 of this country, if I do not wholly mistake their 
 character, are wise as well as virtuous. They 
 know the value of that Federal association which 
 is to them the single pledge and guarantee of 
 power and peace. Their warm and pious affec- 
 tions will cling to it as to their only hope of pros- 
 perity and happiness, in defiance of pernicious 
 abstractions, by whomsoever inculcated, or how- 
 soever seductive and alluring in their aspect. 
 
 Sir, it is not an occasion like this, although 
 connected, as contrary to all reasonable expec- 
 tation it has been, with fearful and disorganiz- 
 ing theories, which would make our estimates, 
 whether fanciful or sound, of natural law, the 
 measure of civil rights and political sovereignty 
 in the social state, that can harm the Union. 
 It must indeed be a mighty storm that can push 
 from its moorings this sacred bark of the com- 
 mon safety. It is not every trifling breeze, 
 however it may be made to sob and howl in 
 imitation of the tempest, by the auxiliary 
 breath of the ambitious, the timid, or the 
 discontented, that can drive this gallant vessel, 
 freighted with every thing that is dear to an 
 American bosom, upon the rocks, or lay it a 
 sheer hulk upon the ocean. I may, perhaps, 
 mistake the flattering suggestions of hope, (the 
 greatest of all flatterers, as we are told,) for the 
 conclusions of sober reason. Yet it is a pleasing 
 error, if it be an error, and no man shall take it 
 from me. I will continue to cherish the belief, 
 in defiance of the public patronage given by the 
 honorable gentleman from New York, with 
 more than his ordinary zeal and solemnity, to 
 deadly speculations which, invoking the name 
 of God to aid their faculties for mischief, strike 
 at all establishments, that the union of these 
 
 States is formed to bear up against far greater 
 shocks than, through all vicissitudes, it is ever 
 likely to encounter. I will continue to cherish 
 the belief that, although like all other human 
 institutions, it may for a season be disturbed, or 
 sufier momentary eclipse by the transit across 
 its disk of some malignant planet, it possesses a 
 recuperative force, a redeeming energy in the 
 hearts of the people, that will soon restore it to 
 its wonted calm, and give it back its accustomed 
 splendor. On such a subject I will discard all 
 hysterical apprehensions, I will deal in no sinis- 
 ter auguries, I will indulge in no hypochondriacal 
 forebodings. I will look forward to the future 
 with gay and cheerful hope ; and I will make 
 the prospect smile, in fancy at least, until over- 
 whelming reality shall render it no longer 
 possible. 
 
 I have said thus much, sir, in order that I may 
 be understood as meeting the constitutional 
 question as a mere question of interpretation, and 
 as disdaining to press into the service of my 
 argument upon it prophetic fears of any sort, 
 however they may be countenanced by an 
 avowal, formidable by reason of the high repu- 
 tation of the individual by whom it has been 
 hazarded, of sentiments the most destructive, 
 which, if not borrowed from, are identical with, 
 the worst visions of the political philosophy of 
 France when all the elements of discord and 
 misrule were let loose upon that devoted na- 
 tion. I mean " the infinite perfectibility of man 
 and his institutions," u'ndthe resolution of every 
 thing into a state of nature. I have another 
 motive which, at the risk of being misconstrued, 
 I will declare without reserve. "With my con- 
 victions, and with my feelings, I never will 
 consent to hold confederated America as bound 
 together by a silken cord, which any instrument 
 of mischief may sever, to the view of monarch- 
 ical foreigners, who look with a jealous eye 
 upon that glorious experiment which is now in 
 progress amongst us in favor of republican free- 
 dom. Let them make such prophecies as they 
 will, and nourish such feelings as they may: I 
 will not contribute to the fulfilment of the 
 former, nor minister to the gratification of the 
 latter. 
 
 Sir, it was but the other day that we were 
 forbidden (properly forbidden, I am sure, for 
 prohibition came from you) to assume that there 
 existed any intention to impose a prospective 
 restraint on the domestic legislation of Missouri 
 a restraint to act upon it contemporaneously 
 with its origin as a State, and to continue ad- 
 lesive to it through all the stages of its political 
 existence. We are now, however, permitted to 
 f now that it is determined by a sort of political 
 surgery to amputate one of the limbs of its local 
 sovereignty, and thus mangled and disparaged, 
 and thus only, to receive it into the bosom of the 
 constitution. It is now avowed, that while Maine 
 s to be ushered into the Union with every pos- 
 sible demonstration of studious reverence on 
 our part, and on hers with colors flying, aud all 
 :he other graceful accompaniments of honorable
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 437 
 
 FEBRUARY, 1820.] 
 
 Restriction on the State of Mil 
 
 [SENATE. 
 
 triumph, this ill-conditioned upstart of the 
 West, this obscure foundling of a wilderness 
 that was but yesterday the hunting-ground of 
 the savage, is to find her way into the American 
 family as she can, with a humiliating badge of 
 remediless inferiority patched upon her gar- 
 ments, with the mark of recent qualified manu- 
 mission upon her, or rather with a brand upon 
 her foreliead to tell the story of her territorial 
 vassalage, and to perpetuate the memory of her 
 evil propensities. It is now avowed that, while 
 the robust District of Maine is to be seated by the 
 side of her truly respectable parent, co-ordinate 
 in authority and honor, and is to be dandled 
 into that power and dignity of which she does 
 not stand in need, but which undoubtedly she 
 deserves, the more infantine and feeble Missouri 
 is to be repelled with harshness, and forbidden 
 to come at all, unless with the iron collar of 
 servitude about her neck, instead of the civic 
 crown of republican freedom upon her brows, 
 and is to be doomed forever to leading strings, 
 unless she will exchange those leading strings 
 for shackles. 
 
 I am told that you have the power to establish 
 this odious and revolting distinction, and I am 
 referred for the proofs of that power to various 
 parts of the constitution, but principally to that 
 part of it which authorizes the admission of new 
 States into the Union. I am myself of opinion 
 that it is in that part only that the advocates for 
 this restriction can, with any hope of success, 
 apply for a license to oppose it, and that the 
 efforts which have been made to find it in other 
 portions of that instrument, are too desperate 
 to require to be encountered. I shall, however, 
 examine those other portions before I have 
 done, lest it should be supposed by those who 
 have relied upon them, that what I omit to 
 answer I believe to be unanswerable. 
 
 The clause of the constitution which relates 
 to the admission of new States is in these words : 
 " The Congress may admit new States into this 
 Union," &c., and the advocates for restriction 
 maintain that the use of the word "may" im- 
 ports discretion to admit or to reject ; and that in 
 this discretion is wrapped up another that of 
 prescribing the terms and conditions of admis- 
 sion in case you are willing to admit Cujus est 
 dare ejus est disponere. I will not for the pres- 
 ent inquire whether this involved discretion to 
 dictate the terms of admission belongs to you 
 or not. It is fit that I should first look to the 
 nature and extent of it. 
 
 I think I may assume that if such a power be 
 any thing but nominal, it is much more than 
 adequate to the present object; that it is a 
 power of vast expansion, to which human sa- 
 gacity can assign no reasonable limits ; that is 
 a capacious reservoir of authority, from which 
 you may take, in all time to come, as occasion 
 may serve, the means of oppression as well as 
 of benefaction. I know that it professes at this 
 moment to be the chosen instrument of protect- 
 ing mercy, and would win upon us by its benig- 
 nant smiles; but I know, too, it can frown and 
 
 play the tyrant, if it be so disposed. Notwith- 
 standing the softness which it now assumes, 
 and the care with which it conceals its giant 
 proportions beneath the deceitful drapery of 
 sentiment, when it next appears before yon it 
 may show itself with a sterner countenance and 
 in more awful dimensions. It is, to speak the 
 truth, sir, a power of colossal size ; if, indeed, 
 it be not an abuse of language to call it by the 
 gentle name of a power. Sir, it is a wilderness 
 of powers, of which fancy, in her happiest mood, 
 is unable to perceive the far distant and shadowy 
 boundary. Armed with such a power, with 
 religion in one hand and philanthropy in the 
 other, and followed with a goodly train of pub- 
 lic and private virtues, you may achieve more 
 conquests over sovereignties, not your own, 
 than falls to the common lot of even uncommon 
 ambition. By the aid of such a power, skilfully 
 employed, you may " bridge your way" over the 
 Hellespont that separates State legislation from 
 that of Congress ; and you may do so for pretty 
 much the same purpose with which Xerxes once 
 bridged his way across the Hellespont, that 
 separates Asia from Europe. He did so, in the 
 language of Milton, " the liberties of Greece to 
 yoke." You may do so for the analogous pur- 
 pose of subjugating and reducing the sovereign- 
 ties of States, as your taste or convenience 
 may suggest, and fashioning them to your im- 
 perial will. There are those in this House who 
 appear to think, and I doubt not sincerely, that 
 the particular restraint now under consideration 
 is wise, and benevolent, and good : wise as re- 
 spects the Union, good as respects Missouri, be- 
 nevolent as respects the unhappy victims whom", 
 with a novel kindness, it would incarcerate in 
 the South, and bless by decay and extirpation. 
 Let all such beware, lest in their desire for the 
 effect which they believe the restrictions will 
 produce, they are too easily satisfied that they 
 have the right to impose it. The moral beauty 
 of the present purpose, or even its political re- 
 commendations, (whatever they may be,) can. 
 do nothing for a power like this, which claims 
 to prescribe conditions ad libitum, and to be 
 competent to this purpose, because it is com- 
 petent to all. This restriction, if it be not 
 smothered in its birth, will be but a small part 
 of the progeny of that prolific power. It teems 
 with a mighty brood, of which this may be en- 
 titled to the distinction of comeliness as well as 
 of primogeniture. The rest may want the 
 boasted loveliness of their predecessor, and be 
 even uglier than " Lapland witches." 
 
 Perhaps, sir, you will permit me to remind 
 you that it is almost always in company with 
 those considerations that interest the heart in 
 some way or other, that encroachment steals 
 into the world. A bad purpose throws no veil 
 over the licenses of power. It leaves them to 
 be seen as they are. It affords them no protec- 
 tion from the inquiring eye of jealousy. The 
 danger is, when a tremendous discretion like 
 the present is attempted to be assumed, .as on 
 this occasion, in the names of pity, of religion,
 
 438 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 Restriction on the State of Missouri. 
 
 [FEBRUARY, 1820. 
 
 of national honor, and national prosperity; 
 when encroachment tricks itself out in the 
 robes of piety or humanity, or addresses itself 
 to pride of country, with all its kindred passions 
 and motives. It is then that the guardians of 
 the constitution are apt to slumber on their 
 watch, or, if awake, to mistake for lawful rule 
 some pernicious arrogation of power. 
 
 I would not discourage authorized legislation 
 upon those kindly, generous, and noble feelings 
 which Providence has given to us for the best 
 of purposes; but when power to act is under 
 discussion, I will not look to the end in view, 
 lest I should become indifferent to the lawful- 
 ness of the means. Let us discard from this 
 .high constitutional question all those extrinsic 
 considerations which have been forced into its 
 discussion. Let us endeavor to approach it 
 with a philosophic impartiality of temper, with 
 a sincere desire to ascertain the boundaries of 
 our authority, and a determination to keep our 
 wishes in subjection to our allegiance to the 
 constitution. 
 
 Slavery, we are told in many a pamphlet, 
 memorial, and speech, with which the press has 
 lately groaned, is a foul blot upon our otherwise 
 immaculate reputation. Let this be conceded 
 yet you are no nearer than before to the con- 
 clusion that you possess power which may deal 
 with other subjects as effectually as with this. 
 Slavery, we are further told, with some pomp 
 of metaphor, is a canker at the root of all that 
 is excellent in this republican empire, a pestilent 
 disease that is snatching the youthful bloom 
 from its cheek, prostrating its honor and with- 
 ering its strength. Be it so yet if you have 
 power to medicine to it in the way proposed, 
 and in virtue of the diploma which you claim, 
 you have also power in the distribution of your 
 political alexipharmics to present the deadliest 
 drugs to every Territory that would become a 
 State, and bid it drink or remain a colony for- 
 ever. Slavery, we are also told, is now " rolling 
 onward with a rapid tide towards the boundless 
 regions of the West," threatening to doom them 
 to sterility and sorrow, unless some potent voice 
 can say to it, thus far shalt thou go and no far- 
 ther. Slavery engenders pride and indolence 
 in him who commands, and inflicts intellectual 
 and moral degradation on him who serves. 
 Slavery, in fine, is unchristian and abominable. 
 Sir, I shall not stop to deny that slavery is all 
 this and more ; but I shall not think myself the 
 less authorized to deny that it is for you to stay 
 the course of this dark torrent, by opposing to 
 it a mound raised up by the labors of this por- 
 tentous discretion on the domain of others ; a 
 mound which you cannot erect but through the 
 instrumentality of a trespass of no ordinary 
 kind not the comparatively innocent trespass 
 that beats down a few blades of grass which the 
 first kind sun or the next refreshing shower 
 may cause to spring again but that which lev- 
 els with the ground the lordliest trees of the 
 forest, and claims immortality for the destruc- 
 tion which it inflicts. 
 
 I shall not, I am sure, be told that I exagger- 
 ate this power. It has been admitted here and 
 elsewhere that I do not But I want no such 
 concession. It is manifest that, as a discretion- 
 ary power, it is every thing or nothing ; that 
 its head is in the clouds, or that it is a mere fig- 
 ment of enthusiastic speculation ; that it has no 
 existence, or that it is an alarming vortex ready 
 to swallow up all such portions of the sover- 
 eignty of an infant State as you may think tit 
 to cast into it as preparatory to the introduction 
 into the Union of the miserable residue. No 
 man can contradict me when I say that, if you 
 have this power, you may squeeze down a new- 
 born sovereign State to the size of a pigmy, 
 and then taking it between finger and thumb, 
 stuck it into some niche of the Union, and still 
 continue, by way of mockery, to call it a State 
 in the sense of the constitution. You may 
 waste it to a shadow, and then introduce it into 
 the society of flesh and blood, an object of scorn 
 and derision. You may sweat and reduce it to 
 a thing of skua and bone, and then place the 
 ominous skeleton beside the ruddy and healthful 
 members of the Union, that it may have leisure 
 to mourn the lamentable difference between 
 itself and its companions, to brood over its dis- 
 astrous promotion, and to seek, in justifiable 
 discontent, an opportunity for separation, and 
 insurrection, and rebellion. "What may you 
 not do by dexterity and perseverance with this 
 terrific power? You may give to a new State. 
 in the form of terms which it cannot refuse, (as 
 I shall show you hereafter,) a statute book of a 
 thousand volumes, providing not for ordinary 
 cases only, but even for possibilities ; you may 
 lay the yoke, no matter whether light or heavy, 
 upon the necks of the latest posterity ; you may 
 send this searching power into every hamlet for 
 centuries to come, by laws enacted in the spirit 
 of prophecy, and regulating all those dear rela- 
 tions of domestic concern which belong to local 
 legislation, and which even local legislation 
 touches with a delicate and sparing hand. This 
 is the first inroad. But will it be the last? 
 This provision is but a pioneer for others of a 
 more desolating aspect. It is that fatal bridge 
 of which Milton speaks, and when once firmly 
 built, what shall hinder you to pass it when you 
 please for the purpose of plundering power after 
 power, at the expense of new States, as you will 
 still continue to call them, and raising up pros- 
 pective codes irrevocable and immortal, which 
 shall leave to those States the empty shadows 
 of domestic sovereignty, and convert them into 
 petty pageants, in themselves contemptible, but 
 rendered infinitely more so by the contrast of 
 their humble faculties with the proud and ad- 
 mitted pretensions of those who, having doomed 
 them to the inferiority of vassals, have conde- 
 scended to take them into their society and un- 
 der their protection ? 
 
 I shall be told, perhaps, that you can have no 
 temptation to 'do all or any part of this, and, 
 moreover, that you can do nothing of your- 
 selves, or, in other words, without the concur-
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 FEBRUARY, 1820.] 
 
 Restriction on the State of Missouri. 
 
 [SENATE. 
 
 rence of the new State. The last of these sug- 
 gestions I shall examine by and by. To the 
 first, I answer that it is not incumbent upon me 
 to prove that this discretion will be abused. 
 It is enough for me to prove the vastness of the 
 power as an inducement to make us pause apon 
 it, and to inquire with attention whether there 
 is any apartment in the constitution large 
 enough to give it entertainment. It is more 
 than enough for me to show that vast as is this 
 power, it is with reference to mere Territories 
 an irresponsible power. Power is irresponsible 
 when it acts upon those who are defenceless 
 against it ; who cannot check it, or contribute 
 to check it in its exercise ; who can resist it 
 only by force. The Territory of Missouri has 
 no check upon this power. It has no share in 
 the government of the Union. In this body it 
 has no representative. In the other House it 
 has, by courtesy, an agent, who may remon- 
 strate, but cannot vote. That such an irrespon- 
 sible power is not likely to be abused, who will 
 undertake to assert? If it is not, "experience 
 is a cheat, and fact a liar." The power which 
 England claimed over the colonies was such a 
 power, and it was abused ; and hence the Revo- 
 lution. Such a power is always perilous to 
 those who wield it, as well as to those on 
 whom it is exerted. Oppression is but another 
 name for irresponsible power, if history is to be 
 trusted. 
 
 The free spirit of our constitution and of our 
 people is no assurance against the propension of 
 unbridled power to abuse, when it acts upon 
 colonial dependents rather than upon ourselves. 
 Free States, as well as despots, have oppressed 
 those whom they were bound to foster ; and it 
 is the nature of man that it should be so. The 
 love of power and the desire to display it when 
 it can be done with impunity, is inherent in the 
 human heart. Turn it out at the door, and it 
 will in again at the window. Power is dis- 
 played in its fullest measure, and with a capti- 
 vating dignity, by restraints and conditions. 
 The pruritas leges ferendi is a universal dis- 
 ease, and conditions are laws as far as they go. 
 The vanity of human wisdom, and the presump- 
 tion of human reason, are proverbial. This 
 vanity and this presumption are often neither 
 reasonable nor wise. Humanity, too, sometimes 
 plays fantastic tricks with power. Time, more- 
 over, is fruitful in temptations to convert dis- 
 cretionary power to all sorts of purposes. 
 
 Time, that withers the strength of man, and 
 " strews around him, like autumnal leaves, the 
 ruins of his proudest monuments," produces 
 great vicissitudes in modes of thinking and feel- 
 ing. It brings along with it, in its progress, 
 new circumstances, new combinations and mod- 
 ifications of the old, generating new views, mo- 
 tives, and caprices, new fanaticisms of endless 
 variety in short, new every thing. We our- 
 selves are always changing and what to-day 
 we have but a small desire to attempt, to-rnor- 
 . row becomes the object of our passionate aspi- 
 rations. 
 
 There is such a thing as enthusiasm, moral, 
 religious, or political, or a compound of all 
 three ; and it is wonderful what it will attempt, 
 and from what imperceptible beginnings it 
 sometimes rises into a mighty agent. Rising 
 from some obscure or unknown source, it first 
 shows itself a petty rivulet, which scarcely 
 murmurs over the pebbles that obstruct its 
 way ; then it swells into a fierce torrent, bear- 
 ing all before it ; and again, like some mountain 
 stream which occasional rains have precipitated 
 upon the valley, it sinks once more into a rivu- 
 let, and finally leaves its channel dry. Such a 
 thing has happened. I do not say that it is now 
 happening. It would not become me to say so. 
 But, if it should occur, woe to the unlucky Ter- 
 ritory that should be struggling to make its way 
 into the Union at the moment when the oppos- 
 ing inundation was at its height, and at the 
 same instant this wide Mediterranean of discre- 
 tionary powers, which it seems is ours, should 
 open up all its sluices, and with a consentane- 
 ous rush, mingle with the turbid waters of the 
 others! * * * * * 
 
 " New States may be admitted by the Con- 
 gress into this Union." It is objected that the 
 word " may" imports power, not obligation a 
 right to decide a discretion to grant or refuse. 
 
 To this it might be answered, that power is 
 duty, on many occasions. But let it be con- 
 ceded that it is discretionary. What conse- 
 quence follows? A power to refuse, in a case 
 like this, does not necessarily involve a power 
 to exact terms. You must look to the result, 
 which is the declared object of the power. 
 Whether you will arrive at it or not may de- 
 pend on your will ; but you cannot compromise 
 with the result intended and professed. 
 
 What, then, is the professed result ? To ad- 
 mit a State into this Union. 
 
 What is that Union? A confederation of 
 States equal in sovereignty, capable of every 
 thing which the constitution does not forbid, 
 or authorize Congress to forbid. It is an equal 
 Union between parties equally sovereign. They 
 were sovereign, independently of the Union. 
 The object of the Union was common protection 
 for the exercise of already existing sovereignty. 
 The parties gave up a portion of that sover- 
 eignty to insure the remainder. As far as they 
 gave it up by the common compact they have 
 ceased to be sovereign. The Union provides 
 the means of defending the residue, and it is 
 into that Union that a new State is to come. 
 By acceding to it the new State is placed on 
 the same footing with the original States. It 
 accedes for the same purpose; that is, protec- 
 tion for its unsurrendered sovereignty. If it 
 comes in shorn of its beams crippled and dis- 
 paraged beyond the original States it is not 
 into the original Union that it comes. For it is 
 a different sort of Union. The first was Union 
 inter pares: this is a Union between disparates, 
 between giants and a dwarf, between power 
 and feebleness, between full proportioned sov- 
 ereignties and a miserable image of power a
 
 440 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 Restriction on the State of Missouri. 
 
 [FEBRUARY, 1820. 
 
 thing which that very Union has shrunk and 
 shrivelled from its just size, instead of preserv- 
 ing it in ite true dimensions. 
 
 It is into "this Union" that is, the Union of 
 the Federal Constitution that you are to ad- 
 mit or refuse to admit. You can admit into no 
 other. You cannot make the Union, as to the 
 new. State, what it is not as to the old; for 
 then it is not this Union that you open for the 
 entrance of a new party. If you make it enter 
 into a new and additional compact, is it any 
 longer the same Union ? 
 
 We are told that, admitting a State into the 
 Union is a compact. Yes ; but what sort of a 
 compact ? A compact that it shall be a mem- 
 ber of the Union, as the constitution has made 
 it. You cannot new fashion it. You may 
 make a compact to admit, but when admitted 
 the original compact prevails. The Union is a 
 compact, with a provision of political power 
 and agents for the accomplishment of its ob- 
 jects. Vary that compact as to a new State ; 
 give new energy to that political power so as to 
 make it act with more force upon a new State 
 than upon the old; make the will of those 
 agents more effectually the arbiter of the fate 
 of a new State than of the old, and it may be 
 confidently said that the new State has not en- 
 tered into this Union, but into another Union. 
 How far the Union has been varied is another 
 question. But that it has been varied is clear. 
 
 If I am told that, by the bill relative to Mis- 
 souri, you do not legislate upon a new State, I 
 answer that you do ; and I answer further, that 
 it is immaterial whether you do or not. But it 
 is upon Missouri, as a State, that your terms 
 and conditions are to act. Until Missouri is a 
 State, the terms and conditions are nothing. 
 You legislate in the shape of terms and condi- 
 tions prospectively ; and you so legislate upon 
 it, that when it comes into the Union it is 
 bound by a contract degrading and diminishing 
 its sovereignty, and is to be stripped of rights 
 which the original parties to the Union did not 
 consent to abandon, and which that Union (so 
 far as depends upon it) takes under its protec- 
 tion and guarantee. 
 
 Is the right to hold slaves a right which Mas- 
 sachusetts enjoys? If it is, Massachusetts is 
 under this Union in a different character from 
 Missouri. The compact of the Union for it is 
 different from the same compact of Union for 
 Missouri. The power of Congress is different 
 every thing which depends upon the Union is, 
 in that respect, different. 
 
 But it is immaterial whether you legislate for 
 Missouri as a State or not. The effect of your 
 legislation is to bring it into the Union with a 
 portion of its sovereignty taken away. 
 
 But it is a State which you are to admit. 
 What is a State in the sense of the constitution? 
 It is not a State in the general, but a State as 
 you find in the constitution. A State, gener- 
 ally, is a body politic or independent political 
 society of men. But the State which you are 
 to admit must be more or less than this political 
 
 entity. What must it be? Ask the constitu- 
 tion. It shows what it means by a State by 
 reference to the parties to it. It must be such 
 a State as Massachusetts, Virginia, and the 
 other members of the American confederacy 
 a State with full sovereignty, except as the con- 
 stitution restricts it. 
 
 It is said that the word may necessarily im- 
 plies the right of prescribing the terms of ad- 
 mission. Those who maintain this are aware 
 that there are no express words, (such as, upon 
 such terms and conditions as Congress shall 
 think fit,) words which it was natural to expect 
 to find in the constitution, if the effect contend- 
 ed for were meant. They put it, therefore, on 
 the word may, and on that alone. 
 
 Give to that word all the force you please, 
 what does it import? That Congress is not 
 bound to admit a new State into this Union. 
 Be it so for argument's sake. Does it follow 
 that when you consent to admit into this Union 
 a new State you can make it less in sovereign 
 power than the original parties to that Union ; 
 that you can make the Union as to it what it is. 
 not as to them ; that you can fashion it to your' 
 liking by compelling it to purchase admission 
 into a Union by sacrificing a portion of that 
 power which it is the sole purpose of the Union 
 to maintain in all the plenitude which the 
 Union itself does not impair ? Does it follow 
 that you can force upon it an additional com- 
 pact not found in the compact of Union ; that 
 you can make it come into the Union less a 
 State, in regard to sovereign power, than its 
 fellows in that Union ; that you can cripple its 
 legislative competency (beyond the constitution 
 which is the pact of Union, to which you make 
 it a party as if it had been originally a party to 
 it) by what you choose to call a condition, but 
 which, whatever it may be called, brings the 
 new government into the Union under new 
 obligations to it, and with disparaged power to 
 be protected by it ? 
 
 In a word, the whole amount of the argument 
 on the other side is, that you may refuse to ad- 
 mit a new State, and that therefore if you ad- 
 mit, you may prescribe the terms. 
 
 The answer to that argument is, that even if 
 you can refuse, you can prescribe no terms 
 which are inconsistent with the act you are to 
 do. You can prescribe no conditions which, if 
 carried into effect, would make the new State 
 less a sovereign State than, under the Union as 
 it stands, it would be. You can prescribe no 
 terms which will make the compact of Union 
 between it and the original States essentially 
 different from that compact among the original 
 States. You may admit, or refuse to admit; 
 but if you admit, you must admit a State in the 
 sense of the constitution a State with all such 
 sovereignty as belongs to the original parties ; 
 and it must be into this Union that you are to 
 admit it, not into a Union of your own dictat- 
 ing, formed out of the existing Union by quali- 
 fications and new compacts, altering its charter 
 and effect, and making it fall short of its pro-
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 441 
 
 FEBRUARY, 1820.] 
 
 Restriction on the State of Missouri 
 
 [SENATE. 
 
 tecting energy in reference to the new State, 
 whilst it requires an energy of another sort 
 the energy of restraint and destruction. 
 
 I have thus endeavored to show that even if 
 you have a discretion to refuse to admit, you 
 have no discretion, if yon are willing to admit, 
 to insist upon any terms that impair the sover- 
 eignty of the admitted State as it would other- 
 wise stand in the Union by the constitution 
 which receives it into its bosom. To admit or 
 not is for you to decide. Admission once con- 
 ceded, it follows as a corollary that you must 
 take the new State as an equal companion with 
 its fellows ; that you cannot recast or new- 
 model the Union pro hoc nice; but that you 
 must receive it into the actual Union, and re- 
 cognize it as a parcener in the common inherit- 
 ance, without any other shackles than the rest 
 have, by the constitution, submitted to bear, 
 without any other extinction of power than is 
 the work of the constitution acting indifferently 
 upon all. 
 
 I may be told, perhaps, that the restriction, 
 in this case, is the act of Missouri itself; that 
 your law is nothing without its consent, and 
 derives its efficacy from that alone. I shall 
 have a more suitable occasion to speak on this 
 topic hereafter, when I come to consider the 
 treaty which ceded Louisiana to the United 
 States. But I will say a few words upon it 
 now, of a more general application than it will 
 in that branch of the argument be necessary to 
 use. 
 
 A Territory cannot surrender to Congress by 
 anticipation the whole or a part of the sover- 
 eign power, which, by the constitution of the 
 Union, will belong to it when it becomes a 
 State and a member of the Union. Its consent 
 is therefore nothing. It is in no situation to 
 make this surrender. It is under the govern- 
 ment of Congress ; if it can barter away a part 
 of its sovereignty, by anticipation, it can do so 
 as to the whole ; for where will you stop ? If 
 it does not cease to be a State, in the sense of 
 the constitution, with only a certain portion of 
 sovereign power, what other smaller portion 
 will have that effect? If you depart from the 
 standard of the constitution that is, the quan- 
 tity of domestic sovereignty left in the first 
 contracting States, and secured by the original 
 compact of Union, where will you get another 
 standard ? Consent is no standard ; for consent 
 may be gained to a surrender of all. 
 
 No State, or Territory, in order to become a 
 State, can alienate or surrender any portion of 
 its sovereignty to the Union, or to a sister 
 State, or to a foreign nation. It is under an in- 
 capacity to disqualify itself for all the purposes 
 of government left to it in the constitution, by 
 stripping itself of attributes which arise from 
 the natural equality of States, and which the 
 constitution recognizes, not only because it does 
 not deny them, but presumes them to remain as 
 they exist by the law of nature and nations. 
 Inequality in the sovereignty of States is un- 
 natural, and repugnant to all the principles of 
 
 that law. Hence we find it laid down by the 
 text- writers on public law, that " Nature has 
 established a perfect equality of rights between 
 independent nations :" and that, " whatever the 
 quality of a free sovereign nation gives to one, 
 it gives to another."* The Constitution of the 
 United States proceeds upon the truth of this 
 doctrine. It takes the States as it finds them, 
 free and sovereign alike oy nature. It receives 
 from them portions of their power for the gen- 
 eral good, and provides for the exercise of it by 
 organized political bodies. It diminishes the 
 individual sovereignty of each, and transfers 
 what it subtracts to the Government which it 
 creates ; it takes from all alike, and leaves 
 them relatively to each other equal in sovereign 
 power. 
 
 The honorable gentleman from New York 
 has put the constitutional argument altogether 
 upon the clause relative to admission of new 
 States into the Union. He does not pretend 
 that you can find the power to restrain, in any 
 extent, elsewhere. It follows that it is not a 
 particular power to impose this restriction, but 
 a power to impose restrictions ad libitum. It 
 is competent to this, because it is competent to 
 every thing. But he denies that there can be * 
 any power in man to hold in slavery his fellow- 
 creature, and argues, therefore, that the prohi- 
 bition is no restraint at all, since it does not in- 
 terfere with the sovereign powers of Missouri. 
 
 One of the most signal errors with which the 
 argument on the other side has abounded, is this 
 of considering the proposed restriction as if lev- 
 elled at the introduction or establishment of 
 slavery. And hence the vehement declamation 
 which, among other things, has informed us that 
 slavery originated in fraud or violence. 
 
 The truth is, that the restriction has no rela- 
 tion, real or pretended, to the right of making 
 slaves of those who are free, or of introducing 
 slavery where it does not already exist. It ap- 
 plies to those who are admitted to be already 
 slaves, and who, with their posterity, would 
 continue to be slaves if they should remain 
 where they are at present ; and to a place where 
 slavery already exists by the local law. Their 
 civil condition will not be altered by their re- 
 moval from Virginia. or Carolina to Missouri. 
 They will not be more slaves than they now 
 are. Their abode, indeed, will be different, but 
 their bondage the same. Their numbers may 
 possibly be augmented by the diffusion, and I 
 think they will. But this can only happen be- 
 cause their hardships will be mitigated, and their 
 comforts increased. The checks to population, 
 which exist in the older States will be diminish- 
 ed. The restriction, therefore, does not prevent 
 the establishment of slavery, either with refer- 
 ence to persons or place ; but simply inhibits 
 the removal from place to place (the law in 
 each being the same) of a slave, or make his 
 emancipation the consequence of that removal. 
 It acts professedly merely on slavery as it exists, 
 
 Vattel, Droit <fc Gent, liy. 2, c. 3, s. 86.
 
 442 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 Restriction on the State of Missouri. 
 
 [FEBRUARY, 1820. 
 
 and thus acting restrains its present lawful ef- 
 fects. That slavery, like many other human 
 institutions, originated in fraud or violence, may 
 be conceded ; but however it originated, it is 
 established among us, and no man seeks a fur- 
 ther establishment of it by new importations of 
 freemen to be converted into slaves. On the 
 contrary, all are anxious to mitigate its evils, 
 by all the means within the reach of the appro- 
 priate authority, the domestic legislatures of the 
 different States. 
 
 It can be nothing to the purpose of this argu- 
 ment, therefore, as the gentlemen themselves 
 have shaped it, to inquire what was the origin 
 of slavery. What is it now, and who are they 
 that endeavor to innovate upon what it now is, 
 (the advocates of this restriction who desire 
 change by unconstitutional means, or its oppo- 
 nents who desire to leave the whole matter to 
 local regulation ?) are the only questions worthy 
 of attention. 
 
 Sir, if we too closely look to the rise and pro- 
 gress of long-sanctioned establishments and un- 
 questioned rights, we may discover other subjects 
 than that of slavery, with which fraud and vio- 
 lence may claim a fearful connection, and over 
 which it may be our interest to throw the man- 
 tle of oblivion. What was the settlement of our 
 ancestors in this country but an invasion of the 
 rights of the barbarians who inhabited it ? That 
 settlement, with slight exceptions, was effected 
 by the slaughter of those who did no more than 
 defend their native land against the intruders 
 of Europe, or by unequal compacts and pur- 
 chases, in which feebleness and ignorance had 
 to deal with power and cunning. The savages 
 who once built their huts where this proud 
 Capitol, rising from its recent ashes, exemplifies 
 the sovereignty of the American people, were 
 swept away by the injustice of our fathers, and 
 their domain usurped by force, or obtained by 
 artifices yet more criminal. Our continent was 
 full of those aboriginal inhabitants. Where are 
 they or their descendants ? Either " with years 
 beyond the flood," or driven back by the swell- 
 ing tide of our population from the borders of 
 the Atlantic to the deserts of the West. You 
 follow still the miserable remnants, and make 
 contracts with them that seal their ruin. You 
 purchase their lands, of which they know not 
 the value, in order that you may sell them to 
 advantage, increase your treasure, and enlarge 
 your empire. Yet further ; you pursue as they 
 retire ; and they must continue to retire until 
 the Pacific shall stay their retreat, and compel 
 them to pass away as a dream. Will you recur 
 to those scenes of various iniquity for any other 
 purpose than to regret and lament them ? Will 
 you iy into them with a view to shake and 
 impair yonr rights of property and dominion ? 
 
 But the broad denial of the sovereign right of 
 Missouri, if it shall become a sovereign State, to 
 recognize slavery by its laws, is rested upon a 
 variety of grounds, all of which I will examine. 
 
 It is an extraordinary fact, that they who urge 
 this denial with such ardent zeal, stop short of 
 
 it in their conduct. There are now slaves in 
 Missouri whom they do not insist upon deliver- 
 ing from their chains. Yet, if it is incompetent 
 to sovereign power to continue slavery in Mis- 
 souri, in respect of slaves who may yet be car- 
 ried thither, show me the power that can 
 continue it in respect of slaves who are there 
 already. Missouri is out of the old limits of the 
 Union, and beyond those limits, it is said, we 
 can give no countenance to slavery, if we can 
 countenance or tolerate it anywhere. It is 
 plain that there can be no slaves beyond the 
 Mississippi at this moment, but in virtue of some 
 power to make or keep them so. What sort of 
 power was it that has made or kept them so ? 
 Sovereign power it could not be, according to 
 the honorable gentlemen from Pennsylvania, 
 and New Hampshire, (Messrs. ROBERTS, LOWEIE, 
 and MOEEILL ;) and if sovereign power is unequal 
 to such a purpose, less than sovereign power is 
 yet more unequal to it. The laws of Spain and 
 France could do nothing ; the laws of the ter- 
 ritorial government of Missouri could do nothing 
 towards such a result, if it be a result which no 
 laws, in other words, no sovereignty could ac- 
 complish. The treaty of 1803 could do no more 
 in this view, than the laws of France, or Spain, 
 or the territorial government of Missouri. A 
 treaty is an act of sovereign power, taking the 
 shape of a compact between the parties to it ; 
 and that which sovereign power cannot reach 
 at all, it cannot reach by a treaty. Those who 
 are now held in bondage, therefore, in Missouri, 
 and their issue, are entitled to be free, if there 
 be any truth in the doctrine of the honorable 
 gentlemen ; and if the proposed restriction 
 leaves all such in slavery, it thus discredits the 
 very foundation on which it reposes. To be in- 
 consistent is the fate of false principles ; but 
 this inconsistency is the more to be remarked, 
 since it cannot be referred to mere considera- 
 tions of policy, without admitting that such con- 
 siderations may be preferred without a crime, 
 to what is deemed a paramount and indispen- 
 sable duty. 
 
 It is here, too, that I must be permitted to 
 observe, that the honorable gentlemen have 
 taken great pains to show that this restriction 
 is a mere work of supererogation by the princi- 
 pal argument on which they rest the proof of its 
 propriety. Missouri, it is said, can have no 
 power to do what the restriction would prevent. 
 It would be void, therefore, without the restric- 
 tion. Why, then, I ask, is the restriction in- 
 sisted upon? Restraint implies that there is 
 something to be restrained ; but the gentlemen 
 justify the restraint, by showing that there is 
 nothing upon which it can operate ! They 
 demonstrate the wisdom and necessity pf re- 
 straint, by demonstrating that, with or without 
 restraint, the subject is in the same predicament. 
 This is to combat with a man of straw, and to 
 put fetters upon a shadow. 
 
 The gentlemen must therefore abandon either 
 their doctrine or their restriction their argu- 
 ment or their object for they are directly in
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 443 
 
 FEBEUABY, 1820.] 
 
 Restriction on the State of Missouri. 
 
 [SENATE. 
 
 conflict, and reciprocally destroy each other. 
 It is evident that they will not abandon their 
 object, and, of course, I must believe that they 
 hold their argument in as little real estimation 
 as I myself do. The gentlemen can scarcely be 
 sincere believers in their own principle. They 
 have apprehensions which they endeavor to 
 conceal, that Missouri, as a State, will have the 
 power to continue slavery within its limits; 
 and, if they will not be offended, I will venture 
 to compare them, in this particular, with the 
 duellist in Sheridan's comedy of the Rivals, who, 
 affecting to have no fear whatever of his adver- 
 sary, is, nevertheless, careful to admonish Sir 
 Lucius to hold him fast. 
 
 Let us take it for granted, however, that they 
 are in earnest in their doctrine, and that it is 
 very necessary to impose what they prove to be 
 an unnecessary restraint : how do they support 
 that doctrine ? 
 
 The honorable gentleman on the other side 
 (Mr. KING) has told us, as a proof of his great 
 position, that man cannot enslave his fellow 
 man, in which is implied that all laws upholding 
 slavery are absolute nullities ; that the nations 
 of antiquity, as well as of modern times, have 
 concurred in laying down that position as in- 
 controvertible. 
 
 He refers us, in the first place, to the Roman 
 law, in which he finds it laid down as a maxim : 
 Jure naturali omnes homines ab initio liberi 
 nascebantur. From the manner in which this 
 maxim was pressed upon us, it would not readily 
 have been conjectured that the honorable gen- 
 tleman who used it had borrowed it from a 
 slaveholding Empire, and still less from a book 
 of the Institutes of Justinian, which treats of 
 slavery, and justifies and regulates it. Had he 
 given us the context, we should have had the 
 modifications of which the abstract doctrine 
 was, in the judgment of the Roman law, suscep- 
 tible. We should have had an explanation of 
 the competency of that law, to convert, whether 
 justly or unjustly, freedom into servitude, and 
 to maintain the right of a master to the service 
 and obedience of his slave. 
 
 The honorable gentleman might also have 
 gone to Greece for a similar maxim and a simi- 
 lar commentary, speculative and practical. 
 
 He next refers us to Magna Charta. I am 
 somewhat familiar with Magna Charta, and I am 
 confident that it contains no such maxim as the 
 honorable gentleman thinks he has discovered 
 in it. The great charter was extorted from 
 John, and his feeble son and successor, by 
 haughty slaveholding barons, who thought only 
 of themselves and the commons of England, 
 (then inconsiderable,) whom they wished to en- 
 list in their efforts against the Crown. There 
 is not in it a single word which condemns civil 
 slavery. Freemen only are the objects of its 
 protecting care. " Nullus liber homo" is its 
 phraseology. The serfs who were chained to 
 the soil, the villeins regardant and in gross, 
 were left as it found them. All England was 
 then full of slaves, whose posterity would by 
 
 law remain slaves as with us, except only that 
 the issue followed the condition of the father 
 instead of the mother. The rule was " Partu* 
 sequitur patrem" a rule more favorable un- 
 doubtedly, from the very precariousness of its 
 application, to the gradual extinction of slavery, 
 than ours, which has been drawn from the Ro- 
 man law, and is of sure and unavoidable effect. 
 
 Still less has the Petition of Right, presented 
 to Charles I., by the Long Parliament, to do 
 with the subject of civil slavery. It looked 
 merely, as Magna Charta had done before it, 
 to the freemen of England; and sought only 
 to protect them against royal prerogative and 
 the encroaching spirit of the Stuarts. 
 
 As to the Bill of Rights, enacted by the Con- 
 vention Parliament of 1688, it is almost a dupli- 
 cate of the Petition of Right, and arose out of 
 the recollection of that political tyranny from 
 which the nation had just escaped, and the re- 
 currence of which it was intended to prevent. 
 It contains no abstract principles. It deals only 
 with practical checks upon the power of the 
 monarch, and in safeguards for institutions es- 
 sential to the preservation of the public liberty. 
 That it was not designed to anathematize civil 
 slavery may be taken for granted, since at that 
 epoch and long afterwards, the English Govern- 
 ment inundated its foreign plantations with 
 slaves, and supplied other nations with them as 
 merchandise, under the sanction of solemn trea- 
 ties negotiated for that purpose. And here I 
 cannot forbear to remark that we owe it to that 
 same Government, when it stood towards us in 
 the relation of parent to child, that involuntary 
 servitude exists in our land, and that we are 
 now deliberating whether the prerogative of 
 correcting its evils belongs to the National or 
 the State Governments. In the early periods 
 of our colonial history every thing was done by 
 the mother country to encourage the importa- 
 tion of slaves into North America, and the 
 measures which were adopted by the Colonial 
 Assemblies to prohibit it were uniformly nega- 
 tived by the Crown. It is not therefore our 
 fault, nor the fault of our ancestors, that this 
 calamity has been entailed upon us ; and, not- 
 withstanding the ostentation with which the 
 loitering abolition of the slave trade by the 
 British Parliament has been vaunted, the prin- 
 cipal consideration which at last reconciled it to 
 that measure was, that, by suitable care, the 
 slave population in their. West India islands, 
 already fully stocked, might be kept up and 
 even increased without the aid of importation. 
 In a word, it was cold calculations of interest, 
 and not the suggestions of humanity, or a re- 
 spect for the philanthropic principles of Mr. 
 Wilberforce, which produced their tardy aban- 
 donment of that abominable trafiic. 
 
 Of the Declaration of our Independence, 
 which has also been quoted in support of the 
 perilous doctrines now urged upon us, I need 
 not now speak at large. I have shown on a 
 former occasion, how idle it is to rely upon that 
 instrument for such a purpose, and I will not
 
 444 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 Restriction on the State, of Missouri. 
 
 [FEBBUARY, 1820. 
 
 fatigue you by mere repetition. The self-evi- 
 dent truths announced in the Declaration of 
 .Independence, are not truths at all, if taken 
 literally; and the practical conclusions con- 
 tained in the same passage of that declaration 
 prove that they were never designed to be so 
 received. 
 
 The Articles of Confederation contain nothing 
 on the subject; whilst the actual constitution 
 recognizes the legal existence of slavery by 
 various provisions. The power of prohibiting 
 the slave trade is involved in that of regulating 
 commerce, but this is coupled with an express 
 inhibition to the exercise of it for twenty 
 years. How, then, can that constitution which 
 expressly permits the importation of slaves, 
 authorize the National Government to set on 
 foot a crusade against slavery ? 
 
 The clause respecting fugitive slaves is af- 
 firmative and active in its effects. It is a direct 
 sanction and positive protection of the right of 
 the master to the services of his slave, as de- 
 rived under the local laws of the States. The 
 phraseology in which it is wrapped up, still 
 leaves the intention clear, and the words, 
 " persons held to service or labor in one State 
 under the laws thereof," have always been in- 
 terpreted to extend to the case of slaves, in 
 the various acts of Congress which have been 
 passed to give efficacy to the provision, and in 
 the judicial application of those laws. So also 
 in the clause prescribing the ratio of represen- 
 tation the phrase, "three-fifths of all other 
 persons," is equivalent to slaves, or it means 
 nothing. And yet we are told that those who 
 are acting under a constitution which sanctions 
 the existence of slavery in those States which 
 choose to tolerate it, are at liberty to hold that 
 no law can sanction its existence ! 
 
 It is idle to make the rightfulness of an act 
 the measure of sovereign power. The distinc- 
 tion between sovereign power and the moral 
 right to exercise it, has always been recognized. 
 All political power may be abused, but is it to 
 stop where abuse may begin? The power of 
 declaring war is a power of vast capacity for 
 mischief, and capable of inflicting the most 
 wide-spread desolation. But it is given to Con- 
 gress without stint and without measure. Is a 
 citizen, or are the courts of justice, to inquire 
 whether that, or any other law, is just, before 
 they obey or execute it? And are there any 
 degrees of injustice, which will withdraw from 
 sovereign power the capacity of making a given 
 law? 
 
 But sovereignty is said to be deputed power. 
 Deputed by whom? By the people, because 
 the power is theirs. And if it be theirs, does 
 not the restriction take it away? Examine 
 the Constitution of the Union, and it will be 
 seen that the people of the States are regarded 
 as well as the States themselves. The consti- 
 tution was made by the people, and ratified by 
 the people. 
 
 Is it fit, then, to hold that all the sovereignty 
 of a State is in the government of the State? 
 
 So much is there as the people grant : and the 
 people can take it away, or give more, or new 
 model what they have already granted. It is 
 this right which the proposed restriction takes 
 from Missouri. You give them an immortal 
 constitution, depending on your will, not on 
 theirs. The people and their posterity are 
 to be bound forever by this restriction ; and 
 upon the same principle, any other restriction 
 may be imposed. Where, then, is their power 
 to change the constitution, and to devolve new 
 sovereignty upon the State government ? You 
 limit their sovereign capacity to do it; and 
 when you talk of a State, you mean the people 
 as well as the Government. The people are the 
 source of all power you dry up that source. 
 They are the reservoir you. take out of it what 
 suits you. 
 
 It is said that this Government is a Govern- 
 ment of deputed powers. So is every govern- 
 ment and what power is not deputed remains. 
 But the people of the United States can give it 
 more if they please, as the people of each State 
 can do in respect to its own government. And 
 here it is well to remember that this is a Gov- 
 ernment of enumerated, as well as deputed 
 powers ; and to examine the clause as to the 
 admission of new States, with that principle in 
 view. Now assume that it is a part of the 
 sovereign power of the people of Missouri to 
 continue slavery, and to devolve that power 
 upon its Government, and then to take it away, 
 and then to give it again. The Government is 
 their creature the means of exercising their 
 sovereignty, and they can vary those means at 
 their pleasure. Independently of the Union, 
 their power would be unlimited. By coming 
 into the Union, they part with some of it, and 
 are thus less sovereign. 
 
 Let us, then, see whether they part with 
 this power. 
 
 If they have parted with this portion of sov- 
 ereign power, it must be under that clause of 
 the national constitution which gives to Con- 
 gress "power to admit new States into this 
 Union." And it is said that this necessarily 
 implies the authority of prescribing the condi- 
 tions upon which such new States shall be ad- 
 mitted. This has been put into the form of a 
 syllogism, which is thus stated : 
 
 Major. Every universal proposition includes 
 ah 1 the means, manner, and terms, of the act to 
 which it relates. 
 
 Minor. But this is a universal proposition. 
 
 Conclusion. Therefore, the means, manner, 
 and terms, are involved in it. 
 
 But this syllogism is fallacious, and any thing 
 else may be proved by it, by assuming one of 
 its members which involves the conclusion. 
 The minor is a mere postulate. 
 
 Take it in this way : 
 
 Major. None but a universal proposition in- 
 cludes in itself the terms and conditions of the 
 act to be done. 
 
 Minor. But this is not such a universal 
 proposition.
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 445 
 
 FEBRUARY, 1820.] 
 
 Restriction on the Slate of Missouri. 
 
 [SENATE. 
 
 Conclusion. Therefore, it does not contain, 
 in itself, the terms and conditions of the act. 
 
 In both cases, the minor is a gratuitous pos- 
 tulate. 
 
 But I deny that a universal proposition, as 
 to a specific act, involves the terms and con- 
 ditions of that act, so as to vary it and substi- 
 tute another and a different act in its place. 
 The proposition contained in the clause, is 
 universal in one sense only. It is particular in 
 another. It is universal as to the power to ad- 
 mit or refuse. It is particular as to the being 
 or thing to be admitted, and the compact by 
 which it is to be admitted. The sophistry con- 
 sists in extending the universal part of the 
 proposition in such a manner as to make out 
 of it another universal proposition. It consists 
 in confounding the right to produce or to refuse 
 to produce a certain defined effect, with a right 
 to produce a different effect by refusing other- 
 wise to produ.ce any effect at all. It makes the 
 actual right the instrument of obtaining another 
 right with which the actual right is incompati- 
 ble. It makes, in a word, lawful power the 
 instrument of unlawful usurpation. The result 
 is kept out of sight by this mode of reasoning. 
 The discretion to decline that result, which t is 
 called a universal proposition, is singly obtruded 
 upon us. But, in order to reason correctly, 
 you must keep in view the defined result, as 
 well as the discretion to produce or to decline 
 to produce it. The result is the particular part 
 of the proposition ; therefore, the discretion to 
 
 Eroduce or decline it, is the universal part of it. 
 ut, because the last is found to be universal, 
 it is taken for granted that the first is also uni- 
 versal. This is a sophism too manifest to im- 
 pose. 
 
 But, discarding the machinery of syllogisms 
 as unfit for such a discussion as this, let us look 
 at the clause with a view of interpreting it by 
 the rules of sound logic and common sense. 
 
 The power is, " to admit new States into this 
 Union ; " and it may be safely conceded that 
 here is discretion to admit or refuse. The 
 question is, what must we do, if we do any 
 thing ? What must we admit, and into what ? 
 The answer is, a State and into this Union. 
 
 The distinction between federal rights and 
 local rights, is an idle distinction. Because the 
 new State acquires federal rights, it is not, 
 therefore, in this Union. The Union is a com- 
 pact ; and is it an equal party to that compact, 
 because it has equal federal rights? How is 
 the Union formed ? By equal contributions of 
 power. Make one member sacrifice more than 
 another, and it becomes unequal. The compact 
 is.of two parts : 
 
 1. The thing obtained federal rights. 
 
 2. The price paid local sovereignty. 
 
 You may disturb the balance of the Union, 
 either by diminishing the thing acquired, or 
 increasing the sacrifice paid. 
 
 What were the purposes of coming into the 
 Union among the original States ? The States 
 were originally sovereign, without limit, as to 
 
 foreign and domestic concerns. But, being in- 
 capable of protecting themselves singly, they 
 entered into the Union to defend themselves 
 against foreign violence. The domestic con- 
 cerns of the people were not, in general, to be 
 acted on by it. The security of the power of 
 managing them by domestic legislature, is one 
 of the great objects of the Union. The Union 
 is a means not an end. By requiring greater 
 sacrifices of domestic power, the end is sacri- 
 ficed to the means. Suppose the surrender of 
 all, or nearly all, the domestic powers of legis- 
 lation were required ; the means would there 
 have swallowed up the end. 
 
 The argument that the compact may be en 
 forced, shows that the federal predicament is 
 changed. The power of the Union not only 
 acts on persons and citizens, but on the faculty 
 of the Government, and restrains it in a way 
 which the constitution nowhere authorizes. 
 This new obligation takes away a right which 
 is expressly "reserved to the people or the 
 States," since it is nowhere granted to the 
 Government of the Union. You cannot do 
 indirectly what you cannot do directly. It is 
 said that this Union is competent to make 
 compacts. Who doubts it? But can you 
 make this compact ? I insist that you cannot 
 make it, because it is repugnant to the thing to 
 be done. 
 
 The effect of such a compact would be to 
 produce that inequality in the Union, to which 
 the constitution, in all its provisions, is averse. 
 Every thing in it looks to equality among the 
 members of the Union. Under it you cannot 
 produce inequality. Nor can you get before- 
 hand of the constitution, and do it by anticipa- 
 tion. Wait until a State is in the Union, and 
 you cannot do it; yet it is only upon the 
 State in the Union that what you do begins 
 to act. 
 
 But it seems, that, although the proposed 
 restriction may not be justified by the clause 
 of the constitution which gives power to admit 
 new States into the Union, separately consid- 
 ered, there are other parts of the constitution 
 which, combined with that clause, will warrant 
 it. And first, we are informed that there is a 
 clause in this instrument which declares that 
 Congress shall guarantee to every State a re- 
 publican form of government; that slavery 
 and such a form of government are incompati- 
 ble; and, finally, as a conclusion from these 
 premises, that Congress not only have a right, 
 but are bound to exclude slavery from a new 
 State. Here, again, sir, there is an edifying 
 inconsistency between the argument and the 
 measure which it professes to vindicate. By 
 the argument, it is maintained that Missouri 
 cannot have a republican form of government, 
 and at the same time tolerate negro slavery; 
 By the measure it is admitted that IGworn^ 
 may tolerate slavery, as to persons already in 
 bondage there, and be nevertheless fit to be re- 
 ceived into the Union. What sort of consti- 
 tutional mandate is this, which can thus be
 
 446 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 Restriction on the State of Missouri. 
 
 [FEBRUARY, 1820. 
 
 made to bond, and truckle, and compromise, as 
 if it were a simple rule of expediency that 
 might admit of exceptions upon motives of 
 countervailing expediency ? There can be no 
 such pliancy in the peremptory provisions of 
 the constitution. They cannot be obeyed by 
 moieties and violated in the same ratio. They 
 must be followed out to their full extent, or 
 treated with that decent neglect which has at 
 least the merit of forbearing to render contu- 
 macy obtrusive by an ostentatious display of 
 the very duty which we in part abandon. If 
 the Decalogue could be observed in this casuis- 
 tical manner, we might be grievous sinners, 
 and yet be liable to no reproach. We might 
 persist, in all our habitual irregularities, and 
 still be spotless. We might, for example, con- 
 tinue to covet our neighbors' goods, provided 
 they were the same neighbors whose goods we 
 had before coveted; and so of all the other 
 commandments. 
 
 Will the gentlemen tell us that it is the quan- 
 tity of slaves, not the quality of slavery, which 
 takes from a government the republican form ? 
 Will they tell us (for they have not yet told 
 tis) that there are constitutional grounds, (to 
 say nothing of common sense,) upon which the 
 slavery which now exists in Missouri may be 
 reconciled with a republican form of govern- 
 ment, while any addition to the number of its 
 slaves, (the* quality of slavery remaining the 
 same,) from the other States, will be repugnant 
 to that form, and metamorphose it into some 
 nondescript government disowned by the con- 
 stitution ? They cannot have recourse to the 
 treaty of 1803 for such a distinction, since, in- 
 dependently of what I have before observed on 
 that head, the gentlemen have contended that 
 the treaty has nothing to do with the matter. 
 They have cut themselves off from all chance 
 of a convenient distinction in or out of that 
 treaty, by insisting that slavery beyond the old 
 United States is rejected by the constitution, 
 and by the law of God, as discoverable by the 
 aid of either reason or revelation ; and, more- 
 over, that the treaty does not include the case, 
 and if it did, could not make it better. They 
 have, therefore, completely discredited their 
 own theory by their own practice, and left us 
 no theory worthy of being seriously contro- 
 verted. This peculiarity in reasoning, of giving 
 out a universal principle, and coupling with it 
 a practical concession that it is wholly fallacious, 
 has, indeed, run through the greater part of the 
 arguments on the other side ; but it is not, as I 
 think, the more imposing on that account, or 
 the less liable to the criticism which I have 
 here bestowed upon it. 
 
 There is a remarkable inaccuracy on this 
 branch of the subject into which gentlemen 
 have fallen, and to which I will give a moment's 
 attention, without laying unnecessary stress 
 upon it. The government of a new State, as 
 well as of an old State, must, I agree, be re- 
 publican in its form. But it has not been very 
 clearly explained what the laws which such a 
 
 government may enact can have to do with its 
 form. The form of the government is material 
 only as it furnishes a security that those laws 
 will protect and promote the public happiness, 
 and be made in a republican spirit. The peo- 
 ple being, in such a Government, the fountain 
 of all power, and their servants being period- 
 ically responsible to them for its exercise, the 
 Constitution of the Union takes for granted, 
 (except so far as it imposes limitations,) that 
 every such exercise will be just and salutary. 
 The introduction or continuance of civil slavery 
 is manifestly the mere result of the power of 
 making laws. ' It does not, in any degree, enter 
 into the form of the government. It presup- 
 poses that form already settled, and takes its 
 rise not from the particular frame of the gov- 
 ernment, but from the general power which 
 every government involves. Make the govern- 
 ment what you will in its organization and in 
 the distribution of its authorities, the introduc- 
 tion or continuance of involuntary servitude by 
 the legislative power which it has created, can 
 have no influence on its pre-established form, 
 whether monarchial, aristocratical, or repub- 
 lican. The form of government is still one 
 thing, and the law, being a simple exertion of 
 the ordinary faculty of legislation by those to 
 whom that form of government has intrusted 
 it, another. The gentlemen, however, identify 
 an act of legislation sanctioning involuntary 
 servitude with the form of government itself, 
 and they assure us that the latter is changed 
 retroactively by the first, and is no longer re- 
 publican. 
 
 But let us proceed to take a rapid glance at 
 the reasons which have been assigned for this 
 notion that involuntary servitude and a repub- 
 lican form of government are perfect antip- 
 athies. The gentleman from New Hampshire 
 (Mr. MOEEILL) has defined a republican govern- 
 ment to be that in which all the men participate 
 in its power and privileges; from whence it 
 follows that where there are slaves it can have 
 no existence. A definition is no proof, how- 
 ever, and even if it be dignified (as I think it 
 was) with the name of a maxim, the matter is 
 not much mended. It is Lord Bacon who says 
 that "nothing is so easily made as a maxim ; " 
 and, certainly, a definition is manufactured with 
 equal facility. A political maxim is the work 
 of induction, and cannot stand against expe- 
 rience, or stand on any thing but experience. 
 But the maxim, or definition, or whatever else 
 it may be, sets fact at defiance. If you go back 
 to antiquity, you will obtain no countenance 
 for this hypothesis ; and if you look at home 
 you will gain still less. I have read that Sparta, 
 and Kome, and Athens, and many others of the 
 ancient family, were Republics. They were so 
 in form, undoubtedly the last approaching 
 nearer to a perfect Democracy than any other 
 Government which has yet been known to the 
 world. Judging of them, also, by their fruits, 
 they were of the highest order of Republics. 
 Sparta could scarcely be any other than a Re-
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 447 
 
 FEBRUARY, 1820.] 
 
 Restriction on the State of Missouri. 
 
 [SENATE. 
 
 public, when a Spartan matron could say to her 
 son just marching to battle, ''Return victo- 
 rious, or return no more ! " It was the uncon- 
 querable spirit of liberty, nurtured by repub- 
 lican habits and institutions, that illustrated 
 the Pass of Thermopylae. Yet slavery was not 
 only tolerated in Sparta, but was established by 
 one of the fundamental laws of Lycurgus, hav- 
 ing for its object the encouragement of that 
 very spirit. Attica was full of slaves, yet the 
 love of liberty was its characteristic. What 
 else was it that foiled the whole power of Per- 
 sia at Marathon and Salamis ? What other soil 
 than that which the genial sun of Republican 
 freedom illuminated and warmed, could have 
 produced such men as Leonidas and Miltiades, 
 Themistocles and Epaminondas ? Of Rome it 
 would be superfluous to speak at large. It is 
 sufficient to name the mighty mistress of the 
 world, before Sylla gave the first stab to her 
 liberties, and the great dictator accomplished 
 their final ruin, to be reminded of the practi- 
 cability of union between civil slavery and an 
 ardent love of liberty cherished by republican 
 establishments. 
 
 If we return home for instruction upon this 
 point, we perceive that same union exemplified 
 in many a State in which " Liberty has a tem- 
 ple in every house, an altar in every heart," 
 while involuntary servitude is seen in every di- 
 rection. Is it denied that those States possess 
 a republican form of government? If it is, 
 why does our power of correction sleep ? Why 
 is the constitutional guarantee suffered to be in- 
 active? Why am I permitted to fatigue you, 
 as the representative of a slaveholding State, 
 with the discussion of the nugw canorce (for so 
 I think them) that have been forced into this 
 debate contrary to all the remonstrances of 
 taste and prudence ? Do gentlemen perceive 
 the consequences to which their arguments 
 must lead, if they are of any value ? Do they 
 reflect that they lead to emancipation in the 
 old United States or to an exclusion of Dela- 
 ware, Maryland, and all the South, and a great 
 portion of the West, from the Union ? 
 
 My honorable friend from Virginia, sir, has 
 no business here, if this disorganizing creed be 
 the production of any thing but a heated brain. 
 The State to which I belong must " perform a 
 lustration " must purge and purify herself from 
 the feculence of civil slavery, and emulate the 
 States of the North in their zeal for throwing 
 down the gloomy idol which we are said to 
 worship, before her Senators can have any title 
 to appear in this high assembly. It will be in 
 vain to urge that the old United States are ex- 
 ceptions to the rule ; or,, rather, (as the gentle- 
 men express it,) that they have no disposition 
 to apply the rule to them. There can be no 
 exceptions, by implication only, to such a rule ; 
 and expressions which justify the exemption of 
 the old States by inference, will justify the ex- 
 emption of Missouri, unless they point exclu- 
 sively to them, as I have shown they do not. 
 The guarded manner, too, in which some of the 
 
 gentlemen have occasionally expressed them- 
 selves on this subject, is somewhat alarming. 
 They have no disposition to meddle with sla- 
 very in the old United States. Perhaps not ; 
 but who shall answer for their successors? 
 Who shall furnish a pledge that the principle, 
 once ingrafted into the constitution, will not 
 grow, and spread, and fructify, and overshadow 
 the whole land ? ' It is the natural office of such 
 a principle to wrestle with slavery, wheresoever 
 it finds it. New States, colonized by the apos- 
 tles of this principle, will enable it to set on 
 foot a fanatical crusade against all who still 
 continue to tolerate it, although no practicable 
 means are pointed out by which they can get 
 rid of it consistently with their own safety. 
 At any rate, a present forbearing disposition, in 
 a few or in many, is not a security upon which 
 much reliance can be placed, upon a subject as 
 to which so many selfish interests and ardent 
 feelings are connected with the cold calculations 
 of policy. Admitting, however, that the old 
 United States are in no danger from this prin- 
 ciple, why is it so ? There can be no other 
 answer, (which these zealous enemies of slavery 
 can use,) than, that the constitution recognizes 
 slavery as existing, or capable of existing in 
 those States. The constitution, then, admits 
 that slavery and a republican form of govern- 
 ment are not incongruous. It associates and 
 binds them up together, and repudiates this 
 wild imagination which the gentlemen have 
 pressed upon us with such an air of triumph. 
 But, sir, the constitution does more, as I have 
 heretofore proved. It concedes that slavery 
 may exist in a new State, as well as in an old 
 one, since the language in which it recognizes 
 slavery comprehends new States .as well as 
 actual. I trust, then, that I shall be forgiven 
 if I suggest that no eccentricity in argument 
 can be more trying to human patience than a 
 formal assertion that a constitution, to which 
 slaveholding States were $he most numerous 
 parties, in which slaves are treated as property 
 as well as persons, and provision is made for 
 the security of that property, and even for an 
 augmentation of it, by a temporary importation 
 from Africa, a clause commanding Congress to 
 guarantee a republican form of government to 
 those very States, as well as to others, author- 
 izes you to determine that slavery and a repub- 
 lican form of government cannot co-exist. 
 
 But if a republican form of government is 
 that in which all the men have a share in the 
 public power, the slaveholding States will not 
 alone retire from the Union. The constitutions 
 of some of the other States do not sanction 
 universal suffrage, or universal eligibility. They 
 require citizenship, and age, and a certain 
 amount of property, to give a title to vote or to 
 be voted for; and they who have not those 
 (jualitications are just as much disfranchised, 
 with regard to the Government and its power, 
 as if they were slaves. They have civil rights, 
 indeed, (and so have slaves, in a less degree,) 
 but they have no share in the Government.
 
 448 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 Restriction on the State of Missouri. 
 
 [FEBRUARY, 1820. 
 
 Their province is to obey the laws, not to assist 
 in making them. All such States must, there- 
 fore, be forisfamiliated with Virginia and the 
 rest, or change their system ; for the consti- 
 tution, being absolutely silent on those subjects, 
 will afford them no -protection. The Union 
 might thus be reduced from a Union to a 
 unit. -Who does not see that such conclusions 
 flow from false notions ; that the true theory 
 of a republican Government is mistaken ; and 
 that, in such a Government, rights, political and 
 civil, may be qualified by the fundamental law, 
 upon such inducements as the freemen of the 
 country deem sufficient ? That civil rights may 
 be qualified, as well as political, is proved by a 
 thousand examples. Minors, resident aliens, 
 who are in a course of naturalization the other 
 sex, whether maids, or wives, or widows, fur- 
 nish sufficient practical proof of this. 
 
 Again, if we are to entertain these hopeful ab- 
 stractions, and to resolve all establishments into 
 their imaginary elements, in order to recast 
 them upon some Utopian plan, and if it be true 
 that all the men in a republican Government 
 must help to wield its power, and be equal in 
 rights, I beg leave to ask the honorable gentle- 
 man from New Hampshire and why not all 
 the women? They, too, are God's creatures, 
 and not only very fair, but very rational crea- 
 tures ; and our great ancestor, if we are to credit 
 Milton, accounted them the " wisest, virtuous- 
 est, discreetest, best ;" although, to say the 
 truth, he had but one specimen from which to 
 draw his conclusion, and, possibly, if he had 
 had more, would not have drawn it at all. They 
 have, moreover, acknowledged civil rights in 
 abundance, and, upon abstract principles, more 
 than their masculine rulers allow them, in fact. 
 Some monarchies, too, do not exclude them 
 from the throne. We have all read of Eliza- 
 beth of England, of Catharine of Russia, of Se- 
 miramis, and Zenobia, and a long list of royal 
 and imperial dames, about as good as an equal 
 list of royal and imperial lords. Why is it that 
 their exclusion from the power of a popular 
 Government is not destructive of its republican 
 character ? I do not address this question to 
 the honorable gentleman's gallantry, but to his 
 abstraction, and his theories, and his notions of 
 the infinite perfectibility of human institutions, 
 borrowed from Godwin, and the turbulent 
 philosophers of France. For my own part, sir, 
 if I may have leave to say so much in the 
 presence of this mixed, uncommon audience, I 
 confess I am no friend to female government, 
 unless, indeed, it be that which reposes on gen- 
 tleness, add modesty, and virtue, and feminine 
 grace and delicacy ; and how powerful a gov- 
 ernment that is, we have all of us, as I suspect, 
 at some time or other, experienced. But if the 
 ultra republican doctrines which have now been 
 broached should ever gain ground among us, I 
 should not be surprised if some romantic re- 
 former, treading in the footsteps of Mrs. Wol- 
 stonecraft, should propose to repeal our repub- 
 lican law salique, and claim for our wives and 
 
 daughters a full participation in political power, 
 and to add to it that domestie power which, in 
 some families, as I have heard, is as absolute and 
 unrepublican as any power can be. 
 
 I have thus far allowed the honorable gen- 
 tlemen to avail themselves of their assumption 
 that the constitutional command to guarantee 
 to the States a republican form of government, 
 gives power to coerce those States in the ad- 
 justment of the details of their constitutions 
 upon theoretical speculations. But, surely, it 
 is passing strange that any man, who thinks at 
 all, can view this salutary command as the 
 wer so monstrous ; or look at it in 
 
 any other light than as a protecting mandate to 
 Congress to interpose with the force and author- 
 ity of the Union against that violence and usur- 
 pation by which a member of it might other- 
 wise be oppressed by profligate and powerful 
 individuals, or ambitious and unprincipled fac- 
 tions. 
 
 In a word, the resort to this portion of the 
 constitution for an argument in favor of the 
 proposed restriction, is one of those extrava- 
 gances (I hope L shall not offend by this ex- 
 pression) which may excite our admiration, but 
 cannot call for a very rigorous refutation. I 
 have dealt with it accordingly, and have now 
 done with it. 
 
 We are next invited to study that clause of 
 the constitution which relates to the migration 
 or importation, before the year 1808, of such 
 persons as any of the States then existing should 
 think proper to admit. It runs thus . " The mi- 
 gration or importation of such persons, as any of 
 the States now existing shall think proper to 
 admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress 
 prior to the year one thousand eight hundred 
 and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on 
 such importation not exceeding ten dollars for 
 each person." 
 
 It is said that this clause empowers Congress, 
 after the year 1808, to prohibit the passage of 
 slaves from State to State, and the word " mi- 
 gration" is relied upon for that purpose. 
 
 I will not say that the proof of the existence 
 of a power by a clause which, as far as it goes 
 denies it, is always inadmissible ; but I will say- 
 that it is always feeble. On this occasion, it 
 is singularly so. The power, in an affirmative 
 shape, cannot be found in the constitution ; or, 
 if it can, it is equivocal and unsatisfactory. 
 How do the gentlemen supply this deficiency ? 
 By the aid of a negative provision in an article 
 of the constitution, in which many restrictions 
 are inserted ex abundanti cautela, from which 
 it is plainly impossible to infer that the power 
 to which they apply would otherwise have ex- 
 isted. Thus " No bill of attainder or ex post 
 facto law shall be passed." Take away the re- 
 striction, could Congress pass a bill of attainder, 
 the trial by jury in criminal cases being ex- 
 pressly secured by the constitution ? The infer- 
 ence, therefore, from the prohibition in ques- 
 tion, whatever may be its meaning, to the 
 power which it is supposed to restrain, but
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 449 
 
 FEBRUARY, 1820.] 
 
 Restriction on the State of Missouri. 
 
 [SENATE. 
 
 which you cannot lay your finger upon with 
 any pretensions to certainty, must he a very 
 doubtful one. But the import of the prohibi- 
 tion is also doubtful, as the gentlemen them- 
 selves admit. So that a doubtful power is to be 
 made certain by a yet more doubtful negative 
 upon power or rather, a doubtful negative, 
 where .there is no evidence of corresponding 
 affirmative, is to make out the affirmative and 
 to justify us in acting upon it, in a matter of 
 such high moment, that questionable power 
 should not dare to approach it. If the negative 
 were perfectly clear in its import, the conclu- 
 sion which has been drawn from it would he 
 rash, because it might have proceeded, as some 
 of the negatives in whose company it is found 
 evidently did proceed, from great anxiety to 
 prevent such assumptions of authority as are 
 now attempted. But, when it is conceded that 
 the supposed import of this negative (as to the 
 term migration) is ambiguous, and that it may 
 have been used in a very different sense from 
 that which is imputed to it, the conclusion ac- 
 quires a character of boldness, which, however 
 some may admire, the wise and reflecting will 
 not fail to condemn. 
 
 In the construction of this clause, the first re- 
 mark that occurs is, that the word migration 
 is associated with the word importation. I do 
 not insist that noscitur a sociis is as good a rule 
 in matters of interpretation as in common life ; 
 but it is, nevertheless, of considerable weight 
 when the associated words are not qualified by 
 any phrases that disturb the effect of their fel- 
 lowship ; and unless it announces, (as in this 
 case it does not,) by specific phrases combined 
 with the associated term, a different intention. 
 Moreover, the ordinary unrestricted import of 
 the word migration is what I have here sup- 
 posed. A removal from district to district, 
 within the same jurisdiction, is never denomi- 
 nated a migration of persons. I will concede to 
 the honorable gentlemen, if they will accept the 
 concession, that ants may he said to migrate 
 when they go from one ant-hill to another at no 
 great distance from it. But even then they could 
 not be said to migrate, if each ant-hill was their 
 home in virtue of some federal compact with 
 insects like themselves. But, however this 
 may be, it should seem to be certain that hu- 
 man beings do not migrate, in the sense of the 
 constitution, simply because they transplant 
 themselves from one place, to which that con- 
 stitution extends, to another which it equally 
 covers. 
 
 If this word migration apply to freemen, and 
 not to slaves, it would be clear that removal 
 from State to State would not be comprehended 
 within it. "Why, then, if you choose to apply 
 it to slaves, does it take another meaning as to 
 the place from whence they are to come? 
 
 Sir, if we once depart from the usual accepta- 
 tion of this term, fortified as it is by its union 
 with another in which there is nothing in this 
 respect equivocal, will gentlemen please to in- 
 timate the point at which we are to stop ? Mi- 
 VOL. VL 29 
 
 [ gration means, as they contend, a removal from 
 State to State, within the pale of the common 
 Government. Why not a removal, also, from 
 county to county within a particular State 
 from plantation to plantation from farm to 
 farm from hovel to hovel ? Why not any ex- 
 ertion of the power of locomotion? I protest 
 I do not see, if this arbitrary limitation of the 
 natural sense of the term migration^ warrant- 
 able, that a person to whom it applies may not 
 be compelled to remain immovable all the days 
 of his life (which could not well be many) in 
 the very spot, literally speaking, in which it 
 was his good or his bad fortune to be born. 
 
 Whatever may be the latitude in which the 
 word " persons" is capable of being received, it 
 is not denied that the word " importation" in- 
 dicates a bringing in from a jurisdiction foreign 
 to the United States. The two termini of the 
 importation, here spoken of, are a foreign coun- 
 try and the American Union the first the ter- 
 minus a quo, the second the terminus ad quern. 
 The word migration stands in simple connec- 
 tion with it, and, of course, is left to the full in- 
 fluence of that connection. The natural con- 
 clusion is, that the same termini belong to 
 each, or, in other words, that if the importation 
 must be abroad, so also must be the migration 
 no other termini being assigned to the one 
 which are not manifestly characteristic of the 
 other. This conclusion is so obvious, that to 
 repel it, the word migration requires, as an ap- 
 pendage, explanatory phraseology, giving to it 
 a different beginning from that of importation. 
 To justify the conclusion that it was intended 
 to mean a removal from State to State, each 
 within the sphere of the constitution in which 
 it is used, the addition of the words from one 
 to another Slate in this Union, were indispensa- 
 ble. By the omission of these words, the word 
 " migration" is compelled to take every sense 
 of which it is fairly susceptible from its immedi- 
 ate neighbor " importatiqn." In this view it 
 means a coming, as "importation" means a 
 bringing, from a foreign jurisdiction into the 
 United States. That it is susceptible of this 
 meaning, nobody doubts. I go further. It can 
 have no other meaning in the place in which 
 it is found. It is found in the Constitution of 
 this Union which, when it speaks of migra- 
 tion as of a general concern, must be supposed 
 to have in view a migration into the domain 
 which itself embraces as a General Govern- 
 ment. 
 
 Migration, then, even if it comprehends 
 slaves, does not mean the removal of them from 
 State to State, but means the coming of slaves 
 from places beyond their limits and their 
 power. And if this be so, the gentlemen gain 
 nothing for their argument by showing that 
 slaves were the objects of this term. 
 
 An honorable gentleman from Rhode Island, 
 (Mr. BURRILL,) whose speech was distinguished 
 for its ability, and for an admirable force of 
 reasoning, as well as by the moderation and 
 mildness of its spirit, informed us r with less
 
 450 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 The Compromise Offered. 
 
 [FEBBUARY, 1820. 
 
 discretion than in general he exhibited, that the 
 word "migration" was introduced into this 
 clause at the instance of some of the Southern 
 States, who wished by its instrumentality to 
 guard against a prohibition by Congress of the 
 passage into those States of slaves from other 
 States.* He has given us no authority for this 
 supposition, and it is, therefore, a gratuitous 
 one. How improbable it is, a moment's reflec- 
 tion will convince him. The African slave 
 trade being open during the whole of the time 
 to which the entire clause in question referred, 
 such a purpose could scarcely be entertained ; 
 but if it had been entertained, and there was 
 believed to be a necessity for securing it, by a 
 restriction upon the power of Congress to in- 
 terfere with it, is it possible that they who 
 deemed it important would have contented 
 themselves with a vague restraint, which was 
 calculated to operate in almost any other man- 
 ner than that which they desired ? If fear and 
 jealousy, such as the honorable gentleman has 
 described, had dictated this provision, a better 
 term than that of " migration," simple and un- 
 qualified, and joined, too, with the word " im- 
 portation," would have been found to tranquillize 
 those fears and satisfy that jealousy. Fear and 
 jealousy are watchful, and are rarely seen to 
 accept a security short of their object, and less 
 rarely to shape that security, of their own ac- 
 cord, in such a way as to make it no security at 
 all. They always seek an explicit guarantee ; 
 and that this is not such a guarantee this de- 
 bate has proved, if it has proved nothing else. 
 
 Sir, I shall not be understood, by what I have 
 said, to admit that the word migration refers to 
 slaves. I have contended, only, that if it did 
 refer to slaves, it is, in this clause, synonymous 
 with importation ; and that it cannot mean the 
 mere passage of slaves, with or without their 
 masters, from one State in the Union to an- 
 other. 
 
 But I now deny that it refers to slaves at all. 
 I am not for any man's opinions or his histories 
 upon this subject. I am not accustomed jurare 
 in verba magistri. I shall take the clause as I 
 find it, and do my best to interpret it. * * 
 
 [NOTE. After going through with that part of his 
 argument relating to this clause of the constitution, 
 which it is impossible to restore from the imperfect 
 notes, Mr. Pinkney concluded hy expressing a hope 
 that (what he deemed) the perilous principles urged 
 by those in favor of the restriction upon the new 
 
 * Mr. Madison has told the reason told it in that letter to 
 Mr. Robert Walsh, which has been mentioned. It was put 
 in for the ease of some consciences in the convention men 
 who could not tolerate the word slave, in the constitution ; 
 and, by an easy extension of that feeling, equally objected 
 to any equivalent phrase. For their ease, " migration'" was 
 Added to " importation" while persons imported were the 
 only ones intended, but whose importation they could un- 
 derstand as a species of migration ; and so find in an exple- 
 tive a relief for their consciences. It was a designed, but a 
 forced ambiguity, the only one in the constitution, and 
 which has been a puzzle to many. 
 
 State would he disavowed or explained, or that, at all 
 events, the application of them to the subject under 
 discussion would not be pressed, but that it might be 
 disposed of in a manner satisfactory to all, by a pros 
 pective prohibition of slavery in the territory to the 
 north and west of Missouri.] 
 
 When Mr. PINKXEY had concluded, the sub- 
 ject was postponed, on the motion of Mr. OTIS. 
 
 "WEDNESDAY, February 16. 
 The Missouri Question. 
 
 The Senate resumed, as in Committee of the 
 Whole, (Mr. BXJBRILL in the Chair,) the consid- 
 eration of the Missouri question. 
 
 Mr. KING, of New York, again rose, and 
 spoke more than one hour in support of the 
 opinions which he had previously advanced on 
 the right and expediency of restricting Missouri 
 as to slavery, and in answer to the gentlemen 
 who had replied to his previous remarks. 
 
 Mr. LOGAN, of Kentucky, followed, and spoke 
 a short time in reply to Mr. KING. 
 
 Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina, spoke an hour 
 in reply to Mr. KING. 
 
 Mr. LLOYD likewise spoke a short time in 
 reply to Mr. KING. 
 
 Mr. KING, of New York, Mr. PINKNEY, Mr. 
 BARBOUR, and Mr. MELLEN, respectively added 
 a few remarks ; when the question was taken 
 on concurring in the amendment reported by 
 the Judiciary Committee, (to unite the Maine 
 and Missouri bills in one bill,) and decided in 
 the affirmative, by yeas and nays, as follows : 
 
 For uniting the bills. Messrs. Barhour, Brown, 
 Eaton, Edwards, Elliot, Gaillard, Johnson of Ken- 
 tucky, Johnson of Louisiana, King of Alabama, 
 Leake, Lloyd, Logan, Macon, Pinkney, Pleasants, 
 Smith, Stokes, Taylor, Thomas, Walker of Alabama, 
 Walker of Georgia, Williams of Mississippi, and Wil- 
 liams of Tennessee 23. 
 
 Against uniting the bills. Messrs. Burrill, Dana, 
 Dickerson, Horsey, Hunter, King of New York, Lan- 
 man, Lowrie, Mellen, Morrill, Noble, Otis, Palmer, 
 Parrott, Roberts, Ruggles, Sanford, Tichenor, Trim- 
 ble, Van Dyke, and Wilson 21. 
 
 The Compromise Offered. 
 
 Mr. THOMAS, of Illinois, then offered an 
 amendment to the Missouri branch of the bill, 
 proposing, in substance, to prohibit slavery in 
 all the territory beyond the Mississippi, north 
 of thirty-six and a half degrees of north lati- 
 tude, excepting within the limits of the pro- 
 posed State of Missouri. 
 
 Mr. BARBOUE, of Virginia, moved to amend 
 the amendment by striking out thirty-six and a 
 half degrees, and inserting, as the line north of 
 which slavery should hereafter be excluded, the 
 fortieth degree of north latitude. 
 
 The motion was supported by the mover, and 
 opposed by Mr. EDWARDS, of Illinois ; and after 
 a short discussion, the motion was negatived 
 three or four only rising in favor of it. 
 
 Mr. EATON then offered, as a substitute to 
 Mr. THOMAS'S amendment, a section prescribing 
 the same limits beyond which slavery shall not
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 451 
 
 FEBRUARY, 1820.] 
 
 Missouri State Bill. 
 
 [SENATE. 
 
 be allowed, but made applicable to the same, 
 only " while said portion of country remains a 
 Territory." A substitute for the amendment 
 not being in order, according to the rules of the 
 Senate, Mr. EATON withdrew his proposition. 
 
 Mr. TRIMBLE, of Ohio, next proposed to 
 amend Mr. THOMAS'S amendment, substantially, 
 by making it to apply to all the country west 
 of the Mississippi, except so much as is com- 
 prehended within the State of Louisiana and 
 the proposed State of Missouri. Kejected. 
 
 After considerable discussion, but before the 
 question was put on the amendment of Mr. 
 THOMAS, the subject was postponed until to- 
 morrow ; and the Senate adjourned. 
 
 THURSDAY, February, 17. 
 Missouri State Bill. 
 
 THE COMPROMISE. 
 
 The following amendment, offered by Mr. 
 THOMAS, and pending when the Senate ad- 
 journed yesterday, being still under considera- 
 tion : 
 
 " And be it further enacted, That the sixth article 
 of compact of the ordinance of Congress, passed on 
 the thirteenth day of July, one thousand seven hun- 
 dred and eighty-seven, for the government of the 
 territory of the United States northwest of the river 
 Ohio, shall, to all intents and purposes, be, and hereby 
 is, deemed and held applicable to, and shall have full 
 force and effect in and over, all that tract of country 
 ceded by France to the United States, under the name 
 of Louisiana, which lies north of thirty-six degrees 
 and thirty minutes north latitude, excepting only such 
 part thereof as is included within the limits of the 
 State contemplated by this act." 
 
 Mr. THOMAS withdrew this amendment, and 
 offered the following as a new section : 
 
 " And be it further enacted, That, in all that terri- 
 tory ceded by France to the United States, under the 
 name of Louisiana, which lies north of thirty-six de- 
 grees and thirty minutes north latitude, excepting 
 only such part thereof as is included within the lim- 
 its of the State contemplated by this act, slavery and 
 involuntary servitude, otherwise than in the punish- 
 ment of crimes whereof the party shall have been 
 duly convicted, shall be and is hereby forever pro- 
 hibited : Provided, always, That any person escaping 
 into the same, from whom labor or service is lawfully 
 claimed in any State or Territory of the United 
 States, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed and 
 conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or 
 service as aforesaid." 
 
 Mr. TRIMBLE moved to amend said proposed 
 amendment, by striking out after the word 
 " that," in the first line, the following : " terri- 
 tory ceded by France to the United States, un- 
 der the name of Louisiana, which lies north of 
 thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes north lat- 
 itude, excepting only such part thereof as is 
 included within the limits of the State con- 
 templated by this act ; " and inserting in lieu 
 thereof the following : "All that part of Louis- 
 iana (as ceded by France to the United States) 
 which lies west of the Mississippi River, except 
 that part which is contained in the State of 
 
 Louisiana, and except that part of the territory 
 which lies north of the State of Louisiana, and 
 east of the seventeenth or ninety-fourth degree 
 of west longitude, agreeably to Melish's map, 
 and south of the line which may be established 
 for the northern boundary for the proposed 
 State of Missouri ; " (in substance, to exclude 
 slavery from the whole country west of the 
 Mississippi, except in Louisiana, Arkansas, and 
 Missouri.) 
 
 This motion was, after some discussion, de- 
 cided in the negative, by yeas and nays, as fol- 
 lows: 
 
 For Mr. Trimble's amendment. Messrs. Burrill, 
 Dana, Dickerson, Horsey, Hunter, King of New 
 York, Lanman, Lowrie, Mellen, Morrill, Otis, Palm- 
 er, Parrott, Roberts, Ruggles, Sanford, Tichenor, 
 Trimble, Van Dyke, and Wilson 20. 
 
 Against zV. Messrs. Barbour, Brown, Eaton, Elliot, 
 Edwards, Gaillard, Johnson of Kentucky, Johnson of 
 Louisiana, King of Alabama, Leake, Lloyd, Logan, 
 Macon, Noble, Pinkney, Pleasants, Smith, Stokes, 
 Taylor, Thomas, Walker of Alabama, Walker of 
 Georgia, Williams of Mississippi, and Williams of 
 Tennessee 24. 
 
 The question then recurred on Mr. THOM- 
 AS'S amendment, which is in the following 
 words : 
 
 " And be it further enacted, That in all that terri- 
 tory ceded by France to the United States, under the 
 name of Louisiana, which lies north of thirty-six de- 
 grees and thirty minutes north latitude, excepting 
 only such part thereof as is included within the lim- 
 its of the State contemplated by this act, slavery and 
 involuntary servitude, otherwise than in the punish- 
 ment of crimes whereof the party shall have been 
 duly convicted, shall be and is hereby forever pro- 
 hibited : Provided, always, That any person escaping 
 into the same, from whom labor or service is lawfully 
 claimed in any State or Territory of the United 
 States, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed, and 
 conveyed to the person claiming .his or her labor or 
 service as aforesaid." ^ 
 
 On the adoption of this amendment the ques- 
 tion was taken by yeas and nays, and deter- 
 mined in the affirmative, as follows : 
 
 For the amendment. Messrs. Brown, Bnrrill, Dana, 
 Dickerson, Eaton, Edwards, Horsey, Hunter, John- 
 son of Kentucky, Johnson of Louisiana, King of Ala- 
 bama, King of New York, Lanman, Leake, Lloyd, 
 Logan, Lowrie, Mellen, Morrill, Otis, Palmer, Parrott, 
 Pinkney, Roberts, Ruggles, Sanford, Stokes, Thomas, 
 Tichenor, Trimble, Van Dyke, Walker of Alabama, 
 Williams of Tennessee, and Wilson 34. 
 
 Against the amendment. Messrs. Barbour, Elliot, 
 Gaillard, Macon, Noble, Pleasants, Smith, Taylor, 
 Walker of Georgia, and Williams of Mississippi 10. 
 
 Mr. TRIMBLE then moved to amend the bill, 
 so as to bring the north line of the State of 
 Missouri about half a degree south of the line 
 proposed ; with the view, as he stated, sub- 
 stantially, to give to the State which shall here- 
 after be formed north of the Missouri, a share 
 of the fine valley of the Des Moines, of which 
 he spoke from personal knowledge, particularly 
 as the Missouri State will possess both sides of 
 the Missouri Kiver, which runs nearly through
 
 452 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 The Missouri Bill. 
 
 [MAKOH, 1820. 
 
 its middle, from its east to its western boun- 
 dary. 
 
 This motion was negatived ; and, after some 
 other amendments necessary to make the parts 
 of the bill conform to each other, the question 
 was taken on ordering the bill, as amended, to 
 be engrossed and read a third time, and decided 
 by yeas and nays, as follows : 
 
 YEAS. Messrs. Barbonr, Brown, Eaton, Edwards, 
 Elliot, Gaillard, Horsey, Hunter, Johnson of Ken- 
 tucky, Johnson of Louisiana, King of Alabama, 
 Leake, Lloyd, Logan, Parrott, Pinkney, Pleasants, 
 Stokes, Thomas, Van Dyke, Walker of Alabama, 
 Walker of Georgia, Williams of Mississippi, Williams 
 of Tennessee 24. 
 
 NAYS. Messrs. Burrill, Dana, Dickerson, King of 
 New York, Lanman, Lowrie, Macon, Mellen, Morrill, 
 Noble, Otis, Palmer, Roberts, Ruggles, Sanford, 
 Smith, Taylor, Tichenor, Trimble, and Wilson 20. 
 
 So the bill was ordered to be engrossed and 
 read a third time to-morrow. 
 
 MONDAY, February 28. 
 The Maine Mil. 
 
 The House disagrees to the Senate's amend- 
 ments to the Maine bill, and a motion had been 
 made in the Senate to recede. 
 
 [These amendments embrace two distinct 
 measures ; the one admitting Missouri into the 
 Union, the other prohibiting the future trans- 
 portation of slaves into the Territories of the 
 United States.] 
 
 The question of order, depending on the last 
 adjournment, was, after a few remarks on it by 
 Mr. WILSON, by a vote of 22 to 17, decided in 
 favor of the divisibility of the question of re- 
 cession from the amendments of the Senate. 
 
 The question was then taken, without debate, 
 on receding from so much of the amendments 
 of the Senate as provides for the admission of 
 Missouri into the Union, and decided as fol- 
 lows: 
 
 For receding. Messrs. Burrill, Dana, Dickerson, 
 Horsey, Hunter, King of New York, Lanman, Low- 
 rie, Mellen, Morrill, Noble, Otis, Palmer, Parrott, 
 Roberts, Ruggles, Sanford, Tichenor, Trimble, Van 
 Dyke, and Wilson 21. 
 
 Against receding. Messrs. Barbour, Brown, Eaton, 
 Edwards, Elliot, Gaillard, Johnson of Kentucky, 
 Johnson of Louisiana, King of Alabama, Leake, 
 Lloyd, Logan, Macon, Pinkney, Pleasants, Smith, 
 Stokes, Taylor, Thomas, Walke'r of Alabama, Walk- 
 er of Georgia, Williams of Mississippi, and Williams 
 of Tennessee 23. 
 
 So the Senate refused (every member of the 
 Senate being in his seat) to recede from this 
 part of its amendments. 
 
 The question was then taken, also without 
 debate, on the receding from so much as regards 
 the inhibition of slavery in the Territories of 
 the United States north of 86 degrees 30 min- 
 utes north latitude, and decided as follows : 
 
 YEAS. Messrs. Barbour, Elliot, Gaillard, Macon, 
 Noble, Pleasants, Sanford, Smith, Taylor, Walker of 
 Georgia, and Williams of Mississippi 11. 
 
 NATS. Messrs. Brown, Burrill, Dana, Dickerson, 
 Eaton, Edwards, Horsey, Hunter, Johnson of Ken- 
 tucky, Johnson of Louisiana, King of Alabama, King 
 of New York, Lanman, Leake, Lloyd, Logan, Low- 
 rie, Mellen, Morrill, Otis, Palmer, Parrott, Pinkney, 
 Roberts, Ruggles, Stokes, Thomas, Tichenor, Trim- 
 ble, Van Dyke, Walker of Alabama, Williams of 
 Tennessee, and Wilson 33. 
 
 So the Senate refused to recede from this or 
 any part of its amendments to the bill for the 
 admission of Maine into the Union. 
 
 On motion of Mr. BARBOUR, the Senate then 
 determined to insist on the first clause of its 
 amendments ; and, on motion of Mr. EGBERTS, 
 it determined, in like manner, to insist on the 
 latter clause of its amendments. And the Sec- 
 retary was instructed to inform the House of 
 Representatives accordingly. 
 
 The Senate was about to adjourn, when the 
 Clerk of the House of Representatives pre- 
 sented himself at the door, with a message, that 
 the House of Representatives had insisted on 
 their disagreement to the amendments of the 
 Senate to the Maine bill. 
 
 Mr. THOMAS then moved that a committee of 
 conference be appointed, to confer with the 
 House of Representatives on the subject. 
 
 Hereupon commenced a debate, character- 
 ized by some vehemence and warm feeling. 
 
 Mr. KING, of Alabama, and Mr. SMITH, were 
 in favor of adhesion, which forecloses confer- 
 ence ; Mr. KING, of New York, spoke in expla- 
 nation, and Messrs. BARBOUR, THOMAS, JOHN- 
 SON, of Kentucky, LOWRIE, MORRILL, DANA, 
 EATON, MAOON, and MELLEN, successively sup- 
 ported the conference. 
 
 The debate resulted in this : that a motion 
 for deferring the question was negatived, and 
 the Senate voted, not without opposition, but 
 without dividing, to request a conference with 
 the House of Representatives. 
 
 The Senate then balloted for managers there- 
 of on their part, and Messrs. THOMAS, PINKNEY, 
 and BARBOUR, were duly elected. 
 
 THURSDAY, March 2. 
 The Missouri Bill The Restriction agreed to 
 
 by the House; motion in ihe Senate to strike 
 
 it out. 
 
 The bill was, on motion of Mr. BARBOTTR, im- 
 mediately taken up, and read a first and second 
 time ; and, at his instance also, was then forth- 
 with taken up as in Committee of the Whole. 
 
 Mr. BARBOUR moved to strike out of section 
 fonr, line twenty-two, after the word " and " 
 where it first occurs in this line, to the end of 
 the thirtieth line, the following : 
 
 " And shall ordain and establish, that there shall 
 be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the 
 said State, otherwise than in the punishment of 
 crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly con- 
 victed : Provided, always, That any person escaping 
 into the same, from whom labor or service is lawfully 
 claimed in any other State, such fugitive may be 
 lawfully reclaimed, and conveyed to the person claim-
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 453 
 
 MARCH, 1820.] 
 
 The Missouri Bill. 
 
 [SENATE. 
 
 ing his or her lubor or service, as aforesaid : Provided, 
 nevertheless, That the said provision shall not be con- 
 strued to alter the condition or civil rights of any 
 person now held to service or labor in the said Ter- 
 ritory. A nd pt-ovided also." 
 
 The subject, Mr. B. said, had been so fully 
 discussed, and so often passed upon, and the 
 yeas anxl nays recorded on it, that he thought 
 it unnecessary to say any thing on the subject ; 
 and he should forbear even the asking for the 
 yeas and nays upon it. 
 
 Mr. KIXG, of New York, said he was per- 
 fectly ready to concur in the sentiment expressed 
 by the gentleman from Virginia. He had no 
 idea of producing delay in bringing this matter 
 to a conclusion, which only would be the effect 
 of discussion ; but was ready to concur in any 
 course which would lead to its speedy termina- 
 tion. 
 
 Mr. HORSEY said, that, having been necessa- 
 rily absent when this question was before de- 
 cided, he wished now to be indulged with an 
 opportunity of recording his vote. 
 
 The yeas and nays were accordingly ordered 
 to be taken, and stood yeas 27, nays 15, as 
 follows : 
 
 YEAS. Messrs. Barbonr, Brown, Eaton, Edwards, 
 Elliot, Gaillard, Horsey, Hunter, Johnson of Ken- 
 tucky, Johnson of Louisiana, King of Alabama, Lau- 
 ra an, Leake, Lloyd, Logan, Macon, Parrott., Pinkney, 
 Pleasants, Smith, Stokes, Thomas, Van Dyke, Walk- 
 er of Alabama, Walker of Georgia, Williams of Mis- 
 sissippi, and Williams of Tennessee. 
 
 NAYS. Messrs. Burrill, Dana, Dickerson, King of 
 New York, Lowrie, Mellen, Morrill, Noble, Otis, 
 Roberts, Ruggles, Sanford, Taylor, Trimble, and 
 Wilson. 
 
 On motion by Mr. THOMAS, it was agreed 
 further to amend the bill, by adding thereto 
 the following section : 
 
 " SEC. 8. And be it further enacted, That, in all 
 that territory ceded by France to the United States, 
 under the name of Louisiana, which lies north of 
 thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes north latitude, 
 not included within the limits of the State contem- 
 plated by this act, slavery and involuntary servitude, 
 otherwise than in the punishment of crimes, whereof 
 the party shall have been duly convicted, shall be, 
 and is hereby, forever prohibited : Provided, always, 
 That any person escaping into the same, from whom 
 labor or service is lawfully claimed in any State or 
 Territory of the United States, such fugitive may be 
 lawfully reclaimed, and conveyed to the person claim- 
 ing his or her labor or service as aforesaid." 
 
 The bill having been thus amended, it was 
 reported to the House accordingly ; and, the 
 first amendment being concurred in, 
 
 Mr. TKIMBLK moved to amend the new section 
 agreed to, as in Committee of the Whole, by 
 striking out therefrom 
 
 "All that territory ceded by France to the United 
 States, under the name of Louisiana, which lies north 
 of thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes north lati- 
 tude, not included within the limits of the State con- 
 templated by this act," and inserting in lien thereof 
 the following : " All that part of Louisiana west of 
 
 the Mississippi, ceded by France to the United States, 
 except the State of Louisiana, the territory included 
 in the proposed State of Missouri, and the Arkansas 
 Territory, east of the seventeenth or ninety-fourth 
 degree of longitude, (agreeably to Melish's map.") 
 
 Mr. TRIMBLE said he would not have offered 
 this amendment, but with the hope that some 
 agreement might take place between the two 
 Houses, and in the belief that that amendment 
 embraced principles on which the two Houses 
 might unite on this subject. When we go into 
 the territory which was uninhabited at the date 
 of the Louisiana treaty, and is yet uninhabited, 
 very few, he believed, entertained scruples as to 
 the constitutionality of the restriction. For 
 his part, he did not see on what principle the 
 constitution could be brought to bear on the 
 subject. He had offered this amendment with 
 a view, should it succeed, to vote for the bill in 
 its present form. He had little doubt that it 
 contained principles on which, were it agreed to, 
 the bill would psiss the other House ; and he was 
 under the impression that it would not succeed 
 on the principle of the amendment of the gentle- 
 man from Illinois, as it now stood. 
 
 The question was then taken, without debate, 
 on Mr. TRIMBLE'S motion to amend the amend- 
 ment, as above stated, and decided as follows : 
 
 YEAS. Messrs. Bnrrill, Dana, Dickerson, King of 
 New York, Lanman, Mellen, Morrill, Otis, Ruggles, 
 Sanford, Trimble, and Wilson 12. 
 
 NATS Messrs. Barbour, Brown, Eaton, Edwards, 
 Elliot, Gaillard, Horsey, Johnson of Kentucky, John- 
 son of Louisiana, King of Alabama, Leake, Lloyd, 
 Logan, Lowrie, Macon, Noble, Palmer, Parrott, 
 Pinkney, Pleasants, Roberts, Smith, Stokes, Taylor, 
 Thomas, Van Dyke, Walker of Alabama, Walker of 
 Georgia, Williams of Mississippi, Williams of Ten- 
 
 Mr. THOMAS'S amendment was then concurred 
 in, as agreed to in Committee of the Whole. 
 
 It was agreed to amend the title by adding 
 thereto, " and to prohibit slavery in certain ter- 
 ritories." 
 
 And the amendments were then ordered to 
 be engrossed, and, with the bill, to be read a 
 third time : it was read a third time accordingly, 
 passed, and sent to the House of Representa- 
 tives, requesting their concurrence in the amend- 
 ments.* 
 
 * The debates and proceedings on the compromise were 
 brief; and free from acerbity, and the vote largely in ito 
 favor : it was the proposed restriction on the State of Mis- 
 souri which so long occupied, and embittered the two Houses, 
 and on which the vote was always close, and strongly marked 
 by a geographical line. No two measures could be more 
 distinct in their natures, or opposite in their features. The 
 restriction applied to a State, the compromise to Territories. 
 The restriction was to prevent the State of Missouri from 
 e verpossessing slaves : the compromise was to divide territory 
 between the free and the slave States. The attempted restric- 
 tion raised the storm of the Missouri controversy ; the com- 
 promise allayed it. Yet the two measures, in these later 
 times, have often been confounded, and eminent public 
 men misplaced with respect to them among the rest, Mr. 
 Madison, in his letter of Nov. 27th, 1819, in reply to Mr.
 
 454 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 The Public Lands. 
 
 [MARCH, 1820. 
 
 FEIDAY, March 3. 
 Maine Bill 
 
 Mr. THOMAS, from the managers on the part 
 of the Senate, at the conference on the subject 
 of the disagreeing votes of the two Houses, on 
 the amendments proposed by the Senate, to the 
 bill, entitled " An act for the admission of the 
 State of Maine into the Union," made the fol- 
 lowing report : 
 
 The Committee of Conference of the Senate and 
 of the House of Eepresentatives, on the subject of 
 the disagreeing votes of the two Houses, upon the 
 bill, entitled " An act for the admission of the State of 
 Maine into the Union," report the following resolution : 
 
 Resolved, 1st. That they recommend to the Senate 
 to recede from their amendments to the said bill. 
 
 2d. That they recommend to the two Houses to 
 agree to strike out of the fourth section of the bill 
 from the. House of Representatives now pending in 
 the Senate, entitled " An act to authorize the people 
 of the Missouri Territory to form a constitution and 
 State government, and for the admission of such 
 State into the Union upon an equal footing with the 
 original States," the following proviso, in the follow- 
 ing words : " And shall ordain and establish, that 
 there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servi- 
 tude otherwise than in the punishment of crimes, 
 whereof the party shall have been duly convicted : 
 Provided, always, That any person escaping into the 
 same, from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed 
 in any other State, such fugitive may be lawfully re- 
 claimed, and conveyed to the person claiming his or 
 her labor or service as aforesaid : Provided, neverthe- 
 less, That the said provision shall not be construed to 
 alter the condition or civil rights of any person now 
 held to service or labor in the said territory." And 
 that the following provision be added to the bill : 
 
 And be it further enacted, That in all that terri- 
 tory ceded by France to the United States, under the 
 name of Louisiana, which lies north of thirty-six de- 
 grees and thirty minutes north latitude, not included 
 within the limits of the State contemplated by this 
 act, slavery and involuntary servitude, otherwise 
 than in the punishment of crimes, whereof the party 
 shall have been duly convicted, shall be, and is here- 
 by, forever prohibited : Provided, always, That any 
 person escaping into the same, from whom labor or 
 service is lawfully claimed in any other State or Ter- 
 ritory of the United States, such "fugitive maybe law- 
 fully reclaimed, and conveyed to the person claiming 
 his or her labor or service as aforesaid. 
 
 The report was read. 
 
 On motion by Mr. THOMAS, 
 
 Resolved, That a further conference be asked 
 on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on 
 the said bill. 
 
 Ordered, That Messrs. THOMAS, BABBOFB, 
 
 Kobert Walsh. That letter has been highly quoted as a 
 letter against the compromise : by looking at its date, it 
 will be seen to have been written three months before the 
 compromise had been mentioned in either House of Con- 
 gress : by looking at its terms, it will be seen that the word 
 compromise is not in it, nor any allusion to such a thing : by 
 following its argument, it will be seen to apply wholly to 
 the removal of slaves to States. And the style of the 
 letter was precisely that of the arguments in Congress 
 against the restriction. 
 
 and PnraxT, be the managers on the part of 
 the Senate. 
 
 Maine Bill 
 
 Mr. THOMAS, from the managers on the part 
 of the Senate, at the conference on the disagree- 
 ing votes of the two Houses on the bill, entitled 
 " An act for the admission of the State of Maine 
 into the Union," made the following report : 
 
 That the Committee of Conference recommend to 
 the two Houses that the word " next" be stricken out 
 of the said bill, and the words " in the year one 
 thousand eight hundred and twenty," be inserted in 
 lieu thereof. 
 
 Whereupon, it was 
 
 Besoloed, That the Senate concur in both the 
 reports of the Committee of Conference ; that 
 they recede from their amendment to the said 
 bill, and that it be amended by striking out of 
 line the third the word " next," and inserting 
 in lieu thereof " one thousand eight hundred 
 and twenty," accordingly. 
 
 Ordered, That the Secretary notify the House 
 of Eepresentatives accordingly, and request their 
 concurrence in the said amendment. 
 
 MONDAY, March 6. 
 The Public Lands. 
 
 The Senate resumed, as in Committee of the 
 Whole, the consideration of the bill making fur- 
 ther provision for the sale of public lands, to- 
 gether with the amendments proposed thereto 
 by Mr. WALKEE, of Alabama, as follows : 
 
 And be it further enacted, That purchasers of pub- 
 lic lands, which have been sold prior to the day 
 
 of next, shall be permitted to forfeit and sur- 
 render the same before the day of final payment, by 
 delivering their certificates to the register, and endors- 
 ing thereon their consent that the land therein de- 
 scribed shall be re-sold : whereupon, the said certifi- 
 cates shall be considered as cancelled ; and the land 
 shall be deemed and taken to have reverted to the 
 United States, and shall be disposed of, in all re- 
 spects, like other reverted or forfeited lands, accord- 
 ing to the provisions of the fourth section of this act ; 
 but, if such lands should be sold for more than one 
 
 dollar and cents per acre, the excess shall be 
 
 paid over to the former certificate-holder : Provided, 
 That such excess shall not be greater than the amount 
 previously paid on such certificate. 
 
 Mr. WALKER submitted a number of argu- 
 ments in support of his amendment, and enter- 
 ed into particular statements of the amount of 
 sales, the prices given in Alabama and else- 
 where, for public lands, the great amount of 
 debt due and becoming due, &c., to show the 
 propriety of affording the relief which his 
 amendment contemplated ; but, as the Senate 
 was this morning thin, and the subject before it 
 of great importance, he hoped its consideration 
 might for the present be postponed. 
 
 Mr. WILSON, though uniformly friendly to the 
 principle of the bill, was willing to defer its con- 
 sideration until the Senate should be full, and 
 moved to postpone it till to-morrow.
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 455 
 
 MARCH, 1820.] 
 
 The. Public Lands. 
 
 [SEJATK. 
 
 Mr. THOMAS proposed a postponement to Wed- 
 nesday next. 
 
 Mr. OTIS was opposed to so distant a post- 
 ponement, as he feared it might endanger the 
 bill, which had already been postponed through 
 all the moods and tenses. It had been lost in 
 the other House, at the last session, after pass- 
 ing this, for want of time. Should it be again 
 defeated from the same cause, it was to be fear- 
 ed that they might bid adieu to all hope of the 
 measure. Mr. O. made a remark or two on the 
 subject of the amendment, to show that, how- 
 ever equitable the relief, it was doubtful whe- 
 ther the measure would be proper before the 
 debt for which the sales were pledged had been 
 paid off. 
 
 Mr. WALKER replied, to obviate the objec- 
 tion of Mr. OTIS; and the postponement was 
 supported by Mr. NOBLE, and opposed by Mr. 
 RUGGLES. 
 
 The motion to postpone to "Wednesday was 
 lost, and the motion for to-morrow prevailed 
 18 to 14 ; but a reconsideration of the vote was 
 subsequently moved and agreed to, and the mo- 
 tion to postpone being then negatived, the Sen- 
 ate resumed the consideration of the bill and 
 amendment. 
 
 Mr. KING, of Alabama, had no hope, from the 
 indications which he saw, that the amendment 
 would be adopted ; but, if the change proposed 
 by the bill should take place, he had no doubt 
 the Legislature would see the necessity of some 
 such relief as the amendment offered. He 
 would now merely call for the yeas and nays on 
 the question. 
 
 The amendment was supported by Messrs. 
 EDWARDS and KING of Alabama, and was op- 
 posed by Messrs. TEIMBLE, LANMAN, and KING 
 of New York, not because opposed to affording 
 the relief contemplated, but from an unwilling- 
 ness to connect it with the present bill, &c. 
 
 The question being taken on the amendment, 
 it was decided by yeas and nays, as follows: 
 
 YEAS. Messrs. Edwards, Johnson of Kentucky, 
 King of Alabama, Logan, Noble, Smith, Thomas, 
 and Walker of Alabama 8. 
 
 NAYS. Messrs. Brown, Burrill, Dana, Dickerson, 
 Eaton, Elliot, Gaillard, Hunter, Johnson of Louisiana, 
 King of New York, Lanman, Leake,. Lowrie, Macon, 
 Mellen, Morrill, Otis, Palmer, Parrott, Pleasants, 
 Ruggles, Sanford, Stokes, Taylor, Trimble, Van 
 Dyke, Williams of Mississippi, Williams of Ten- 
 nessee, and Wilson 29. 
 
 Mr. EDWABDS said, although he was decid- 
 edly opposed to the change in the mode of dis- 
 posing of the public lands, which is provided 
 for by the bill now under consideration, from 
 the strongest convictions, that, while it is cal- 
 culated to operate with peculiar hardship upon 
 those who have not the good fortune to have 
 the present command of money, and to retard 
 the settlement and check the prosperity of the 
 State which he has the honor, in part, to repre- 
 sent, it was also inexpedient, on the part of the 
 Government itself, to place its own intcrc-st so 
 much in the power of moneyed capitalists, who, 
 
 owing to the present temporary scarcity of 
 money, can, by combinations for that purpose, 
 with the utmost facility, put down competition 
 at the public sales, and engross as much of the 
 best lands as they please, upon the lowest terms 
 or minimum price ; yet, if the bill must pass, 
 and I see (said Mr. E.) no prospect of opposing 
 it with success, in this House, I do most sin- 
 cerely hope it will be with such modifications 
 as will produce the least individual hardships 
 and the most general satisfaction ; for, what- 
 ever may have been the zeal with which I have 
 hitherto opposed the measure, I can assure gen- 
 tlemen that it has been no part of my object to 
 excite discontents elsewhere, and that there is 
 no man living who has been more uniformly 
 disposed to discountenance local jealousies, and 
 to cherish a spirit of concord and harmony 
 throughout every part of our common country, 
 than I myself have been. 
 
 My judgment may have deceived me ; my per- 
 sonal interest, however, I well know, cannot have 
 misled me ; for that would have been promot- 
 ed by the contemplated change, which cannot 
 fail to be beneficial to all those who have here- 
 tofore purchased lands which they wish to dis- 
 pose of, or who have money to purchase, with 
 that view ; and hence it is, probably, that we 
 have seen letters from large landholders in th 
 West to members of this body, exhibited as dis- 
 interested testimony in favor of the proposed 
 change, and passing from seat to seat, for the 
 purpose of convincing our minds, not only of 
 its propriety, but of the absolute necessity for 
 its speedy adoption. 
 
 Mr. E. contended, that the present system of 
 disposing of the public lands had been success- 
 fully tested by the experience of many years ; 
 that Ohio and Indiana, in particular, had flour- 
 ished under its operation, and, without any in- 
 jury to the Union, had increased their popula- 
 tion and prosperity with unparalleled rapidity. 
 But, said he, like all other human institutions, it 
 seems that the system had not the necessary 
 perfection to suit it to all times and circum- 
 stances; and it is alleged, as a reason demand- 
 ing the proposed change, that excessive pur- 
 chases were made, during a period of universal 
 delusion, which equally operated upon every 
 thing else, and which no one believes is likely 
 to recur, for a long time to come at least. But, 
 said he, can it be a dictate of wisdom to predi- 
 cate a general system upon a particular and ex- 
 traordinary case, which is gone by, and in all 
 probability will never again occur? Can it be 
 wise to select that moment for abolishing all 
 credit upon the sale of public lands when mo- 
 ney is scarcer than it has ever heretofore been, 
 and thereby to retard the settlement of those 
 lands, at the very time when the state of thing* 
 which produced the supposed evils of the credit 
 system is rapidly disappearing, which is now 
 most certainly the case, as far as I am informed 
 on the subject? Can it be just to withhold 
 from our fellow-citizens, who have not here- 
 tofore purchased any public lands, the oppor-
 
 456 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 The Public Lands. 
 
 [MARCH, 1820. 
 
 tunity of doing so upon the same terms that 
 have been allowed to others? Can it be right, 
 merely because others have heretofore pur- 
 chased injudiciously, during a period of general 
 delusion, to refuse credit to those who may 
 hereafter wish to purchase discreetly, lest they 
 should be tempted to injure themselves, in like 
 manner, when no such delusion exists ? 
 
 But, said he, it is not my purpose to discuss, 
 at large, the merits of the proposed change. I 
 will, at present, content myself with an effort, 
 merely, to shield the present settlers upon pub- 
 lic lands from merciless speculators, whose cu- 
 pidity and avarice would unquestionably be 
 tempted by the improvements which those 
 settlers have made with the sweat of their 
 brows, and to which they have been encour- 
 aged by the conduct of the Government itself; 
 for, though they might be considered as em- 
 braced by the letter of the law which provides 
 against intrusions on public lands, yet, that 
 then- case has not been considered by the Gov- 
 ernment as within the mischiefs intended to be 
 prevented is manifest, not only from the for- 
 bearance to enforce the law, but from the posi- 
 tive rewards which others, in their situation, 
 have received, by the several laws which have 
 heretofore granted to them the same right of 
 pre-emption which I now wish extended to the 
 present settlers. 
 
 The settlements which have been made by 
 this description of our population, so far from 
 injuring in any way the interest of the Govern- 
 ment, have in all cases with which I have been 
 acquainted, (and few have had an opportunity of 
 knowing more upon the subject than myself,) 
 actually benefited it, by enhancing the value of 
 the adjoining lands, and increasing the facilities 
 of settling them. 
 
 Those settlements have been made with the 
 expectation of acquiring the lands including 
 them, under the existing law. The number and 
 value of such improvements are much greater 
 than they would have been had not certain 
 lands been kept out of market much longer than 
 was reasonably anticipated. None of those 
 settlers have supposed that they would have to 
 pay down more than one-fourth of the purchase 
 money upon the tracts which they wish to buy ; 
 few of them will be able to pay more ; the most 
 of them have already opened farms, from which 
 they could reasonably calculate upon paying the 
 future instalments as they would become due. 
 And it does appear to me that it would be both 
 cruel and impolitic to disappoint such expecta- 
 tions, by placing those people, so completely as 
 the proposed change would do, in the power of 
 moneyed speculators. To guard against which, 
 and to prevent those serious discontents, if not 
 commotions, which otherwise must take place, 
 I offer the amendment which I now hold in my 
 hand, and which, so far from being calculated 
 to defeat the bill, cannot, if adopted, fail to con- 
 tribute greatly to its success, by removing some 
 of the most serious and important objections to 
 its passage. 
 
 The amendment is as follows : 
 
 " Be it enacted, c., That every person, or the legal 
 representatives of every person, who has actually in- 
 habited and cultivated, and who now resides upon 
 any tract of land lying in any district established for 
 the sale of public lands, which tract is not rightfully 
 claimed by any other person, such person, so residing 
 as aforesaid, or his legal representative, shall be en- 
 titled to a preference in becoming the purchaser from 
 the United States of such tract of land, at private 
 sale, upon the same terms and conditions, in every 
 respect, as have heretofore been provided, by law, 
 for the sale of other lands sold at private sale : Pro- 
 vided, That no more than one quarter section of 
 land shall be sold to any one individual in virtue of 
 this act, and the same shall be bounded by the sec- 
 tional and divisional lines run, or to be run, accord- 
 ing to law : Provided, also, That no lands reserved 
 from sale by former acts, or lands which have been 
 directed to be sold in town lots, shall be sold under 
 this act. 
 
 " Be it further enacted, That every person claiming 
 a preference in becoming the purchaser of a tract of 
 land in virtue of this act, shall make known his claim 
 by delivering a notice, in writing, to the register of 
 the land office for the flistrict in which the land may 
 lie, wherein he shall particularly designate the quar- 
 ter section he claims ; which notice the register shall 
 file in his office, on receiving twenty -five cents from 
 the person delivering the same. And, in every case 
 where it shall appear to the satisfaction of the regis- 
 ter and receiver of public moneys of the land office, 
 that any person, who has delivered his notice of claim, 
 is entitled, according to the provisions of this act, to 
 a preference in becoming the purchaser of a quarter 
 section of land, such person so entitled shall have a 
 right to enter the said quarter section, or half thereof, 
 with the register of the land office, on producing his 
 receipt from the receiver of public moneys for at least 
 one-twentieth part of the purchase money, as in case 
 of other lands sold at private sale : Provided, That 
 all lands to be sold under this act, which shall not 
 have been previously exposed to public sale, shall be 
 entered with the register at least two weeks before 
 the time which may be appointed for the commence- 
 ment of the public sale thereof. And -every person, 
 having a right of preference in becoming the pur- 
 chaser of a tract of land, who shall fail so to make his 
 entry with the register within the time prescribed, 
 his right shall be forfeited, and the land, by him 
 claimed, shall be offered at public sale with the other 
 public lands in the district to which it belongs." 
 
 Mr. KING, of New York, observed that, if the 
 change of system were favorable to speculators, 
 he should be found in ^ the negative. But, so 
 far from this being the' fact, he considered the 
 change as highly favorable to the poor man ; 
 and he argued at some length, that it was cal- 
 culated to plant in the new country a popula- 
 tion of independent, unembarrassed freeholders ; 
 that by offering the lands in eighty-acre lots, it 
 would place it in the power of almost every 
 man to purchase a freehold, the price of which 
 could be cleared in three years ; that it would 
 cut up speculation and monopoly; that the 
 money paid for the lands would be carried from 
 the State or country from which the purchaser 
 should remove ; that it would prevent the ac- 
 cumulation of an alarming debt, which ex-
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 457 
 
 MARCH, 1820.] 
 
 The Public Lands. 
 
 [SENATE. 
 
 perience proved never would and never could 
 be paid. 
 
 Mr. JOHNSON, of Louisiana, was decidedly op- 
 posed to the bill, because he conceived it would 
 be injurious to the interests of Louisiana, and 
 of the nation at large. He argued that the 
 present system had been in existence twenty 
 years; that the people were satisfied with it; 
 that the country had thriven and prospered un- 
 der it; that the change would operate oppres- 
 sively on a large class of actual settlers in 
 Louisiana and elsewhere, who ought to be se- 
 cured by some provisions, &c. 
 
 Mr. RUGGLES had no objection to the amend- 
 ment ; but he spoke to show that, if the change 
 took place at all, it ought to be total ; that he 
 should oppose the change unless the price was 
 reduced, and the land offered in half-quarter 
 sections, &c. 
 
 Mr. JOHNSON, of Kentucky, despaired of de- 
 feating the bill here, but expressed his hopes 
 that it would meet its fate in the other House. 
 Mr. J. supported the amendment, and argued 
 at some length against the bill. He contended 
 that no system which the Government had 
 ever adopted had been productive of so much 
 benefit to the nation as that under which the 
 public lands had heretofore been disposed of, 
 &c. 
 
 Mr. TBIMBLE replied to certain remarks of 
 Mr. EDWAEDS and Mr. JOHNSON, of Louisiana, 
 in reference to the operation of the land system 
 in Ohio, and also in support of the proposed 
 change. 
 
 Mr. NOBLE next rose, and entered into a very 
 particular examination of the system, from its 
 commencement, twenty-five years ago, up to 
 the present time, to show the impolicy of the 
 contemplated change, and the propriety of the 
 amendment. He replied at large to Mr. KING 
 and others, to show that it would be easy for 
 speculators and monopolists to combine and 
 destroy competition at the public sale, to pur- 
 chase up the best lands, and afterwards to ex- 
 tort from the poor an exorbitant price, to bring 
 their purchases into competition with the Gov- 
 ernment lands, &c. 
 
 Mr. KING, of New York, replied, and Mr. 
 NOBLE rejoined ; after which 
 
 The question was taken on Mr. EDWARDS' 
 amendment, and negatived as follows : 
 
 YEAS. Messrs. Brown, Edwards, Johnson of Ken- 
 tucky, Johnson of Louisiana, Logan, Noble, Smith, 
 and Thomas 8. 
 
 NAYS. Messrs. Bnrrill, Dana, Dickerson, Eaton, 
 Elliot, Gaillard, Hunter, King of Alabama, King of 
 New York, Lanman, Leake, Lowrie, Macon, Miller, 
 Morrill, Otis, Palmer, Parrott, Pleasants, Haggles, 
 Sandford, Taylor, Trimble, Van Dyke, Walker of 
 Alabama, Williams of Mississippi, Williams of 
 Tennessee, and Wilson 28. 
 
 Mr. NOBLE then moved to amend the bill by 
 striking out all that part thereof which pro- 
 vides that the sales shall be made for cash; 
 and leaving that part of the bill which directs 
 
 the lands to be offered for sale in half-quarter 
 sections. 
 
 This motion was negatived, by yeas and nays, 
 28 to 8, the members present voting precisely 
 as on the preceding question. 
 
 Mr. JOHNSON, of Louisiana, offered to amend 
 the bill by inserting a clause, providing sub- 
 stantially that such lands as should not bring 
 the minimum price, should, after remaining un- 
 sold a certain number of years, be offered at a 
 less price, and, after the lapse of further time, 
 at a still less price, &c. ; which motion he offer- 
 ed on the ground that there was in Louisiana, 
 and elsewhere, a great deal of land which 
 would never bring the minimum price, and 
 that it ought, in due time, to be offered at such 
 a price as would induce its purchase and settle- 
 ment. 
 
 The motion was opposed by Messrs. MELLEJT 
 and LANMAN, for the reason chiefly that it 
 would be premature legislation; and that, even 
 if the provision were now necessary, it would 
 be better to bring it forward in a distinct bill, 
 fec. Mr. LEAKE concurred in the expediency 
 of the provision, but not connected with the 
 present bill. 
 
 The motion was negatived by a large major- 
 ity. 
 
 The Senate then proceeded to fill the blanks. 
 The first being that left for fixing the period 
 when the new system shall go into operation 
 
 Mr. WILLIAMS, of Mississippi, (chairman of 
 the Land Committee,) moved to fill the blank 
 with the first of July next. 
 
 Mr. JOHNSON, of Louisiana, moved to fill it 
 with the first of July, 1821. This motion was 
 negatived; and the blank was then filled, as 
 moved by Mr. WILLIAMS. 
 
 Mr. WILLIAMS next moved to fill the blank 
 left for fixing the minimum price of lands, with 
 the sum of one dollar and twenty -five cents ; 
 which sum had been agreed on by the Land 
 Committee, as, nnder existing circumstances, 
 the most fair and reasonable. 
 
 Mr. EATON moved to fill the blank with one 
 dollar and fifty cents. 
 
 Mr. JOHNSON, of Louisiana, would prefer fix- 
 ing the price at one dollar only. 
 
 Mr. KING, of New York, was opposed to 
 $1 50, and in favor of $1 25 ; and, after some 
 remarks from each of the gentlemen in support 
 of their different opinions 
 
 The blank was filled with one dollar and 
 twenty-five cents, by a large majority. 
 
 The bill was then ordered to be engrossed 
 and read a third time as amended. 
 
 The bill further suspending the sale or for- 
 feiture of lands, for non-payment, was also 
 taken up, and ordered to be engrossed for a 
 third reading. 
 
 Mr. THOMAS gave notice that he should, on 
 Thursday week, ask leave to introduce a bill 
 for giving the right of pre-emption to actual 
 settlers on the public lands.
 
 458 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 District of Columbia. 
 
 [MAECH, 1820. 
 
 THTJESDAY, March 9. 
 Public Lands. 
 
 The bill making further provision for the 
 sale of public lands was read a third time ; and, 
 on the question, " Shall this bill pass? " it was 
 determined in the affirmative yeas 31, nays 7, 
 as follows : 
 
 YEAS. Messrs. Burrill, Dana, Dickerson, Eaton, 
 Elliot, Gaillard, Hunter, King of Alabama, King of 
 New York, Lanman, Leake, Lowrie, Macon, Mellen, 
 Morrill, Otis, Palmer, Parrott, Pleasants, Roberts, 
 Ruggles, Sanford, Stokes, Taylor, Tichenor, Trimble, 
 Van Dyke, Walker of Alabama, Williams of Missis- 
 sippi, Williams of Tennessee, and Wilson. 
 
 NAYS. Messrs. Brown, Edwards, Johnson of Ken- 
 tucky, Johnson of Louisiana, Logan, Noble, and 
 Smith. 
 
 So it was resolved that this bill pass, and 
 that the title thereof be, " An act making fur- 
 ther provision for the sale of public lands." 
 
 The bill further to suspend, for a limited 
 time, the sale or forfeiture of lands, for failure 
 in completing the payment thereon, was read a 
 third time, and passed. 
 
 The Senate resumed, as in Committee of the 
 "Whole, the consideration of the bill for the re- 
 lief of John Harding, Giles Harding, John 
 Shute, and John Nicholls, and the blank having 
 been filled with " 900," it was reported to the 
 House ; and, being concurred in, the Senate ad- 
 journed. 
 
 MONDAY, March 27. 
 Relations with Spain. 
 
 The following Message was received from the 
 PBESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES : 
 
 To the Senate of the United States : 
 
 I transmit to Congress an extract of a letter from 
 the Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States at 
 St. Petersburg, of the 1st of November last, on the 
 subject of our relations with Spain, indicating the 
 sentiments of the Emperor of Russia respecting the 
 non-ratification, by his Catholic Majesty, of the 
 treaty lately concluded between the United States 
 and Spain, and (he strong interest which His Im- 
 perial Majesty takes in promoting the ratification of 
 that treaty. Of this friendly disposition, the most 
 satisfactory assurance has been since given, directly, 
 to this Government, by the Minister of Russia resid- 
 ing^ here. 
 
 I transmit also to Congress an extract of a letter 
 from the Minister Plenipotentiary of the United 
 States at Madrid, of a later date than those hereto- 
 fore communicated, by which it appears, that, at the 
 instance of the Charge des Affaires of the Emperor 
 of Russia, a new pledge had been given by the Span- 
 ish Government, that the Minister who had been 
 lately appointed to the United States should set out 
 on his mission without delay, with full power to set- 
 tle all differences, in a manner satisfactory to the 
 parties. 
 
 I have further to state, that the Governments of 
 France and Great Britain continue to manifest the 
 sentiments heretofore communicated, respecting the 
 
 non-ratification of the treaty by Spain, and to inter- 
 pose their good offices to promote its ratification.* 
 
 It is proper to add, that the Governments of 
 France and Russia have expressed an earnest desire 
 that the United States would take no step, for the 
 present, on the principal of reprisal, which might 
 possibly tend to disturb the peace between the United 
 States and Spain. There is good cause to presume, 
 from the delicate manner in which this sentiment 
 has been conveyed, that it is founded in a belief, as 
 wall as a desire, that our just objects may be ac- 
 complished without the hazard of such an extremity. 
 
 On full consideration of all these circumstances, I 
 have thought it my duty to submit to Congress, whe- 
 ther it will not be advisable to postpone a decision on 
 the questions now depending with Spain, until the 
 next session. The distress of that nation, at this 
 juncture, affords a motive for this forbearance, which 
 cannot fail to be duly appreciated. Under such cir- 
 cumstances, the attention of the Spanish Government 
 may be diverted from its foreign concerns, and the 
 arrival of a Minister here be longer delayed. I am 
 the more induced to suggest this course "of proceed- 
 ing, from a knowledge that, while we shall thereby 
 make a just return to the powers whose good offices 
 have been acknowledged, and increase, by a new 
 and signal proof of moderation, our claims on Spain, 
 our attitude, in regard to her, will not be less favor- 
 able at the next session than it is at the present. 
 
 JAMES MONROE. 
 
 MARCH 27, 1820. 
 
 The Message and accompanying documents 
 were read, and one thousand copies thereof or- 
 dered to be printed for the use of the Seriate. 
 
 MONDAY, April 3. 
 District of Columbia. 
 
 The Senate took up the resolution submitted 
 by Mr. JOHNSON of Kentucky, on the 28th 
 ultimo, to inquire into the expediency of giving 
 to the District of Columbia a Delegate on the 
 floor of Congress. 
 
 Mr. JOHNSON added a few remarks to what 
 he had said in support of his motion when first 
 submitted. 
 
 Mr. KING, of New York, briefly stated his 
 objection to the motion, founded principally on 
 the opinion that this was an inquiry which it 
 was proper, from motives of delicacy, to leave 
 to the other House, as a Delegate, if authorized, 
 would take his seat there ; that the people of 
 the District had not asked of Congress this 
 privilege ; that it had been given to territories 
 only which looked forward to become independ- 
 
 * This interposition on the part of the great powers 
 Russia, France, and Great Britain to prevent a rupture be- 
 tween the United States and Spain, and to induce the latter 
 to ratify the treaty which had been signed since February, 
 1819, presents one of those green spots in history on which 
 the eye of philanthropy delights to dwell It marks the 
 progress of humane and liberal ideas, and does honor to the 
 powers which thus interposed. At the same time, it is due 
 to Spain to say, that her long delay to ratify the treaty 
 which she had concluded was occasioned by the lawless ex- 
 peditions fitted out in the United States, in aid of her re- 
 volted colonies in the two Americas. 

 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 459 
 
 APRIL, 1820.] 
 
 Duelling. 
 
 [SENATE. 
 
 ent members of the Union, and might sanction 
 or give color to an impression that Congress 
 contemplated a similar result, at some time, in 
 this instance. 
 
 Mr. JOHXSOK replied, to obviate the objec- 
 tions of Mr. KJXG, and enforce his reasons in 
 favor of the motion ; after which the resolution 
 was agreed to ayes 15, noes 14. 
 
 WED:ST:SDAY, April 19. 
 The Navy Seven, Small Vessels. 
 
 The bill authorizing the building of a certain 
 number of small vessels of war was taken up in 
 Committee of the Whole, where the object of 
 the bill and the necessity of this kind of force 
 was explained by Mr. PLEASANTS, and the blanks 
 being filled, and the bill amended, it was re- 
 ported to the Senate in the following shape : 
 
 Be it enacted, fyc., That the President of the United 
 States is hereby authorized to cause to be built and 
 equipped any number of small vessels of war (not ex- 
 ceeding feven) which, in his judgment, the public ser- 
 vice may require ; the said vessels to be of a force not 
 more than twelve guns each, according to the discre- 
 tion of the President. And, for carrying this act into 
 effect, the sum of $60,000 is hereby appropriated, to 
 be paid out of any money in the Treasury not other- 
 wise appropriated. 
 
 The bill was ordered to be engrossed and 
 read a third time, and the Senate adjourned. 
 
 THURSDAY, April 20. 
 Duelling. 
 
 The following resolutions, submitted by Mr. 
 MOEKILL on the 12th instant, were taken up for 
 consideration : 
 
 Resolved, That the practice of duelling is inhuman, 
 immoral, and censurable. 
 
 Resolved, That the President of the United States 
 would be justifiable in striking from the rolls of the 
 Army and Navy the names of all persons thereon, 
 who have been, or hereafter may be, directly or in- 
 directly engaged in a duel, or who may have been, 
 or hereafter may be, in any way or manner accessory 
 thereto. 
 
 Mr. MOEEILL addressed the Chair as follows : 
 Mr. President, it is with deep regret that I 
 feel myself compelled to ask the attention of 
 the Senate to the consideration of the resolu- 
 tions which I have had the honor to present. 
 Nothing but an irresistible conviction of pro- 
 priety, and solemn sense of duty to my God and 
 country, would induce me to offer my views on 
 this occasion ; because, I am not insensible of a 
 diversity of opinion, and the reluctance of many 
 to agitate the subject. But, when I reflect upon 
 the attributes of that Divine Being who has 
 created and sustains all worlds and creatures, 
 on whom we are dependent, and unto whom 
 we are under infinite obligations of love and 
 obedience, I cannot persuade myself to refrain^ 
 The obvious purposes of our existence as rational 
 beings are too apparent to admit a doubt. 
 For what end were we created ? Certainly 
 
 not to annoy, murder, and massacre one an- 
 other ; but to aid and assist one another, and, 
 by kind offices and paternal acts, to promote 
 our peace, prosperity, and happiness. Mankind 
 are created moral beings, with capacious powers 
 and faculties of mind, by which they are ren- 
 dered capable of contemplating sublime subjects, 
 entering into connections, and forming impor- 
 tant associations, by which individual and general 
 happiness may be enjoyed and extensively 
 diffused. These being the powers and abilities 
 of the human race, the idea of dependence 
 irresistibly connects with them those of duty 
 and obligation, not only to the Supreme Parent 
 of the Universe, but the several members of the 
 great family of man, of which we are component 
 parts. These are immutable in their nature and 
 eternal in their duration, and cannot be cancel- 
 led by pride, ambition, nor caprice. 
 
 These being my views, I hope the Senate will 
 pardon me for again introducing the subject 
 unpleasant in itself, and unpleasant in its conse- 
 quences. It cannot be forgotten that, some one 
 or two years ago, I had the honor to offer a 
 resolution not materially different from that on 
 your table, which rose from an event similar to 
 that which has given rise to the resolutions now 
 before the Senate. With an accommodating 
 disposition on my part, I consented to vary that 
 resolution to suit the views of honorable gentle- 
 men; but, being committed, it unexpectedly 
 passed off without particular consideration. 
 
 During the last session of Congress, at the 
 door of your Capitol, another event of the kind 
 occurred, though not precisely of the same mag- 
 nitude : some of inferior grade, having caught 
 the fire of honor, must resort to the devoted 
 ground, and there settle the great question of 
 private controversy by single combat, which, 
 fortunately, from agitation or want of skill, 
 terminated gloriously, without wound or blood- 
 shed. 
 
 But, Mr. President, at this time something 
 more serious has attracted our attention and 
 excited our feelings. The recent duel between 
 Commodore Decatur and Commodore Barron 
 is the only apology I offer for again introducing 
 this subject. 
 
 The sentiments which I entertain are ex- 
 pressed in the resolutions before you, and their 
 connection will induce me, as I proceed, to 
 apply my remarks to them both. That the first 
 resolution contains abstract propositions I ad- 
 mit, and needs but little illustration ; but they 
 are no less true and important in themselves, 
 and their bearings upon individuals and com- 
 munity. 
 
 Humanity is an exercise of tenderness, bene- 
 volence, and kindness, toward our fellow-crea- 
 tures, by which their wants are relieved, their 
 persons protected, and their prosperity pro- 
 moted. 
 
 The exercise of these is essential to that de- 
 gree of felicity for which we are completely 
 competent in this life, and which is our duty, 
 and ought to be our object, to attain. These, I
 
 460 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 Duelling. 
 
 [APRIL, 1820. 
 
 presume, are principles which no contemplative 
 mind will deny. 
 
 What is the character of the act by which the 
 life, perhaps the most useful life, is \vantouly 
 taken by a fellow-citizen ? The tender feelings 
 of the human kind many times recoil to see the 
 tremors of an expiring brute, but what must 
 be their sensations to behold the agonies of 
 death upon one of Heaven's fairest sons, strug- 
 gling under the pains of dissolution occasioned 
 by the fatal act of a brother of the same family? 
 Callous, indeed, must be the heart, and indif- 
 ferent those feelings, which do not burst forth 
 in abhorrence and indignation. 
 
 Keason, the handmaid of the best faculties of 
 the polished and improved mind, revolts at this 
 act of violence; she retires from the scene, 
 laments the depravity of the human race, and 
 desires to cast the mantle of oblivion over the 
 barbarous acts of deluded man. 
 
 Conscience, that judicious inquisitor, enthron- 
 ed in the breast of our species, unreservedly 
 pronounces guilt, with all its concomitant conse- 
 quences. No well-informed faculty of the hu- 
 man mind, unbiased by prepossession, will 
 volunteer its aid to sustain the rude deed of 
 violence. 
 
 Its only support, then, is found in fallacious 
 arguments, arising from misconceived opinions 
 of human honor. 
 
 But, sir, it is contrary to the laws of your 
 army and navy. If it be no crime, nor improp- 
 er, why have you laws against it, and regula- 
 tions to prevent it ? Is it not repugnant to the 
 universal voice of community ? Does not the 
 nation speak one language on this subject ? The 
 country proclaims a law irresistible in this case. 
 Where can you find a sentence on the practice, 
 in any of your periodical publications, which 
 does not, directly or indirectly, pronounce a 
 censure on the crime ? Some of the States, to 
 arrest the progress of an evil so unjustifiable, 
 have passed laws well calculated to suppress it. 
 Among these is the State of Virginia ; and, to 
 the immortal honor of the gentleman (Mr. 
 BAEBOUR) whom I now have in my eye, was 
 that bill introduced an act which I shall ever 
 revere, and which, I hope, will never be for- 
 gotten by his State nor his country. 
 
 Let the opinion of the Senate, then, be ex- 
 pressed in accordance with that of the civilized 
 world, and thereby aid the cause of humanity 
 and reformation. 
 
 The immutable principles of morality repro- 
 bate the practice. Every pernicious indulgence, 
 which tends to corrupt society, weakens that 
 community, and enervates the Government. 
 This Government, more than any other, needs 
 the cement of those great moral principles which 
 connects individuals, and unites and binds in 
 one solid fabric the great political body. Knowl- 
 edge and virtue form the grand basis on which 
 a prosperous republic is erected, and the only 
 ground on which its perpetuity can be justly 
 anticipated; and, in the same proportion, if 
 these are disregarded and neglected, the body 
 
 politic is contaminated, its vigor reduced, and 
 its existence endangered. 
 
 But this practice demoralizes society, as it 
 obscures human reason, darkens the understand- 
 ing, stupefies the conscience, and sets at defiance 
 the laws of God and man. It undervalues hu- 
 man life, and, by its demoralizing consequences, 
 prepares the way for the commission of murder, 
 assassination, and that train of evils which is 
 the natural result of the worst passions, nourish- 
 ed by pernicious sentiments and habits. 
 
 Permit me to bring to your view a remark 
 made respecting the assassination of the Duke 
 de Berri : " Our readers will agree in opinion 
 with the Count de Labourdonnaye, that the 
 atrocious crime is clearly to be traced to those 
 liberal writings, which, in France and England, 
 have aimed at the extinction of all just and 
 moral feelings." 
 
 What better can be expected from those who 
 pursue a course in direct violation both of di- 
 vine and human laws? "Thou shalt not kill," 
 is a divine command ; and " Whoso sheddeth 
 man's blood, by man shall las blood be shed." 
 
 I am not insensible, sir, that a disquisition on 
 ethics may be cold, insipid, and unpleasant ; but, 
 according to my views of the subject, I hope to 
 be indulged to express an opinion. 
 
 But, sir, I am disposed to examine the subject 
 in another, and perhaps more acceptable point 
 of light. I wish to have the practice suppress- 
 ed, because many times the most useful and 
 valuable men are sacrificed. It prevails more 
 generally in the army and navy, and among 
 men high in rank and estimation. Their native 
 talents have been cherished and expanded in 
 the school of their country, by which they are 
 identified with the property, prosperity, and 
 interest of the nation. 
 
 The nation has taught and employed them, 
 by which they have acquired that knowledge 
 and skill which render them respected and use- 
 ful. For this aid, protection, and honor, they 
 are indebted to their country ; and this country 
 has a claim to their services, to whom they owe 
 a duty that cannot be cancelled by pride nor 
 vanity. The life and talents of a public officer, 
 thus situated, are not at his own disposal they 
 are pledged to his country. 
 
 These are the men the nation wants men of 
 tried courage and bravery that confidence may 
 be inspired in those whom, in the hour of danger, 
 they may command ; " a name is often but an- 
 other word for victory." Are talents thus en- 
 larged and improved the property of the nation ; 
 is it not the highest duty of the nation to pro- 
 tect this property, and secure it against inva- 
 sion ? Is not the Government bound to arrest 
 the progress of an evil by which its best blood 
 is lost, and its most important interests threat- 
 ened ? Let the practice continue unmolested, 
 and it acquires countenance, and its votaries 
 strength ; and, by imperceptible progress, be- 
 comes the common law of the country. 
 
 But there is another reason which ought to 
 have influence in this case : The vilest charac-
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 461 
 
 APHIL, 1820.] 
 
 Duelling. 
 
 [SENATE. 
 
 ters may destroy the best of men. For, on the 
 principles assumed, they are no more exempt 
 than the most base of the human race. The 
 false rules of honor apply with equal force to 
 the useful and the brave, as to him who is 
 worthless and a mere nuisance in society. There 
 is, then, neither safety nor protection where 
 false principles predominate, and are controlled 
 by passion, prejudice, or caprice. Unimportant 
 things, under such influence, impel to the fatal 
 contest ; and even things not true, by perver- 
 sion and misapplication, are made the occasion 
 of dreadful consequences. This is true in the 
 instance to which I have referred. Barren 
 charged Decatur with using certain improper 
 expressions; which, however, Decatur imme- 
 diately disclaimed; but they were made the 
 occasion of their unhappy meeting. Hence the 
 necessity of the interposition of some effectual 
 remedy to prevent occurrences so destructive 
 and censurable ; otherwise you prostrate, at the 
 mercy of the rudest passions which can predom- 
 inate in the depraved breast, the lives of your 
 most valuable and useful citizens. 
 
 If my remarks are not correct, why have you 
 laws and regulations on the subject ? And if 
 they are, is it not proper to interpose and make 
 those regulations effectual to accomplish their 
 object ? The safety, the interest, and the honor 
 of the country require the adoption of a course 
 which shall bring into contempt the practice of 
 duelling. " For, as a fool dieth, so they die." 
 
 It may be said it is not necessary, because the 
 President has power already to strike from the 
 rolls of the army and navy such offenders as he 
 may think proper. Admit the fact ; but we 
 are taught from experience that this does not 
 render the expression of an opinion on the sub- 
 ject unimportant. "We are too well acquainted 
 with human nature, and the frailty of man, to 
 believe any one will take a responsibility upon 
 himself that he can possibly avoid. Merely 
 from this circumstance, then, there is no reason 
 to calculate upon any important reform. The 
 connection subsisting between the commander- 
 in-chief and the subordinate officers, is of such 
 a nature as to preclude a probability of a radical 
 amendment. 
 
 Resolutions on the subject present to the 
 world our views of the practice, at the same 
 time they tend to sustain the President in any 
 course he may be disposed to pursue. This, by 
 dividing the responsibility, relieves the com- 
 mander-in-chief of a burden, which he must 
 otherwise endure, arising from the discharge of 
 a duty that he owes to himself and his coun- 
 try. 
 
 This object cannot be effected by punishment. 
 It is a ;rain thing to think about shooting or 
 hanging persons for this offence, (more especially 
 if never performed ;) death, in any of its most 
 hideous forms, is altogether insufficient to deter 
 him who can be impelled, under any circum- 
 stances, to present himself a mark in single 
 combat. No, sir, the practice must be rendered 
 disgraceful ; this, and this alone, will be suffi- 
 
 cient to preponderate against the fallacious 
 arguments and absurd notions of false honor. 
 
 But, Mr. President, I have an additional in- 
 ducement to revive this subject at this time. 
 Decatur is sacrificed he is gone 1 And lamen- 
 table to relate, he has fallen a martyr at the 
 shrine of false honor ; a victim to principles 
 founded on mistaken notions of true greatness, 
 of real magnanimity of soul. Yes, sir, he who, 
 before the walls of Tripoli, the British Mace- 
 donian, and in every instance where skill and 
 courage could be displayed, maintained the in- 
 dependence and glory of the American eagle; 
 he who ranked among the first sons of Neptune, 
 high in his country's esteem, calm and unmoved 
 in danger, collected, manly, and noble in vic- 
 tory, is fallen ! But, sir, he considered himself 
 bound by his own rules. Fatal error ! " I do 
 not think that fighting duels, under any circum- 
 stances, can raise the reputation of any man, 
 and have long since discovered that it is not 
 even an unerring criterion of personal courage. 
 I should regret the necessity of fighting with 
 any man ; but, in my opinion, the man who 
 makes arms his profession, is not at liberty to 
 decline an invitation from any person who is 
 not so far degraded as to be beneath his notice. 
 Having incautiously said I would meet you, I 
 will not consider this to be your case, although 
 many think so ; and if I had not pledged myselfj 
 I might reconsider the case." * 
 
 Here we see, with reluctance and regret he 
 repaired to the fatal spot, the devoted field of 
 slaughter ; being under an imaginary obligation, 
 by the incautious adoption of erroneous princi- 
 ples, no affection to his family, no love of coun- 
 try, nor attachment to life, with all its enjoy- 
 ments, was sufficient to outweigh his precon- 
 ceived opinions : " I am bound by my own rules, 
 to them I must submit." " In my opinion, the 
 man who makes arms his profession is not at 
 liberty to decline an invitation from any person 
 who is not so far degraded as to be beneath his 
 notice." 
 
 Decatur is no more he sleeps in silence! 
 His trophies fade with his countenance, and 
 wither in his death 1 He is borne to the tomb, 
 the asylum of the dead! The navy and the 
 country sustain a loss which possibly might 
 have been avoided, if such measures had been 
 seasonably adopted as were within the power 
 of the Government. 
 
 For a moment reflect on the consequences. 
 See the rolling tears and heart-rending grief of 
 a bosom companion ! Imagine the distress of a 
 disconsolate family! Behold the crowd of 
 weeping connections, mourning around the pale, 
 the lifeless corpse ! 
 
 Is this all? See a weeping country! Behold 
 the footsteps of thousands, watered with tears, 
 marching to the receptacle of the dead ! See 
 your ships clad in mourning, and their officers 
 with the badges of lamentation ! All this, and 
 more than this, growing out of an event repug- 
 
 * Decatur's letter to Barren.
 
 462 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 nant to all moral feeling, and censured by every 
 reflecting mind acting in its individual capacity. 
 
 Sir, shall we be silent, and not attempt to 
 arrest the progress of an evil thus destructive ; 
 an act which fastens reproach upon survivors, 
 and a stigma on posterity ? Will you stand an 
 indifferent spectator, and see your officers swept 
 from your army and navy in this ruthless man- 
 ner, and not say to the devouring despot, " Thou 
 shalt go no further ?" 
 
 Sir, let a man believe duelling justifiable on 
 any principle, or under any circumstances, and 
 no military glory, no lustre of character, no 
 ardor of friendship, no conjugal affection, no 
 attachment to life, no love of country, and de- 
 sire to promote its honor and prosperity, will 
 shield him from the deadly combat. 
 
 Mr. WILLIAMS, of Tennessee, moved to lay 
 the resolutions on the table, believing, in regard 
 to the first resolution, that it was a waste of 
 time to be arguing abstract propositions ; that 
 in regard to the second, the President already 
 had the power vested in him by law to do what 
 was proposed ; and that if he had neglected to 
 execute the law, and it was intended to take 
 any step in relation to it, he ought to be ap- 
 proached in a different way. 
 
 The motion prevailed, without a division, and 
 the resolutions were ordered to lie on the table 
 accordingly. 
 
 SATURDAY, May 13. 
 Kidnapping, and Slave Trade, Piracy. 
 
 The Senate proceeded to the consideration of 
 the amendments of the House of Representa- 
 tives to the bill "to continue in force the act to 
 protect the commerce of the United States, and 
 punish the crime of piracy, and also to make 
 further provision for punishing the crime of 
 piracy." 
 
 The amendments (which were reported in 
 the other House, by Mr. MERCEB, from the Com- 
 mittee on the Slave Trade) are as follows : 
 
 And be it further enacted, That, if any citizen of 
 the United States, being of a crew or ship's company 
 of any foreign ship or vessel engaged in the slave 
 trade, or any person -whatever, being of the crew or 
 ship's company of any ship or vessel owned in whole 
 or in part, or navigated for, or in behalf of, any citi- 
 
 Adjournment, [MAY, 1820. 
 
 zen of the United States, shall land, from any such 
 ship or vessel, and, on any foreign shore, seize any 
 negro or mulatto, not held to service or labor by the 
 laws of either of the States or Territories of the 
 United States, with intent to make such negro or 
 mulatto a slave, or shall decoy or forcibly bring or 
 carry, or shall receive, such negro or mulatto on 
 board any such ship or vessel, with intent, as afore- 
 said, such citizen or person shall be adjudged a pirate, 
 and, on conviction thereof, before the circuit court of 
 the United States for the district wherein he may be 
 brought or found, shall suffer death. 
 
 And be it further enacted, That, if any citizen of 
 the United States, being of the crew or ship's com- 
 pany of any foreign ship or vessel engaged in the 
 slave trade, or any person whatever, being of the 
 crew or ship's company of any ship or vessel owned 
 wholly, or in part, or navigated for, or in behalf of, 
 any citizen or citizens of the United States, shall for- 
 cibly confine or detain, or aid and abet in forcibly 
 confining or detaining, on board such ship or vessel, 
 any negro or mulatto, not held to service by the laws 
 of either of the States or Territories of the United 
 States, with intent to make such negro or mulatto a 
 slave, or shall, on board any such ship or vessel, offer 
 or attempt to sell, as a slave, any negro or mulatto, 
 not held to service, as aforesaid, or shall, on tbe high 
 seas, or anywhere on tide water, transfer or deliver 
 over to any other ship or vessel, any negro or mu- 
 latto, not held to service, as aforesaid, with intent to 
 make such negro or mulatto a slave, or shall land or 
 deliver on shore from on board any such ship or ves- 
 sel, any such negro or mulatto, with intent to make 
 sale of, or having previously sold, such negro or mu- 
 latto, as a slave, such citizen or person shall be ad- 
 judged a pirate, and, on conviction thereof, before the 
 circuit court of the United States for the district 
 wherein he shall be brought or found, shall suffer 
 death. 
 
 After some discussion, rather on the form 
 than the substance of these amendments, they 
 were agreed to, without a division. 
 
 MONDAY, May 15. 
 
 The Senate having finished the business be- 
 fore them, or rather so much thereof as had 
 been reported by the joint committee as neces- 
 sary to be acted on ; and, having been informed 
 by the committee appointed to wait on the Pres- 
 ident, that he had no further communication 
 to make, the Senate adjourned to the second 
 Monday in November next.
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 463 
 
 DECEMBER, 1819.] 
 
 Proceedings. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 SIXTEENTH CONGRESS-FIRST SESSION. 
 
 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES 
 
 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.* 
 
 MONDAY, December 6, 1819. 
 
 This being the day appointed by the Consti- 
 tution of the United States for the meeting of 
 Congress, the following members of the House 
 of Representatives appeared, produced their 
 credentials, and took their seats, to wit : 
 
 From New Hampshire Joseph Buffiim, jr., Josiah 
 Butler, Clifton Clagett, Arthur Livermore, William 
 Plumer, jr., and Nathaniel Upham. 
 
 From Massachusetts Benjamin Adams, Samuel C. 
 
 Allen, Joshua Cushman, Edward Dowse, Walter Fol- 
 ger, jr., Mark L. Hill, John Holmes, Jonas Kendall, 
 Martin Kinsley, Samuel Lathrop, Enoch Lincoln, 
 Jonathan Mason, Marcus Morton, Jeremiah Nelson, 
 James Parker, Gabriel Sampson, Henry Shaw, Na- 
 thaniel Silsbee, and Ezekiel Whitman. 
 
 From Rhode Island Samuel Eddy, and Nathaniel 
 Hazard. 
 
 From Connecticut Henry W. Edwards, Samuel A. 
 Foot, Jonathan 0. Mosely, Elisha Phelps, John 
 Russ, James Stevens, and Gideon Tomlinson. 
 
 * LIST OF REPRESENTATIVES. 
 
 New Hampshire. Joseph Buffom, jr., Josiah Butler, 
 Clifton Clagett, Arthur Livermore, William Plumer, jr., 
 Nathaniel Upham. 
 
 Massachusetts. Benjamin Adams, Samuel C. Allen, 
 Joshua Cushman, Edward Dowse, "Walter Folger, jr., Timo- 
 thy Fuller, Mark Langdon Hill, John Holmes, Jonas Ken- 
 dall, Martin Kinsley, Samuel Lathrop, Enoch Lincoln, Jona- 
 than Mason, Marcus Morton, Jeremiah Nelson, James Par- 
 ker, Gabriel Sampson, Henry Shaw, Nathaniel Silsbee, 
 Ezekiel Whitman. 
 
 Rhode, Island. Samuel Eddy, Nathaniel Hazard. 
 
 Connecticut. Henry W. Edwards, Samuel A. Foot, Jona- 
 than O. Mosely, Elisha Phelps, John Euss, James Stevens, 
 Gideon Tomlinson. 
 
 Vermont. Samuel C. Crafts, Ezra Meech, Orsamns C. 
 Merrill, Charles Rich, Mark Richards, William Strong. 
 
 New For*. Nathaniel Allen, Caleb Baker, Walter Case, 
 Robert Clark, Jacob H. Dewitt, John D. Dickinson, John 
 Fay, William D. Ford, Ezra C. Gross, Aaron Hackley, jr., 
 George Hall, Joseph 8. Lyman, Henry Meigs, Robert Mo- 
 nell, Harmanus Peek, Nathaniel Pitcher, Solomon Van 
 Rensselaer, Jonathan Richmond, Henry R. Storrs, Randall 
 A. Street, James Strong, John W. Taylor, Caleb Tompkins, 
 Albert H. Tracy, Peter H. Wendovcr, Silas Wood. 
 
 New Jersey. Ephralm Batcman, Joseph Bloomfleld, 
 Charles Kinsey, John Linn, Bernard Smith, Henry Southard. 
 
 Pennsylvania. Henry Baldwin, Andrew Boden, William 
 Darlington, George Dennison, Samuel Edwards, Thomas 
 Forrest, David Fullerton, Samuel Gross, Joseph Hcister, 
 Joseph Hemphill, Jacob Hibshman, Jacob Hostetter, William 
 P. Maclay, David Marchand, Robert Moore, Samuel Moore, 
 John Murray, Thomas Patterson, Robert Philson, Thomas 
 J. Rogers, John Sergeant, Christian Tarr, James Wallace. 
 
 Delaware. Willard Hall, Louis McLane. 
 
 Maryland. Stephenson Archer, Thomas Bayley, Thomas 
 Culbreth, Joseph Kent, Peter Little, Raphael Neale, Samuel 
 Ringgold, Samuel Smith, Henry W. Warfield. 
 
 Virginia. Mark Alexander, William Lee Ball, Philip P. 
 Barbour, William A. Burwell, John Floyd, Robert S. Gur- 
 nett, James Johnson, James Jones, William McCoy, Charles 
 Fenton Mercer, Hugh Nelson, Thomas Newton, Severn E. 
 Parker, James Pindall, James Pleasants, John Randolph, 
 Alexander Smyth, Ballard Smith, George F. Strother, 
 George Tucker, John Tyler, Thomas Van Swearingen, Jared 
 Williams. 
 
 North Carolina. Hutchins G. Burton, John Culpeper, 
 William Davidson, Weldon N. Edwards, Charles Fisher, 
 Thomas H. Hall, Charles Hooks, Lemuel Sawyer, Thomas 
 Settle, Jesse Slocumb, James 8. Smith, Felix Walker, Lewis 
 Williams. 
 
 South Carolina. Joseph Brevard, Elias Earle, James 
 Ervin, William Lowndes, John McCreary, James Over- 
 street, Charles Pinckney, Eldred Simkins, Sterling Tucker. 
 
 Georgia. Joel Abbott, Thomas W. Cobb, Joel Crawford, 
 John A. Cuthbert, Robert W. Reid, William Terrell 
 
 Kentucky. Richard C. Anderson, jr., William Brown, 
 Henry Clay, Benjamin Hardin, Alncy McLean, Thomas Met- 
 calfc, Tunstall Quarles, George Robertson, David Trimble, 
 David Walker. 
 
 Tennessee. Robert Allen, Henry H. Bryan, Newton Can- 
 non, John Cocke, Francis Jones, John Rhea. 
 
 Ohio. Philemon Beecher, Henry Brush, John W. Camp- 
 bell, Samuel Herrick, Thomas R. Ross, John Sloan. 
 
 Louisiana. Thomas Butler. 
 
 Indiana. William Hendrlcks. 
 
 Mississippi. Christopher Rankin. 
 
 Alabama. John CrowelL 
 
 Illinois. Daniel P. Cook. 
 
 Missouri Territory. John Scott, Delegate. 
 
 Michigan Territory. William W. Woodbridge, Delegate.
 
 464 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 Proceedings. 
 
 [DECEMBER, 1819. 
 
 From Vermont Samuel C. Crafts, Orsamus C. 
 Merrill, Charles Rich, Mark Richards, and William 
 Strong. 
 
 From New For* Nathaniel Allen, Caleb Baker, 
 Walter Case, Robert Clark, Jacob H. Dewitt, John 
 D. Dickinson, John Fay, William D. Ford, Ezra C. 
 Gross, Aaron Hackley, jun., George Hall, Joseph S. 
 Lyman, Henry Meigs, Robert Monell, Harmanus 
 Peek, Nathaniel Pitcher, Jonathan Richmond, Henry 
 R. Storrs, Randall A. Street, James Strong, John 
 W. Taylor, Caleb Tompkins, Albert H. Tracy, 
 Solomon Van Rensselaer, Peter H. Wendover, and 
 Silas Wood. 
 
 From New Jersey Ephraim Bateman, Joseph 
 Bloomfield, John Linn, Bernard Smith, and Henry 
 Southard. 
 
 From Pennsylvania Henry Baldwin, William Dar- 
 lington, Samuel Edwards, Thomas Forrest, David 
 Fullerton, Samnel Gross, Joseph Hemphill, Jacob 
 Hibshman, Joseph Heister, Jacob Hostetter, William 
 P. Maclay, David Marchand, Robert Moore, Samuel 
 Moore, John Murray, Thomas Patterson, Thomas J. 
 Rogers, John Sergeant, Christian Tarr, and James 
 Wallace. 
 
 From Delaware Louis McLane. 
 
 From Maryland Stevenson Archer, Thomas Cul- 
 breth, Joseph Kent, Peter Little, Raphael Neale, 
 Samuel Ringgold, Samuel Smith, and Henry R. War- 
 field. 
 
 From Virginia Mark AlexAnder, William Lee 
 Ball, Philip P. Barbour, William A. Burwell, John 
 Floyd, Robert S. Garnett, James Jones, William 
 McCoy, Charles F. Mercer, Hugh Nelson, Thomas 
 Newton, Severn E. Parker, James Pindall, James 
 Pleasants, Alexander Smyth, George F. Strother, 
 George Tucker, John Tyler, Thomas Van Swear- 
 ingen, and Jared Williama 
 
 From North Carolina Hutchins G. Burton, John 
 Cnlpeper, Charles Fisher, Thomas H. Hall, James S. 
 Smith, Felix Walker, and Lewis Williams. 
 
 From South Carolina Joseph Brevard, John Mc- 
 Creary, James Overstreet, Charles Pinckney, Eldred 
 Simkins, and Sterling Tucker. 
 
 From Georgia Joel Abbot, Thomas W. Cobb, Joel 
 Crawford, and Robert W. Reid. 
 
 From Kentucky Richard C. Anderson, jun., Wil- 
 liam Brown, Henry Clay, Alney McLean, Thomas 
 Metealfe, Tunstall Quarles, George Robertson, David 
 Trimble, and David Walker. 
 
 From Tennessee Robert Allen, Henry H. Bryan, 
 Newton Cannon, John Cocke, Francis Jones, and 
 John Rhea. 
 
 From Ohio Philemon Beecher, Henry Brush, 
 John W. Campbell, Samuel Herrick, Thomas R. 
 Ross, and John Sloan. 
 
 From Indiana William Hendricks. 
 
 From Mississippi Christopher Rankin. 
 
 From Illinois Daniel P. Cook. 
 
 The House then proceeded to the choice of a 
 Speaker, by ballot ; and the ballots having been 
 counted by Mr. PLEASANTS and Mr. MOSELT, 
 it appeared that the whole number of votes 
 given in was 155, of which there were, 
 For HEXEY CLAY, of Kentucky - 147 
 Scattering rotes - 8 
 
 So that Mr. CLAY was duly elected Speaker 
 of the House of Representatives. He was ac- 
 cordingly conducted to the Chair by Mr. 
 PLEASANTS and Mr. MOSELY, and the oath 
 
 of office was administered to him by Mr. 
 NEWTON. 
 
 When Mr. CLAY, the Speaker elect, addressed 
 the House as follows : 
 
 GENTLEMEN : Again called, by your favorable 
 opinion, to the distinguished station to which I have 
 been frequently assigned by that of your predeces- 
 sors, I owe to you the expression of my most respect- 
 ful thanks ; and I pray you to believe that I feel inex- 
 pressible gratitude, as well for the honor itself, as for 
 the flattering manner in which it has been conferred. 
 In our extensive Confederacy, gentlemen, embracing 
 such various and important relations, it must neces- 
 sarily happen that each successive session of the 
 House of Representatives will bring with it subjects 
 of the greatest moment. During that which we are 
 now about to open, we have every reason to antici- 
 pate that the matters which we shall be required to 
 consider, and to decide, possess the highest degree 
 of interest. To give effect to our deliberations ; to 
 enable us to command the respect of those who may 
 witness or be affected by them ; and to entitle us to 
 the affection and confidence of our constituents, the 
 maintenance of order and decorum is absolutely 
 necessary. Being quite sure that your own comfort, 
 your sense of propriety, and the just estimate which 
 
 S)u must make of the dignity which belongs to this 
 ouse, will induce you to render to the Chair your 
 cordial co-operation ; I proceed to discharge its duties 
 with the sincere assurance of employing my best ex- 
 ertions to merit the choice which you have been 
 pleased to make. And it will be to me the greatest 
 happiness, if I should be so fortunate as to satisfy, in 
 this respect, your expectations. 
 
 The members were then called over by States, 
 and severally sworn to support the Constitu- 
 tion of the United States. 
 
 The House proceeded to the choice of a 
 Clerk, and, on motion, THOMAS DOUGHERTY 
 was appointed, nem. con. 
 
 In like manner, THOMAS Duira was appointed 
 Sergeant-at-Arms, THOMAS CLAXTON Doorkeep- 
 er, and BENJAMIN BUECH Assistant Doorkeeper 
 to the House. 
 
 JOHN SCOTT appeared, produced his creden* 
 tials, was qualified, and took his seat as the 
 delegate from the Territory of Missouri. 
 
 TUESDAY, December 7. 
 
 Several other members, to wit : from Penn- 
 sylvania, GEORGE DENNISON; from Virginia, 
 BALLARD SMITH ; and from Georgia, WILLIAM 
 TERRILL, appeared, produced their credentials, 
 were qualified, and took their seats. 
 
 WEDNESDAY, December 8. 
 Several other members, to wit: from Vir- 
 ginia, JAS. JOHNSON and JOHN RANDOLPH; 
 from North Carolina, WILLIAM DAVIDSON, 
 CHARLES HOOKS, JESSE SLOOUMB, and 1 IIOMAS 
 SETTLE; and from South Carolina, WILLIAM 
 LOWNDES, appeared, produced their credentials, 
 were qualified, and took their seats.
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 465 
 
 DECEMBER, 1819.] 
 
 Report on the Finances. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 Missouri State Government. 
 
 On motion of Mr. SOOTT, the several memo- 
 rials of the Legislature of the Territory of Mis- 
 souri, and of the inhabitants of the said Terri- 
 tory, presented to the House at the last session 
 of Congress, relative to the admission of that 
 Territory into the Union as a separate and in- 
 dependent State, were referred to a select com- 
 mittee; and Messrs. SCOTT, ROBERTSON, TEB- 
 EILL, STROTHER, and DEWITT, were appointed 
 the said committee. 
 
 Mr. STRONG, of New York, gave notice that 
 on to-morrow he should ask leave to introduce 
 a bill to prohibit the further extension of 
 slavery within the Territories of the United 
 States. 
 
 State of Alabama. 
 
 The resolution from the Senate, declaring the 
 admission of the State of Alabama into the 
 Union on an equal footing with the original 
 States, was twice read. With considerable op- 
 position as to the day on which it should be 
 read a third time, to-day was determined on, 
 and it was read a third time, finally passed with- 
 out a division, and returned to the Senate. 
 [The yeas and nays were required on its pass- 
 age, but the requisition was not sustained by 
 one-fifth of the House, the necessary number.] 
 
 THURSDAY, December 9. 
 
 Two other members, to wit : from Pennsyl- 
 vania, ANDREW BODEN, and from North Caro- 
 lina, WELDON N. EDWARDS, appeared, produced 
 there credentials, were qualified, and took their 
 
 The SPEAKER presented a memorial and peti- 
 tion of Matthew Lyon, formerly a Representa- 
 tive in Congress from the State of Vermont, 
 detailing the circumstances attending his prose- 
 cution for sedition in the year 1798, and com- 
 plaining of the unconstitutionality of the act 
 under which he was prosecuted ; of illegality 
 in the proceedings of the court before whom he 
 was tried and convicted; of the fine^he was 
 compelled to pay, and the imprisonment lie 
 suffered ; and also setting forth the iniquity of 
 the motives which prompted the said prose- 
 cution, which he declares was solely occasion- 
 ed by the honest expression of his political sen- 
 timents ; and praying that the amount of the 
 fine, with the interest thereon, may be repaid 
 to him, together with such sum as Congress 
 may think a just and proper indemnity for his 
 being dragged from his home, his family, friend*, 
 and business, and thrown into a dark and loath- 
 some dungeon, where he suffered for four 
 months every species of hardship, cruelty, and 
 indignity, which could be devised by the unre- 
 lenting and persecuting spirit of those by whom 
 he was persecuted. Referred to the Commit- 
 tee on the Judiciary. 
 
 FRIDAY, December 10. 
 
 Another member, to wit, from Massachu- 
 setts, TIMOTHY FULLER, appeared, produced 
 his credentials, was qualified, and took his 
 seat. 
 
 WILLIAM W. WOODBRIDGK also appeared, pro- 
 duced his credentials, was qualified, and took 
 his seat, as the delegate from the Territory of 
 Michigan. 
 
 MONDAY, December 13. 
 
 Two other members, to wit : from South Caro- 
 lina, ELI AS EARLE, and from Georgia, JOHN A. 
 CUTHBERT, appeared, produced their credentials, 
 were qualified, and took their seats. 
 
 Report on the Finances. 
 The SPEAKER laid before the House a letter 
 from the Secretary of the Treasury, transmitting 
 his annual report upon the state of the finances ; 
 which was read, and ordered to lie on the table. 
 The report is as follows : 
 
 TREASURY DEPARTMENT, Dec. 10, 1819. 
 SIR : I have the honor to transmit herewith a re- 
 port, prepared in obedience to the act, entitled " An 
 act to establish the Treasury Department." 
 I have the honor to be, very respectfully, &c. 
 
 WM. H. CRAWFORD. 
 The Hon. the PRESIDENT of the Senate. 
 
 In obedience to the directions of the " Act supple- 
 mentary to the act to establish the Treasury Depart- 
 ment," the Secretary of the Treasury respectfully 
 submits the following report : 
 
 1st. Of the Revenue. 
 
 The net revenue arising from duties upon imposts 
 and tonnage, internal duties, direct tax, public lands, 
 postage, and other incidental receipts, during the year 
 1815, amounted to 849,556,642 76, viz : 
 Customs, (see statement A.) - - $36,306,022 50 
 Internal duties - 5,963,225 88 
 
 Direct tar 5,723,152 25 
 
 Public lands - 1,287,959 28 
 
 Postage, and other incidental receipts 275,282 84 
 
 That which accrued from the same sources during 
 the year 1816, amounted to $36,657,904 72, viz : 
 Customs, (see statement A.) - - $27,484,100 36 
 Internal duties - 4,396,133 25 
 
 Direct tax 2,786,343 20 
 
 Public lands ... - 1,754,487 38 
 Postage, and other incidental receipts 237,840 53 
 
 That which accrued from the same sources during 
 1817, amounted to $24,365,227 34, viz : 
 Customs, (see statement A.) - - $17,524,775 15 
 Internal duties - 2,676,882 77 
 
 Direct tax 1,833,737 04 
 
 Public lands, (exclusive of Mississippi 
 
 stock) 2,015,977 00 
 
 Postage, and other incidental receipts 313,855 38 
 
 And that which accrued from the same sources 
 during the year 1818, amounted to $26,095,200 65, 
 viz: 
 
 VOL, VI. 30
 
 466 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 Report on the Finances. 
 
 [DECEMBER, 1819 
 
 Customs, (eee statement A.) - - $21,828,451 48 
 
 Arrears of internal duties, (see state- 
 ment B.) - - - - - 947,946 33 
 
 Arrears of direct tax, (see statement 
 
 B.) - - 263,926 01 
 
 Public lands, exclusive of Mississippi 
 
 stock, (see statement C.) - - 2,464,527 90 
 
 Postage, dividends on bank stock, and 
 other incidental receipts, (see state- 
 ment B.) ----- 590,348 93 
 
 It is ascertained that the gross amount of duties on 
 
 merchandise and tonnage, which have accrued during 
 
 the three first quarters of the present year, exceeds 
 
 $18,000,000. 
 
 Aud the sales of public lands during the same pe- 
 riod, have exceeded $8,700,000. 
 
 The payments into the Treasury during the three first 
 quarters of the year, are estimated to amount to, 
 (inclusive of $169,594 07 in Treasury notes) 
 
 $19,550,607 17 
 
 Customs- - -$15,604,081 58 
 
 Public lands, (exclu- 
 sive of Mississippi 
 stock) - - - 2,858,556 61 
 
 Arrears of internal 
 
 duties - - - 195,531 02 
 
 Arrears of direct tax 72,880 24 
 
 First instalment pay- 
 able by U. S. Bank 500,000 00 
 
 First dividend on the 
 U. S. shares in the 
 U. S. Bank - - 175,000 00 
 
 Incidental receipts - 59,095 43 
 
 Repayments - - 85,462 29 
 
 And the payments into the Treasury 
 during the 4th quarter of the year, 
 from the same sources, are esti- 
 
 mated at - 
 
 - 5,000,000 00 
 
 Making the whole amount estimated 
 
 to be received into the Treasury, 
 
 during the year 1819, (exclusive of 
 
 $169,694 07 in Treasury notes) - 24,381,013 10 
 Which, added to the balance in the 
 
 Treasury on the 1st day of January 
 
 last, (exclusive of $32,155 51 in 
 
 Treasury notes,) amounting to - 1,446,371 23 
 
 Makes the aggregate amount of $25,827,384 33 
 
 The application of this sum for the 
 year 1819, is estimated as follows, 
 viz : 
 
 To the 30th of September the pay- 
 ments, (exclusive of $81,161 79 in 
 Treasury notes, which had been 
 drawn from the Treasury and can- 
 celled,) amounted to - $18,192,387 43 
 
 Civil, diplomatic, and miscellaneous 
 expenses - - 2,544,612 98 
 
 Military service, (in- 
 cluding arrearage) - 7,665,961 72 
 
 Naval service, (includ- 
 ing the permanent 
 appropriation for the 
 gradual increase of 
 the navy) - - 3,527,640 42 
 
 Public debt, (exclusive 
 
 of $81,161 79 in 
 Treas'y notes, above 
 mentioned) - - 4,454,172 31 
 
 During the fourth quarter it is estima- 
 ted that the payments, (exclusive of 
 $120,587 79 in Treasury notes, 
 which will be drawn from the Treas- 
 ury and cancelled,) will amount to 7,300,000 00 
 Viz: 
 
 Civil, diplomatic, and miscellaneous 
 expenses - - - $500,000 
 
 Military service - - $1,530,000 
 
 Naval service - - 300,000 
 
 Puhlic debt to the 1st 
 of Jan., 1820, (exclu- 
 sive of $120,587 79 in 
 Treasury notes, above 
 mentioned) - - 4,970,000 
 
 Making the aggregate amount, (ex- 
 clusive of $201,749 58 in Treasury 
 notes, drawn from the Treasury 
 and cancelled,) of 25,492,387 43 
 
 And leaving on the 1st of Jan., 1820, 
 a balance in the Treasury, esti- 
 
 mated at 
 
 $334,996 90 
 
 2d. Of the Public Debt. 
 The funded debt which was contracted before the 
 
 year 1812, and which was unredeemed on the first 
 
 day of Oct., 1818, (as appears by statement I,) 
 
 amounted to $29,681,280 07 
 
 And that contracted subsequently to 
 
 the 1st day of January, 1812, and 
 
 unredeemed on the 1st of October, 
 
 1818, as appears by the same state- 
 
 ment, amounted to 68,146,039 84 
 
 Making the aggregate amount of - 97,827,319 91 
 Which sum agrees with the amount 
 
 stated in the last annual report, as un- 
 redeemed on the 1st October, 1818, 
 
 excepting the sum of $1,885 13, which 
 
 was then short estimated, and which 
 
 has since been corrected by actual 
 
 settlement. 
 
 On the 1st day of January there was 
 added to the amount, for Treasury 
 notes iJrought into the Treasury and 
 cancelled, and for which the follow- 
 ing stock was issued : 
 
 In 6 per cent, stock - $49,024 71 
 
 In 7 per cent, stock - 2,646 00 
 
 51,670 71 
 
 Making - $97,878,990 62 
 From which deduct Louisiana six per 
 
 cent, stock, reimbursed on the 21st 
 
 of October, 1818 - $4,977,950 00 
 And deferred stock re- 
 imbursed between 
 
 the 1st Oct, 1818, 
 
 and 1st. Jan., 1819 252,863 27 
 
 5,230,813 27 
 
 Making the public debt, which was 
 
 unredeemed on the 1st Jan., 1819, 
 
 (as appears by statement 2,) am't 
 
 to - - - - - - 92,648,177 35 

 
 DEBATES OF CONGKESS. 
 
 467 
 
 DECEMBER, 1819.] 
 
 Report on the Finances. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 From the 1st of January to the 30th 
 September inclusive, there was, hy 
 funding Treasury notes, and issuing 
 3 per cent, stock, for interest on 
 old registered debt, added to the 
 public debt, (as appears by state- 
 ment 3,) the amount of 
 
 36,135 59 
 
 $92,684,312 94 
 
 From which deduct the amount of 
 stock purchased during that period, 
 (as appears by statement 4) 
 
 $711,957 55 
 
 And the estimated reim- 
 bursement of deferred 
 stock - - - 243,827 88 
 
 955,785 43 
 
 Making, on the 1st of October, 1819, 
 (as appears by statement 3,) the 
 
 sum of 
 
 Since the 30th of September there has 
 been redeemed, or provision made 
 for the redemption of 54 per cent 
 of the Louisiana stock, unpaid on 
 the 1st October, 1819, amounting 
 to - - $2,601,817 15 
 
 And there will be reim- 
 bursed of the princi- 
 pal of the deferred 6 
 per cent, stock, on 
 the 1st Jan., 1820 241,506 70 
 
 Leaving the public debt unredeemed 
 on the 1st January, 1820, by esti- 
 
 $91,728,527 51 
 
 2,843,323 85 
 
 The Treasury notes in circulation are 
 estimated, (as appears by statement 
 
 5,) at 
 
 - $181,821 00 
 
 The whole of the awards made by the commissioners 
 appointed under the several acts of Congress for 
 indemnifying certain claimants of public lands, (as 
 appears by statement 6,) amounts to $4,282,151 12 
 
 Of which there has been received at 
 the office of the Commissioner of 
 the General Land Office, (as ap- 
 pears by statement C,) the sum of 2,372,574 31 
 
 Leaving outstanding, at the dates of 
 the several returns from the land 
 districts - ... $1,909,576 81 
 
 3. Of the Estimates of the Public Revenue and Ex- 
 penditures for the year 1820. 
 
 In presenting the estimate for the year 1820, it 
 may be proper to observe, that, when the internal 
 duties were repealed, on the 31st of December, 1817, 
 the permanent revenue, including those duties, was 
 estimated at $24,525,000, while the annual author- 
 ized expenditure was ascertained to be less than the 
 sum of $22,000,000. The repeal of the internal 
 duties reduced the former to $22,625,000, while the 
 payments from the Treasury, during the year 1818, 
 exceeded $26,000,000 ; and those of the present year 
 will, probably, i'all but little short of $25,500,000. 
 
 In the annual report of the Treasury of the 21st of 
 November, 1818, the receipts for the present year 
 
 were estimated at $24,220,000. Although this esti- 
 mate will be realized in its general result, deficiencies 
 have been ascertained in the customs, the internal 
 duties and direct tax, the bank dividends and the 
 postage of letters. The deficiency which has occurred 
 in the customs, internal duties, and direct taxes, will 
 probably augment, in nearly the same degree, the 
 receipts from those sources in the year 1820, by the 
 payment of the revenue bonds, and of that portion of 
 the internal duties and direct taxes, which, if the ac- 
 customed punctuality had been observed, would have 
 been received during the present year. But it is 
 probable that the receipts of that year will be dimin- 
 ished by the non-payment of the bank dividends, and 
 by the application of a portion of the proceeds of the 
 public lands to the redemption of the outstanding 
 Mississippi stock. The receipts for the year 1820, 
 applicable to the ordinary and current demands upon 
 the Treasury, may therefore be estimated at twenty- 
 two millions of dollars, viz : 
 
 Customs $19,000,000 00 
 
 Public lands 2,000,000 00 
 
 Arrears of internal duties and direct 
 
 tax 450,000 00 
 
 Second instalment due by the United 
 
 States Bank - ... 500,000 00 
 Incidental receipts - 50,000 00 
 
 Which, with the sum estimated to be 
 in the Treasury on the 1st of Jan- 
 uary, 1820 - - - - 334,996 90 
 
 Make the aggregate amount of $22,334,996 90 
 
 The estimates of the expenditure for the year 1820 
 arc not yet complete ; but it is ascertained from those 
 which have already been received, that a sum not 
 less than $27,000,000 will be required for the service 
 of that year. This deficit of nearly $5,000,000, re- 
 sulting from the excess of expenditure beyond the re- 
 ceipts, cannot be supplied by any application of the 
 ordinary revenue. After paying the interest and re- 
 imbursement of the public debt, and redeeming the 
 remainder of the Louisiana stock, about $2,500,000 
 of the Sinking Fund will remain without application, 
 if the price of the public stocks should continue above 
 the prices at which the Commissioners of the Sinking 
 Fund are authorized to purchase. During the years 
 1821, 1822, and 1823, the average sum of $5,000,000 
 of the Sinking Fund will also remain without appli- 
 cation, if the price of the public stock should prevent 
 its purchase. Any application of that portion of the 
 Sinking Fund, which, on account of the price of the 
 public stock, may remain unemployed in the hands 
 of the Commissioners of the Sinking Fund, to other 
 branches of the public service, if allowable under the 
 provisions of the act making the appropriation, would 
 only postpone the period at which additional imposi- 
 tions would be required to meet the public expendi- 
 ture. Such an application would also have the effect 
 of ultimately retarding the redemption of the public 
 debt. 
 
 It may be proper to add, that, although some of 
 the items in the estimate for the ensuing year may be 
 considered in their nature temporary, yet it is prob- 
 able that the estimate for succeeding years will ex- 
 ceed rather than fall below it 
 
 Under all the circumstances, it is respectfully sub- 
 mitted, that the public interest requires that the rev 
 enue be augmented, or that the expenditure be di- 
 minished.
 
 468 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OP THE 
 
 H. 
 
 R.] 
 
 Restriction of Slavery in Territories. 
 
 [DECEMBER, 1819. 
 
 Should an increase of the revenue be deemed expe- 
 dient, a portion of the deficit may be supplied by an 
 addition to the duties now imposed upon various arti- 
 cles of foreign merchandise, and by a reasonable duty 
 upon sales at public auction ; but it is not probable 
 that any modification of the existing tariff can super- 
 sede the necessity of resorting to internal taxation if 
 the expenditure is not diminished. Should Congress 
 deem it expedient to modify the present rate of duties, 
 with a view to afford that protection to our cotton, 
 woollen, and iron manufactures, which is necessary 
 to secure to them the domestic market, the necessity 
 of resorting to a system of internal taxation will be 
 augmented. It is believed that the present is a favor- 
 able moment for affording efficient protection to that 
 increasing and important interest, if it can be done 
 consistently with the general interest of the nation. 
 The situation of the countries from whence our foreign 
 manufactures have been principally drawn, authorizes 
 the expectation, that, in the event of a monopoly of 
 the home market being secured to our cotton and 
 woollen manufactures, a considerable portion of the 
 manufacturing skill and capital of those countries will 
 be promptly transferred to the United States, and in- 
 corporated into the domestic capital of the Union. 
 Should this expectation be realized, the disadvantages 
 resulting from such a monopoly would quickly disap- 
 pear. In the mean time, it is believed that a system 
 of internal taxation would be severely felt by the 
 great mass of our citizens. 
 
 Whether the revenue be augmented, or the expen- 
 diture be diminished, a loan to some extent will be 
 necessary. The augmentation of the one, or the 
 diminution of the other, cannot be effected in suf- 
 ficient time to prevent this necessity. As the six per 
 cent, stock of the United States is considerably above 
 par, the sum required to be raised by loan can be 
 conveniently and advantageously obtained by the sale 
 of stock of that description, or it may be obtained by 
 the issue of Treasury notes. If the revenue and ex- 
 penditure shall be equalized, the issue of Treasury 
 notes, not bearing interest, is recommended in pre- 
 ference to the creation or sale of stock, as the loan, in 
 that event, will be small in amount, and temporary 
 in its nature. 
 
 All which is respectfully submitted. 
 
 WM. H. CRAWFORD. 
 
 TUESDAY, December 14. 
 
 Another member, to wit, from Kentucky, 
 BENJAMIN HABDIN, appeared, produced his cre- 
 dentials, and took his seat. 
 
 Mr. JOHN CBOWELL, the Representative from 
 the State of Alabama, also appeared, produced 
 his credentials, was qualified, and took his seat. 
 
 Restriction of Slavery in Territories. 
 Mr. TAYLOB, of New York, said he rose to in- 
 vite the attention of the House to a subject of 
 very great moment. The question of slavery in 
 the territories of the United States west of the 
 Mississippi, it was well known, had at the last 
 session of Congress excited feelings, both in the 
 House and out of it, the recurrence of which he 
 sincerely deprecated. All who love our coun- 
 try, and consider the Union of these States as 
 the ark of its safety, must ever view with deep 
 regret sectional interests agitating our national 
 
 councils. Mr. T. said he could not himself, nor 
 would he ask others, to make a sacrifice of prin- 
 ciple to expediency. He could never sanction 
 the existence of slavery where it could be ex- 
 cluded consistently with the constitution and 
 public faith. But it ought not to be forgotten 
 that the American family is composed of many 
 members ; if their interests are various, they 
 mutually must be respected ; if their prejudices 
 are strong, they must be treated with forbear- 
 ance. He did not know whether conciliation 
 were practicable, but he considered the attain- 
 ment worthy of an effort. He was desirous 
 that the question should be settled in that spirit 
 of amity and brotherly love which carried us 
 through the perils of a Revolution, and produ- 
 ced the adoption of our Federal Constitution. 
 If the resolution he was about to introduce 
 should be sanctioned by the House, it was his 
 purpose to move a postponement of the Mis- 
 souri bill to a future day, that this interesting 
 subject, in relation to the whole Western terri- 
 tory, may be submitted to the consideration of 
 a committee. Mr. T. then introduced the fol- 
 lowing resolution : 
 
 " Resolved, That a committee be appointed to in- 
 quire into the expediency of prohibiting by law the 
 introduction of slaves into the territories of the United 
 States west of the Mississippi." 
 
 Mr. STBOTHEB made a few remarks, the pur- 
 port of which was, that, although the question 
 was already before the House, as involved in 
 the bill for the admission of the Missouri Terri- 
 tory into the Union, yet, when a proposition 
 was made having for its object a compromise of 
 conflicting opinions, it became members to meet 
 it in a spirit of harmony. He proposed, how- 
 ever, that the proposition should lie on the 
 table till to-morrow, to give time for reflection 
 on it. 
 
 Mr. TATLOE assenting to this course, the mo- 
 tion was ordered to lie on the table. 
 
 WEDNESDAY, December 15. 
 
 Two other members, to wit : from Maryland, 
 THOMAS BAYLY, and from South Carolina, JAMES 
 EEVIN, appeared, produced their credentials, 
 were qualified, and took their seats. 
 
 A message was received from the PEESIDENT 
 OF THE UNITED STATES, which was read, and is 
 as follows : 
 To the Senate of the United States : 
 
 In conformity with the resolution of the House of 
 Representatives of the 24th of February last, I now 
 transmit a report of the Secretary of State, with ex- 
 tracts and copies of several letters, touching the causes 
 of the imprisonment of William White, an American 
 citizen, at Buenos Ayres. 
 
 JAMES MONROE. 
 
 WASHINGTON, Uth December, 1819. 
 
 Restriction of Slavery in Territories. 
 On motion of Mr. TAYLOB, of New York, the 
 House proceeded to the consideration of the 
 resolution yesterday offered by him, in the 
 words following, to wit : 

 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 DECEMBER, 1819.] 
 
 Restriction of Slavery in Territories. 
 
 [H. OF E. 
 
 Resolved, That a committee be appointed to inquire 
 into the expediency of prohibiting by law the intro- 
 duction of slaves into the territories of the United 
 States west of the Mississippi. 
 
 Mr. TATI.OE said it was not his purpose to go 
 into any discussion of the merits of this propo- 
 sition; "nor, he believed, would any discussion 
 assist the end he had in view. If a compromise 
 of opposite opinions was to he effected, it ap- 
 peared to him better that a committee should be 
 appointed to examine into it, and make their 
 report; and that the question should not be 
 moved in this House until that committee 
 should have expended their best efforts on this 
 object. 
 
 The question was then taken, without debate, 
 on agreeing to the resolution, and decided in 
 the affirmative, without a division. A com- 
 mittee of seven members was ordered to be ap- 
 pointed accordingly ; and Messrs. TAYLOR, Liv- 
 EBMOBE, BAEBOUR? LOWNDES, FTJLLEB, HARDIN, 
 and CUTHBEBT, were appointed a committee 
 pursuant to the said resolution. 
 
 Mr. TAYLOR then moved to postpone, until 
 the first Monday in February next, the order of 
 the day on the bill authorizing a convention of 
 the people of Missouri for the purpose of form- 
 ing a constitution and State government. 
 
 Mr. LOWDNES said he thought the day which 
 was proposed for the postponement was too dis- 
 tant ; and that the question whether any com- 
 promise could be efiected. might be decided in a 
 much less time than that. He could hardly sup- 
 pose that the glimpse of the possibility of a 
 compromise, which had appeared, ought to in- 
 duce the House so long to postpone the consid- 
 eration of this measure. He did not desire to 
 act on the subject immediately, but wished it 
 to lie on the list of orders of the day until the 
 House was ready to take it up. 
 
 Mr. SCOTT, delegate from Missouri, said he 
 hoped that the proposition to postpone till the 
 first Monday of February would not succeed. It 
 was of vast importance to the people of Mis- 
 souri that an immediate decision should be made 
 on this question. If the bill passed at an early 
 day, the people would then have time to meet 
 in convention, form their constitution, organize 
 their government, elect members to a general 
 assembly, on whom it would devolve to choose 
 Senators to the Congress of the United States. 
 If, on the other hand, the bill ultimately was 
 lost, it was equally necessary that the people 
 should be soon apprised of its failure, that they 
 might have time to act for themselves, and 
 frame a form of government, which he was con- 
 vinced they would do, without waiting to again 
 apply to Congress for the mere means of organ- 
 ization. The resolution which had been adopt- 
 ed furnished no good reason for the postpone- 
 ment^ because it only proposed an inquiry into 
 the expediency of the measure in relation to 
 the Territories, and could not control the con- 
 stitutional inquiry and right of the people of 
 Missouri to form their constitution as a State. 
 
 Mr. TATLOE replied. With regard to the 
 
 prospect of success to his proposition, he could 
 only say, without knowing the opinion of any 
 other member, that he had a sincere disposition 
 to accomplish the object of the proposition he 
 had submitted. And, should he fail of his ob- 
 ject, it appeared to him the first Monday in 
 February would be time enough to commence 
 what he feared would be a most unprofitable 
 and unproductive discussion. With respect to 
 the people of Missouri, Mr. T. said it would be 
 time enough for them, he presumed, after the 
 first Monday in February, or even after they 
 learnt the decision of this House, to elect a con- 
 vention and form a constitution without the 
 authority of Congress. 
 
 Mr. MEBCEB, of Virginia, was opposed to so 
 long a postponement as was proposed ; because, 
 the Territory possessing the requisite population, 
 &c., every moment's delay, considering the prac- 
 tice of the Government heretofore, was an in- 
 fraction of its rights. Mr. M. particularly de- 
 sired, when this question was taken up, that it 
 should not be by surprise, in such manner as to 
 deprive gentlemen of the opportunity of express- 
 ing their opinions on it. He himself had, he 
 said, at the last Congress, taken some pride in 
 recording his vote against the introduction of 
 slaves into the Territories of the United States, 
 because that measure was within the fair scope 
 of the legislative power. At the same time, he 
 considered it inconsistent with the most solemn 
 obligations to respect the constitution, for Con- 
 gress to clog the admission of any independent 
 State into the Union with any condition what- 
 ever, except that the constitution formed for its 
 government should be republican. He conclud- 
 ed by moving the 2d Monday of January as the 
 day to which the bill should be postponed. 
 
 And, on the question, the order of the day on 
 the Missouri bill was postponed to the second 
 Monday in January. 
 
 THURSDAY, December 16. 
 Two other members, to wit : from Vermont, 
 EZEA MEEOH, and from Delaware, WILLABD 
 HALL, appeared, produced their credentials, 
 were qualified, and took their seats. 
 
 WEDNESDAY, December 22. 
 Another member, to wit, from Pennsylvania, 
 ROBEBT PHILSON, appeared, produced his creden- 
 tials, was qualified, and took his seat. 
 
 MONDAY, December 27. 
 Another member, to wit, from Louisiana, 
 THOMAS BUTLEB, appeared, produced his cre- 
 dentials, was qualified, and took his seat. 
 
 WEDNESDAY, December 29. 
 
 Restriction of Slavery in Territories. 
 
 Mr. TAYLOB, of New York, rose and stated, 
 
 that he was instructed by the committee to 
 
 whom had been referred the resolution of the
 
 470 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 Restriction of Slavery in Territories. 
 
 [DECEMBER, 1819. 
 
 15th instant, directing an inquiry into the ex- 
 pediency of prohibiting the extension of slavery 
 in the Territories of the United States, to ask 
 to be discharged from the further consideration 
 of the subject. Mr. T. gave as a reason for his 
 motion, that the committee had found that, 
 after a free interchange of opinions, they could 
 not, consistently with their ideas of public duty, 
 come to any conclusion, or agree to any report 
 which could promise to unite in any degree the 
 conflicting views of the House on this question. 
 
 The question was taken on discharging the 
 committee from the further consideration of the 
 subject, and agreed to. 
 
 Mr. TAYLOR then, as he observed, to bring 
 the question before the House, at a proper time 
 and in a distinct shape, and not with a view 
 to invite a discussion on it at this time, moved 
 the following resolution : 
 
 "Resolved, That a committee be appointed with 
 instructions to report a bill prohibiting the further ad- 
 mission of slaves into the Territories of the United 
 States west of the river Mississippi." 
 
 Mr. LOWNDES said he should have no objec- 
 tion to the resolution, if its effect would be 
 nothing more than was stated by the mover; 
 but it surely ought not to be expected that the 
 House would pass without discussion a resolu- 
 tion expressed in terms such as the one before 
 them. Before the House should agree to in- 
 struct a committee to bring in a bill embracing 
 a principle on which there were varying opin- 
 ions, it would certainly discuss the preliminary 
 question. He suggested, therefore, that the 
 phraseology be modified so as not to express any 
 opinion of the House in adopting it. If a com- 
 mittee could not agree, as had just been stated, 
 it certainly could not be expected that the 
 House would adopt such a form of expression, 
 without debate, as should indicate an agree- 
 ment of opinion on this subject. 
 
 Mr. TAYLOR did not understand the resolution 
 in the same way as Mr. LOWNDES. The House 
 could not get at the question unless it was on a 
 bill ; and, in directing the committee to prepare 
 a bill, he did not intend to express any opinion 
 on the principle of the bill, or intend that the 
 House should decide on the abstract question. 
 Had such been his object, he would have stated 
 in the resolution that it was expedient. He 
 presumed there were no members, he knew of 
 none, who doubted the constitutional power of 
 Congress to impose such a restriction on the 
 Territories, and the only question which the 
 bill could present, was one of expediency.* The 
 resolution would not commit any member as 
 to the abstract question referred to. 
 
 Mr. RHEA was opposed to the resolution, be- 
 
 * This is a remarkable declaration, and would seem to 
 have been heard with general acquiescence. The question 
 of restricting the State of Missouri had then been before 
 Congress, and the public, for a year, and its constitutionality 
 vehemently contested, but the constitutionality of restrict- 
 ing a Territory had not then been disputed, and that ques- 
 tion rose no higher than one of expediency. 
 
 cause he considered it not a very fair way of 
 coming at the question. He wished gentlemen 
 would exercise a little of the candor they talked 
 about so much, and not endeavor to force the dis- 
 cussion on the House unexpectedly. The adop- 
 tion of such a resolution by the House would 
 have the effect to spread an opinion through the 
 country, that the House approved of the bill 
 they ordered to be brought in, and that it would 
 become a law ; and he wished no such opinion 
 to go forth. The resolution was worded as if 
 the question of expediency was settled, and took 
 every thing for granted. This he was opposed 
 to. There was a great deal to be said on that 
 question ; and he would not agree to a resolu- 
 tion which should have the appearance of ad- 
 mitting principles which had not been discussed 
 or conceded fairly. 
 
 Mr. SMITH, of Maryland, was sure the mover 
 of the resolution did not wish to take the House 
 by surprise ; and, as many members were ab- 
 sent, it would not be proper to press a decision 
 on the resolution now. The proper course was 
 the usual one to refer the inquiry to a com- 
 mittee. Let them consider it ; if they should 
 report a bill, let that bill go to a Committee of 
 the Whole, when the House would be apprised 
 of it, and would be prepared to discuss and act 
 on it. He moved that the resolution be com- 
 mitted to the Committee of the Whole, and 
 made the order for the second Monday in Jan- 
 uary ; because the members had been prepared 
 to anticipate, on that day, the discussion of the 
 subject in another form. 
 
 Mr. MERGER was sure, from the first, that 
 nothing like compromise would grow out of the 
 adoption and reference of the former resolution, 
 because one party founded their opinions, hon- 
 estly, he had no doubt, on what they conceived 
 the solemn obligations of justice ; and the other 
 party founded theirs on the solemn obligations 
 of an oath. As respected the discussion of this 
 subject, it had been referred to the second Mon- 
 day in January, and it was considered settled 
 that it would not come up before. It was, 
 therefore, improper to take up the discussion 
 now, in the absence of many members, who had 
 left here in confidence that the subject would 
 not be discussed until a fixed day ; and, in a 
 way, too, which would commit the House on 
 the question. Whenever a member wished to 
 bring in a bill, he always gave notice, and was 
 required to do so ; because a solemn character 
 was given to a subject when once entertained 
 by the House, and it was considered fair to give 
 notice. Mr. M. observed that his objections to 
 the resolution grew out of no hostility to its 
 object. When the question proposed should 
 come fairly before the House, he should support 
 the proposition. Standing here as a Represent- 
 ative of the people west of the Mississippi, he 
 should record his vote against suffering the dark 
 cloud of calamity, which now darkened his 
 country, from rolling on beyond the peaceful 
 shores of the Mississippi. 
 Mr. HOLMES, of Massachusetts, did not agree
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 471 
 
 DECEMBER, 1819.] 
 
 State of Maine. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 with the mover of this resolution. It proposed 
 to instruct a committee to bring in a bill for a 
 particular object. This proposition tested the 
 opinion of the House on the measure ; because, 
 if he voted for instructing a committee for any 
 object, it would be expected of him to vote for 
 the bill, when it should be reported, pursuant to 
 the instruction unless he wished to be thought 
 inconsistent. To vote for the instruction would 
 certainly be considered as a pledge to support 
 the object of the bill. He was not prepared to 
 say whether he would vote for such a bill as 
 the one proposed or not he inclined to think ho 
 should not. But he was satisfied of one thing, 
 and that was, that this question was very different 
 from that of the Missouri bill ; and he thought 
 that bill ought to be first acted on it had been 
 once already discussed, and had priority of the 
 proposition now before the House. Mr. H. ob- 
 served that, whatever he might think about 
 prohibiting slavery in the Territories of the 
 United States, he could entertain no doubt on 
 the other question. His mind was fully made 
 up and settled that the House had no right to 
 inhibit a State in this particular. The constitu- 
 tion of the country, the treaty of cession, settled 
 his opinion on this question, and forbade him 
 to hesitate in declaring that Congress had no 
 power to prohibit the exercise of this privilege 
 by the State of Missouri. 
 
 The question was then taken on postponing 
 the question, and decided in the affirmative, by 
 a vote of 83 to 62. 
 
 THURSDAY, December 30. 
 State of Maine. 
 
 The House then, according to the orders of 
 the day, resolved itself into a Committee of the 
 Whole, (Mr. HILL in the chair,) on the bill for 
 the admission of the State of Maine into the 
 Union. 
 
 The question being stated that the committee 
 do rise and report the bill 
 
 Mr. CLAY (Speaker) said he was not yet pre- 
 pared for this question. He was not opposed 
 to the admission of the State of Maine into the 
 Union. The intelligence and numerical strength 
 of her population, her extent of territory, her 
 separation from old Massachusetts by interven- 
 ing territory, her position in relation to the 
 other members of the Confederacy, all concur- 
 red to recommend the measure now proposed. 
 But, before it was finally acted on, he wished 
 to know, he said, whether certain doctrines of 
 an alarming character which, if persevered 
 in, no man could tell where they would end 
 with respect to a restriction on the admission 
 into the Union of States west of the Mississippi, 
 were to be sustained on this floor. He wished 
 to know what was the character of the condi- 
 tions which Congress had a right to annex to 
 the admission of new States ; whether, in fact, 
 in admitting a new State, there could be a par- 
 tition of its sovereignty, lie wished to know 
 the extent of the principles which gentlemen 
 
 meant to defend in this respect ; and particu- 
 larly the extent to which they meant to carry 
 these principles in relation to the country west 
 of the Mississippi. On this subject, he said, 
 there should be a serious pause ; the question 
 should be maturely weighed before this new 
 mode of acquiring power was resorted to, 
 which was proposed in regard to the State to 
 be formed out of the present Territory of Mis- 
 souri. Heretofore, when the population and 
 extent of a territory had been such as to entitle 
 a territory to the privilege of self-government, 
 and the rank of a State, the single question had 
 presented itself to admit or reject it, without 
 qualification. But new doctrines had sprung 
 up on this subject ; and, said he, before we take 
 a single step to change the present relations of 
 the members of the Confederation, there should 
 be a distinct understanding between the Repre- 
 sentatives from the various parts of the country, 
 as to the extent to which they are to be carried. 
 If beyond the mountains Congress can exert the 
 power of imposing restrictions on new States, 
 can they not also on this side of them ? If, 
 there, they can impose hard conditions condi- 
 tions which strike vitally at the independence 
 and power of the States can they not also 
 here ? If, said he, the States of the West are 
 to be subject to restrictions by Congress, whilst 
 the Atlantic States are free from them, pro- 
 claim the distinction at once ; announce your 
 privileges and immunities : let us have a clear 
 and distinct understanding of what we are to 
 expect. He would not, however, he said, press 
 this part of the subject, but proceed to notice 
 another point which presented itself in respect 
 to this bill ; wishing the honorable gentleman, 
 under whose auspices this bill had been intro- . 
 duced into the House, distinctly to understand 
 that he had not the slightest indisposition to 
 the reception of Maine into the Union on the 
 footing of the other States of the Union. 
 
 Mr. C. then adverted to the section, which 
 had been stricken out of the bill, respecting the 
 representation of Maine on this floor. Looking 
 back to 1791, what then took place on a similar 
 subject with this ? The State of Kentucky, if 
 he was not egregiously mistaken in the history 
 of the times, was delayed eighteen months be- 
 fore she was permitted to come in, until Ver- 
 mont also was ready ; and the two States would 
 be found connected together in the act provid- 
 ing for their representation in Congress. He 
 asked whether this precedent from the statute 
 book might not be advantageously followed in 
 regard to the two States now claiming admis- 
 sion into the Union ; one being from the North- 
 east, the other from the West, as was the case 
 in 1791 ? This, he said, was worthy of consid- 
 eration. The precedent was from the early, 
 and, as far at least as regards the construction 
 of the constitution under which we act, the 
 best times of the Republic. Whether such a 
 union of the two States took place now, or not, 
 Mr. C. said he wished to know what was to be 
 done on the subject of the representation of
 
 472 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 State of Maine. 
 
 [DECEMBER, 1819. 
 
 Maine ? Did the gentleman mean to follow up 
 this bill by another, providing specially for that 
 object? The committee, he thought, ought not 
 to rise and report the bill in its present shape, 
 without satisfactory information on that point. 
 Mr. HOLMES rose in reply. The application 
 from the people of Maine to be admitted into 
 the Union as one of the States, he said, was a 
 distinct subject presented to the consideration 
 of the committee ; and the question was, shall 
 Maine be or not be admitted into the Union ? 
 Upon that question, he was prepared to sup- 
 port the affirmative. The other question, rela- 
 tive to the apportionment of representation be- 
 tween Maine and Massachusetts, he was ready 
 to discuss now or at any other time ; and the 
 only reason why he had wished to expunge the 
 section relative to that point from the present 
 bill, was that there was some uncertainty, from 
 the practice which had hitherto prevailed on 
 the admission of new States, as to the appor- 
 tionment of the representation. For himself, 
 he said, he had. entertained no doubt on the 
 subject, until he saw the precedent to which 
 the gentleman had alluded. He had felt, no 
 doubt, that when a State is formed from a por- 
 tion of another State, and the relative propor- 
 tion of the territory and population known, the 
 representation should stand as at present, until 
 anew census was taken. But, he said, this 
 precedent, with regard to Kentucky, had stag- 
 gered him. That State had been formed from 
 a portion of the territory of Virginia, and two 
 representatives on this floor were given to Ken- 
 tucky, without diminishing the number of rep- 
 resentatives from the State of Virginia. This 
 was a precedent which he thought did not ex- 
 actly accord with the principles of the consti- 
 tution, which laid down a different rule for the 
 apportionment of representation. It was pos- 
 sible, he said, there was some reason, which we 
 do not know, which induced the course pursued 
 on that occasion. Possibly it was then deter- 
 mined that, if a State sending fifty representa- 
 tives should be divided into two States, the 
 original State should continue to send her fifty 
 members, and the new State should send twenty- 
 five. If Congress had so determined, he appre- 
 hended they had determined against the provi- 
 sions of the constitution. Probably Congress 
 then thought they had the power which they 
 exercised, inasmuch as the existing apportion- 
 ment of representatives among the States had 
 been made by the framers of the constitution, 
 and not according to an exact enumeration of 
 the people. Probably the people in that por- 
 tion of the Territory had increased so much 
 faster than the rest as, hi the opinion of Con- 
 gress, to entitle them to the two representatives 
 which were thus additionally given. But this 
 precedent proved that, between one apportion- 
 ment and another, the Congress have a right 
 to modify that apportionment, where circum- 
 stances make it necessary. However it might 
 be settled in matter of form in the present case, 
 Mi\ II. said that the parties concerned would 
 
 be satisfied that Maine has the seven represent- 
 atives, which according to the last enumeration 
 that portion of the territory of Massachusetts 
 is entitled to, and Massachusetts would be con- 
 tent to have the remaining thirteen representa- 
 tives to which her population entitled her. If 
 the doctrine established in the case of Kentucky 
 should be sustained on this occasion, Massachu- 
 setts would still have her twenty representa- 
 tives, and Maine would be entitled to seven. 
 That doctrine, he said, would be monstrous, 
 and he should not claim for Massachusetts the 
 the advantage of the precedent. 
 
 Mr. LIVEBMOBE, of New Hampshire, said, the 
 question before the committee he took to be 
 simply this : whether the committee should 
 rise, and report the bill now before them. He 
 asked the honorable gentleman from Kentucky, 
 whether he was of opinion that Congress could 
 impose any restriction on Maine ? That ques- 
 tion the gentleman would, he knew, answer in 
 the negative. Why, then, was the time of the 
 House taken up in an unnecessary discussion ? 
 It had been said that, if restrictions were pro- 
 posed on Missouri, Maine and Missouri ought to 
 come into the Union, hand and hand together. 
 Now, Mr. L. said, it was very well known, that 
 every one who contended for the restriction on 
 the new States, beyond the Mississippi, had gone 
 on the ground that the territory acquired by 
 France stood on a distinct footing, and not on 
 the same footing as the old States. Why did 
 not the gentleman, when the State of Alabama 
 was admitted in the Union by a bill passed at 
 this session, make the objections which he had 
 now raised to the admission of Maine ? That 
 bill, however, had passed through this House 
 with as much celerity as was usual with bills 
 of a public nature, to say no more of it. If no 
 difference of opinion existed as to the propriety 
 of admitting Maine into the Union, why was 
 the House impeded in its progress through the 
 bill by arguments which applied to another 
 question, and not this ? 
 
 Mr. CLAY remarked that, since the question 
 was put, he would say at once to the gentleman 
 from Massachusetts, and his worthy friend the 
 chairman of the Committee on the Post Office 
 and Post Eoads, with that frankness which per- 
 haps too much belonged to his character, that 
 he did not mean to give his consent to the ad- 
 mission of the State of Maine into the Union, 
 as long as the doctrines were upheld of annex- 
 ing conditions to the admission of States into 
 the Union from beyond the mountains. Equal- 
 ity, said he, is equity. If we have no right to 
 impose conditions on this State, we have none 
 to impose them on the State of Missouri. Al- 
 though, Mr. C. said, he did not mean to antici- 
 pate the argument on this subject, the gentle- 
 man from New Hampshire would find himselt 
 totally to fail in the attempt to establish the 
 position that, because the Territory of Missouri 
 was acquired by purchase, she is our vassal, and 
 we have a right to affix to her admission condi- 
 tions not applicable to the States on this side of
 
 DEBATES OF CONGKESS. 
 
 473 
 
 DECEMBER, 1819.] 
 
 State of Maine. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 the Mississippi. The doctrine, said Mr. C., is an 
 alarming one, and I protest against it now, and 
 whenever or wherever it may be asserted, that 
 there are no rights attaching in the one case 
 which do not in the other ; or that any line of 
 distinction is to be drawn between the Eastern 
 and the Western States. It is a distinction 
 which neither exists in reason, nor can you 
 carry it into effect in practice. But, Mr. C. 
 said," he did not mean to go into this subject. 
 It was proper and fitting, however, in his opin- 
 ion, that this bill should be delayed; that the 
 House should not act on the one bill until it 
 could also act on the other for the admission of 
 a State in the West. But it seemed there was 
 a particular aversion to the connection of Maine 
 and Missouri. If he was not much mistaken, 
 Mr. C. said, those who now objected to such an 
 alliance, were the advocates of the alliance in 
 the case which he had quoted in the precedent, 
 and had succeeded in keeping Kentucky out of 
 the Union for some twelve or eighteen months, 
 because Vermont was not ready to come in ; 
 and, when ready, connected them in the same 
 bill. I am glad to hear, said he, from the 
 gentleman from Massachusetts, that that old and 
 venerable Commonwealth has given to Maine 
 till the 3d of March to come into the Union, or 
 rather has allowed to Congress till the 3d of j 
 March to admit her. It is a good long time to 
 the 3d of March, at least sixty days, and in that 
 time much light may be shed on the principles 
 which are to govern us in the admission of new 
 States into the Union. What occasion, then, 
 for haste ? The gentleman from Massachusetts, 
 Mr. C. said, was not unwilling to follow a part 
 of the precedent of 1791 ; but, when the other 
 part of it was suggested for his imitation, it was 
 most unreasonable ! The gentleman had him- 
 self shown that it was not now proper to act 
 conclusively on this bill ; for has he not told 
 the House, asked Mr. C., that he has not pre- 
 pared a proposition respecting the representa- 
 tion of Maine? When will he do it? Suppos- 
 ing we have a right to take seven Kepresenta- 
 tives from Massachusetts, and give them to 
 Maine, what will be the condition of the gentle- 
 men who now represent those seven districts 
 of Massachusetts ? But it was a question, he 
 said, whether it was in the power of Congress I 
 to disfranchise Massachusetts, by taking from I 
 her seven, or any other number of her Repre- 
 sentatives. These matters ought to be duly 
 considered, and gentlemen should be prepared 
 to act on them. 
 
 Mr. WHITMAN, of Massachusetts, said, that 
 the gentleman had avowed his object in oppos- 
 ing the progress of this bill, with his usual and 
 characteristic frankness ; which he hoped would 
 constitute a sure pledge that he would give up 
 his opposition, if it should appear not to be 
 well founded. The gentleman had expressed 
 his wish to unite the two questions of Maine 
 and Missouri. It had sometimes occurred, Mr. 
 W. said, when one branch of a Legislature re- 
 fused its assent to a measure which had passed 
 
 the other, that the object of the latter was ob- 
 tained by tacking the obnoxious proposition to 
 some favorite measure of the former : and, as 
 Mr. W. understood the honorable Speaker, he 
 had declared that he would go on this principle 
 in the admission of new States into the Union ; 
 and that, in this case, he would not admit Maine 
 unless tacked to Missouri he would admit both 
 at the same time, and both on the same princi- 
 ple. Now, Mr. W. said, he held that there was 
 no similarity in the two cases. The Speaker 
 would certainly do the gentlemen who were 
 opposed to the admission of Missouri uncondi 
 tionally into the Union, the justice to believe, 
 that they were honest and sincere in their op- 
 position to it, and that they did believe that 
 Congress have a right to impose conditions on 
 her admission, and they did further believe the 
 proposed condition to be expedient. Here, then, 
 was a part, perhaps a majority, of Congress 
 believing in the right of annexing conditions 
 to the admission of Missouri into the Union. 
 How was it with regard to Maine ? Why, not 
 one individual member in this House not the 
 honorable Speaker himself, supposed that any 
 condition ought to be annexed to her admis- 
 sion : on the contrary, he had avowed his be- 
 lief that she ought to be admitted without con- 
 dition. Ought not every case to stand on its 
 own bottom? Would the Speaker consider it 
 consistent with sound principles to say that he 
 believed Maine ought to be admitted, and yet 
 refuse to admit her unless Missouri should also 
 be received, as he wishes, unconditionally into 
 the Union? Such a refusal would be a mere 
 political expedient ; it would be to accomplish, 
 by improper means, what could not otherwise 
 be accomplished ; a contrivance to get the 
 House to do what they do not approve, or leave 
 them the alternative of omitting to do what, 
 even according to the Speaker's own position, 
 ought to be done. Was it proper, Mr. W. 
 asked, to make the interest of Maine a sacrifice 
 to such a policy ? Was it Maine, he asked, who 
 stood in the way of the admission of Missouri, 
 or was it something else ? And, if not, ought 
 Maine to fall a sacrifice to a scheme for compel- 
 ling Congress to admit Missouri without any 
 condition? He hoped the honorable Speaker 
 would revise his decision ; and, if he did, Mr. 
 W. was sure he would decide differently. 
 
 Mr. HOLMES again rose. The honorable 
 Speaker, in the course of his remarks, had 
 said, that equality is equity. So it is, said Mr. 
 H. I am disposed to proceed, and apply that 
 principle to the present case, and I ask the 
 gentleman to go with me and do likewise. 
 The United States were thirteen in number 
 when they formed the present compact ; and 
 among its provisions was one, that new States 
 may be admitted into the Union, to be formed 
 out of the original, with the consent of the 
 States and of Congress. And how had equality 
 proceeded since the adoption of the constitu- 
 tion ? A State had been formed from a part 
 of the territory of Virginia, and one from
 
 474 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 [DECEMBER, 1819. 
 
 North Carolina ; and Ohio, Louisiana, Indiana, 
 Mi<>issippi, Illinois, and Alabama, had been 
 successively admitted from the Territories. No 
 division of any State had in the mean time 
 taken place in the North or East, nor had any 
 new State been erected there. He trusted, he 
 paid, that he should not be accused of ever 
 acting contrary to the principles of equality or 
 equity ; he had no wish that the North and 
 East should have privileges not enjoyed by the 
 South and West a doctrine against which he 
 had protested in dangerous times, and against 
 which he now protested. We are now told 
 that our application is just, and we have cer- 
 tainly not been importunate; yet, unless we 
 will do towards another section of the Union 
 what we ourselves believe to be wrong, you 
 will not do what in your consciences you be- 
 lieve to be right. The honorable Speaker was 
 mistaken, Mr. H. said, he believed, with re- 
 spect to the union of Kentucky with Vermont, 
 in their admission. Vermont, Mr. H. said, 
 was a separate State during the war; raised 
 her own troops and paid them, and had a claim 
 to admission wholly independent of any other 
 State. Two Representatives, however, were 
 given to each State; the same representation 
 being given to Kentucky, who was already 
 represented, as to Vermont, who was before 
 unrepresented. This certainly showed no par- 
 ticular partiality or favoritism to the East. 
 
 Mr. CLAY said that, with respect to uniting 
 the two States of Maine and Missouri in one 
 act, he had not intimated any intention, at 
 present, to connect them. But" in reference to 
 the case which he had referred to as a prece- 
 dent for such a connection, the gentleman from 
 Massachusetts had professed his ignorance of it. 
 The gentleman, Mr. C. said, might never have 
 heard of it, and, as he had so said, doubtless 
 never had heard of it ; but, if the gentleman 
 was not informed on the subject, he (Mr. C.) 
 hoped he would allow to him the benefit he 
 had derived from having participated, in some 
 degree, in the transactions of that day. I can 
 assure him, said Mr. C., that the proposition 
 came from the North, to delay the admission 
 of Kentucky into the Union, until Vermont 
 was ready to come in. But the gentleman 
 perceived great injustice in such a proceeding 
 at the present day ; on that head, Mr. C. said, 
 he would recommend to his recollection the 
 old anecdote of the parson and the bull. He 
 professed that he could not see the great injus- 
 tice of a proposition, if now made, to connect 
 the admission of the two States together. A 
 State in the quarter of the country from which 
 I come, said Mr. C., asks to be admitted into 
 the Union. What say the gentlemen who ask 
 the admission of this State of Maine into the 
 Union? Why, they will not admit Missouri 
 without a condition which strips it of an es- 
 sential attribute of sovereignty. What then 
 do I say to them ? That justice is due to all 
 parts of the Union ; your State shall be admit- 
 ted free of condition; but, if you refuse to 
 
 admit Missouri also free of condition, we see 
 no reason why you shall take to yourselves 
 privileges which you deny to her, and, until 
 you grant them also to her, we will not admit 
 you. This notion of an equivalent, Mr. C. 
 said, was not a new one; it was one upon 
 which Commonwealths and States had acted 
 from time immemorial. But he did not mean 
 to press this part of the subject he would put 
 it aside, and confine himself to the single point, 
 whether it was proper to pass this bill, without 
 incorporating in it some provision on the sub- 
 ject of the representation of Maine ? This was 
 the point on which he desired a decision before 
 the bill passed. Were he to permit himself 
 again to glance at the case of Missouri, he 
 would say, there was a wide difference, in one 
 respect, between that case and the case of 
 Maine ; and that the former most urgently re- 
 quired the attention of the House. The one 
 was in the actual enjoyment of the advantages 
 of self-government was already in the Con- 
 federacy as a component part of a highly re- 
 spectable State was heard and represented by 
 a phalanx of seven members on this floor. 
 Whilst Missouri was subjected to arbitrary 
 government for he held that, whenever a 
 people are subject to a government under an 
 authority which is as to them foreign, they 
 being unrepresented, that government is arbi- 
 trary, whatever be the character of its meas- 
 ures no boon from Heaven, in his estimation, 
 being more inestimable than the privilege of a 
 people to govern themselves and no political 
 state more intolerable than that of having laws, 
 and those most solemn of all laws, constitu- 
 tions, imposed upon a people without their 
 consent. Precedents might be found for such 
 proceedings, but, happily for the New World, 
 not in this part of the globe, but in the other 
 hemisphere, and recently, too, at the close of 
 one of the most memorable struggles in which 
 any portion of the human race had ever been 
 engaged. Missouri was unheard on this floor ; 
 she had not twenty votes to spring up in vin- 
 dication of her rights and defence of her inter- 
 ests; this infant, distant Territory, without a 
 vote on this floor, was in no condition com- 
 parable to that in which Maine now stood. 
 But, he said, he would not press this subject 
 further. 
 
 Mr. STOEBS, of New York, said, besides the 
 difficulty already stated, there was another 
 point on which he wished some information; 
 at the same time that he thought it proper to 
 declare that he was in favor of the admission 
 of Maine into the Union, without reference to 
 Missouri. The constitution declared that no 
 State shall enter into any compact without the 
 assent of Congress. There had been certain 
 articles of stipulations agreed upon between 
 Massachusetts and the people of Maine, among 
 which was one, for example, securing to Maine 
 her proportion of all moneys which should be 
 received from the Government of the United 
 States, under the claims of the commonwealth,
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 475 
 
 DECEMBER, 1819.] 
 
 State of Maine. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 for militia services, during the late war, &c. 
 Ought not the consent of Congress be given to 
 these stipulations ? 
 
 Mr. HOLMES said that the clause of the con- 
 stitution which had been alluded to, obviously 
 referred to compacts or treaties with foreign 
 powers, and not to agreements between States. 
 But, if otherwise, the consent of Congress could 
 be given after, as well as before, the making of 
 the compact. 
 
 Mr. FOOT, of Connecticut, said he rejoiced 
 that the question on this bill was now nar- 
 rowed down to one point a difficulty in re- 
 spect to the representation. Would it not, he 
 asked, be in the power of the two States to 
 settle this question between themselves, with- 
 out agitating it on this floor ? Can we, said he, 
 deprive Massachusetts of any part of her repre- 
 sentation ? She has twenty representatives on 
 this floor, and will continue to have them. Is 
 the objection to her keeping them, to come 
 from Kentucky? No; it is to come from 
 Maine. If she has no objection, are we to ob- 
 ject? Certainly not. "Was there, Mr. F. asked, 
 any difficulty in regard to the right of a repre- 
 sentative, after his election, to remove out of 
 the State which he represents, into another? 
 He presumed not ; for such cases had occurred, 
 and no exception had been taken to the right 
 in those persons to retain their seats. If Maine 
 be willing, and Massachusetts be satisfied, said 
 Mr. H., ought not we to be ? He could see no 
 necessity for stumbling here for hours over this 
 objection. He was happy, he remarked, that 
 the question was now stripped of every exte- 
 rior consideration, and the House had to decide 
 only on the plain question, whether Maine 
 should be admitted or not. 
 
 Mr. STORES said he had merely thrown out 
 the suggestion respecting the constitutional 
 provision regarding compacts, for the gentle- 
 man from Massachusetts to consider it. Mr. S. 
 added, he was the more induced to do it, from 
 the earnest desire that Maine should not lose 
 the benefit of her share of the moneys to be 
 received from the United States under the 
 Massachusetts claims ! 
 
 FRIDAY, December 81. 
 State of Maine. 
 
 The House then proceeded to the order of the 
 day, and again resolved itself into a Committee 
 of the Whole, (Mr. MASK LANGDON HILL in the 
 chair,) on the bill providing for the admission of 
 the District of Maine into the Union, as an in- 
 dependent State. 
 
 And, no further debate arising 
 
 The committee rose and reported the bill and 
 amendments to the House. 
 
 After much debate on the question arising 
 out of the representation of Massachusetts and 
 of Maine in Congress, and the best mode of ar- 
 ranging ir, if Congress interposes at all respect- 
 ing it, the amendment made in Committee of 
 
 the Whole, to strike out of the bill so much as 
 relates to this subject, was agreed to. 
 
 Various other amendments were proposed to 
 the bill; among which were the following: 
 
 Mr. STORES moved to amend the bill by add- 
 ing a new section, in the following words : 
 
 "And be it further enacted, That, until a new enu- 
 meration shall be made of the inhabitants of said 
 Commonwealth of Massachusetts and said State of 
 Maine, and a new apportionment of Representatives 
 in the Congress of the United States, to be elected in 
 said Massachusetts and Maine, the said Common- 
 wealth of Massachusetts shall be entitled to and may 
 be represented in Congress by thirteen Representa- 
 tives; and the said State of Maine shall be entitled 
 to, and may be represented in Congress by seven 
 Representatives." 
 
 Mr. WHITMAN moved to amend the proposed 
 amendment by adding, after the enacting clause, 
 these words : " from and after the 15th of March 
 next, and." 
 
 This motion was negatived, as also was the 
 main motion of Mr. STOEES. 
 
 Mr. WHITMAN then moved to strike out the 
 preamble of the said bill, which is in the fol- 
 lowing words, viz : 
 
 " Whereas, by an act of the State of Massachusetts, 
 passed on the 19th day of June, 1819, entitled ' An 
 act relating to the separation of the District of Maine 
 from Massachusetts proper, and forming the same 
 into a separate and independent State ;' the people 
 of that part of Massachusetts heretofore known as 
 the District of Maine, did, with the consent of the 
 Legislature of said State of Massachusetts, form 
 themselves into a separate and independent State, and 
 did establish a constitution for the government of the 
 same, agreeably to the provisions of the said act ; 
 therefore." 
 
 And, in lieu of the said preamble, to insert 
 one in the words following, to wit : 
 
 " Whereas the Legislature of the Commonwealth 
 of Massachusetts, by an act, entitled 'An act relating 
 to the separation of the District of Maine from Mas- 
 sachusetts proper, and forming the same into a sepa- 
 rate and independent State,' passed on the 19th day 
 of June last, declared the consent of said Common- 
 wealth, that the District of Maine (being that part 
 of said Commonwealth lying east of the State of New 
 Hampshire) might be formed and erected into a sepa- 
 rate and independent State, upon certain terms and 
 conditions in the said act particularly specified: 
 And, provided, the Congress of the United States 
 should give its consent thereto, before the fourth day 
 of March next : 
 
 " And whereas it appears that the terms and con- 
 ditions proposed by said Legislature, on the part of 
 said Commonwealth, to the people of said District of 
 Maine, have been by them agreed to and accepted, 
 and on their part complied with : 
 
 "And whereas a convention of delegates, duly 
 chosen by the people of said District, have formed a 
 constitution and frame of government, which is re- 
 publican, and conformable to the principles and pro- 
 visions of the act aforesaid; and have petitioned 
 Congress that its consent may be given that the said 
 District, by the style and title of the State of Maine, 
 may be admitted into the Union as a separate and
 
 476 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 Admission of Missouri. 
 
 [JANUABY, 1820. 
 
 independent State, and on the footing of an original 
 State; therefore." 
 
 And on the question, " Shall the preamble be 
 changed as aforesaid?" it was determined in 
 the negative. 
 
 Mr. SMITH, of North Carolina, then moved to 
 strike out the preamble prefixed to the said 
 bill, which was rejected ; and the bill was then 
 ordered to be engrossed, and read a third time 
 on Monday next. 
 
 MONDAY, January 17, 1820. 
 Civilization of the Indiana. 
 
 The SPEAKER laid before the House a letter 
 from the Secretary of War, transmitting a re- 
 port of the progress which has been made in 
 the civilization of the Indian tribes, and the 
 sums which have been expended on that ob- 
 ject, prepared in obedience to the resolution of 
 the 6th instant ; which letter and report were 
 ordered to lie on the table. The letter is as 
 follows : 
 
 DEPARTMENT OF WAR, January 15. 
 
 SIR : In compliance with the resolution of the 
 House of Representatives of the 6th instant, "that 
 the Secretary of War be directed to report whether 
 any, and if any, what progress has heen made in 
 the civilization of the Indian tribes, and the sums of 
 money, if any, have been expended on that object, 
 under the act of the last session," I have the honor 
 to make the following statement : 
 
 No part of the appropriation of ten thousand dol- 
 lars annually, made at the last session, for the civili- 
 zation of the Indians, has yet been applied. The 
 President was of opinion, that the object of the act 
 would be more certainly effected, by applying the 
 sum appropriated in aid of the efforts of societies, or 
 individuals, who might feel disposed to bestow their 
 time and resources to effect the object contemplated 
 by it ; and a circular (of which the enclosed is a 
 copy) was addressed to those individuals and socie- 
 ties who have directed their attention to the civiliza- 
 tion of the Indians. The objects of the circular were 
 to obtain information, and disclose the views of the 
 President, in order to concentrate and unite the ef- 
 forts of individuals and societies, in the mode contem- 
 plated by the act of the last session. The informa- 
 tion collected will enable the President to apply, early 
 in this year, the sum appropriated. The economy 
 and intelligence with which it will be applied, under 
 the superintendence of zealous and disinterested in- 
 dividuals, will, it is hoped, carry into effect, as far as 
 practicable, the views of Congress. 
 
 While many of the Indian tribes have acquired only 
 the vices with which a savage people usually become 
 tainted, by their intercourse with those who are civil- 
 ized, others appear to be making gradual advances in 
 industry and civilization. Among the latter descrip- 
 tion may be placed the Cherokees, Choctaws, 
 Chickasaws, and perhaps the Creeks, most of the 
 remnants of the Six Nations, hi the State of New 
 York, the Wyandots, Senecas, and Shawanese, at 
 Upper Sandusky, and Wapakonetta. The Cherokees 
 exhibit a more favorable appearance than any other 
 tribe of Indians. There are already established two 
 flourishing schools among them. One at Brainard 
 tinder the superintendence of the American Board for 
 
 Foreign Missions, at which there are at present about 
 one hundred youths of both sexes. The institution 
 is on the Lancasterian plan, and is in a very nourish- 
 ing condition. Besides reading, writing, and arith- 
 metic, the boys are taught agriculture, and the or- 
 dinary mechanic arts, and the girls, sewing, knitting, 
 and weaving. At Spring Place, in the same nation, 
 there is a school on a more limited scalp, under the 
 superintendence of the United Brethren, or Mora- 
 vians. Two other schools are projected in the same 
 nation, one by the American, and the other by the 
 Baptist Board, for Foreign Missions ; and arrange- 
 ments are making to establish two other schools 
 among that portion of the Cherokee nation which re- 
 side on the Arkansas. The Choctaws and Chick- 
 asaws have recently evinced a strong desire to have 
 schools established among them, and measures have 
 been taken by the American Board for Foreign Mis- 
 sions for that purpose. A part of the former nation 
 have appropriated two thousand dollars annually, 
 out of their annuity, for seventeen years, as a school 
 fund. A part of the Six Nations, in New York, 
 have, of late, made considerable improvements ; and 
 the Wyandots, Senecas, and Shawanese, at Upper 
 Sandusky, and Wapakonetta, have, under the super- 
 intendence of the Society of Friends, made consider- 
 able advance in civilization. 
 
 Although partial advances may be made, under 
 the present system, to civilize the Indians, I am of 
 opinion, that, until there is a radical change in the 
 system, any efforts, which may be made, must fall 
 short of complete success. They must be brought 
 gradually under our authority and laws, or they will 
 insensibly waste away in vice and misery. It is im- 
 possible, with their customs, that they should exist 
 as independent communities, in the midst of civilized 
 society. They are not, in fact, an independent peo- 
 ple, (I speak of those surrounded by our population,) 
 nor ought they to be so considered. They should be 
 taken under our guardianship ; and our opinion, and 
 not theirs, ought to prevail, in measures intended for 
 their civilization and happiness. A system less vig- 
 orous may protract, but cannot arrest their fate. 
 I have the honor to be, &c., 
 
 J. C. CALHOUN. 
 
 HON. H. CLAY, 
 
 Speaker House of Reps. 
 
 
 MONDAY, January 24. 
 Admission of Missouri. 
 
 The bill to authorize the people of Missouri 
 Territory to form a constitution and State gov- 
 ernment, and providing for the admission of 
 such State into the Union, being the first order 
 of the day, was announced by the SPEAKER. 
 
 Mr. TAYLOR moved that the consideration of 
 the bill be postponed to this day week, with 
 the view of waiting the decision of the Senate 
 on the bill now before them on this subject. 
 
 This motion brought on an animated debate 
 of considerable length, in which the propriety 
 of waiting the movements of the other House, 
 or of proceeding now to consider this bill, in 
 which there were various details to be consid- 
 ered and decided, besides the principle now un- 
 der debate in the Senate, &c., were discussed. 
 
 The motion to postpone the bill was supported
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 477 
 
 JANUARY, 1820.] 
 
 Missouri State BUI Compromise Proposed. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 by the mover, and Messrs. LIVERMORE, CLAGETT, 
 and CUSUMAN ; and the postponement was op- 
 posed by Messrs. SCOTT, LOWNDES, BRUSH, COOK, 
 FLOYD, and CAMPBELL. 
 
 The question was at length decided in the 
 negative, by yeas and nays : For postponement 
 87, against "it 88, as follows: 
 
 YEAS. Messrs. Adams, Allen of Massachusetts, 
 Allen of New York, Baker, Bateman, Boden, Butler 
 of New Hampshire, Case, Clagett, Clark, Crafts, 
 Cushman, Darlington, Dennison, Dewitt, Dowse, 
 Eddy, Edwards of Connecticut, Fay, Folger, Ford, 
 Forrest. Fuller, Gross of New York, Gross of Penn- 
 sylvania, Guyon, Hackley, Hall of New York, Hall of 
 Delaware, Hazard, Hemphill, Hendricks, Herrick, 
 Hibshman, Heister, Hostetter, Kendall, Kinsley, La- 
 throp, Lincoln, Linn, Livennore, Lyman, Maclay, 
 Mallary, Marchand, Mercer, R. Moore, S. Moore, 
 Monell, Morton, Mosely, Murray, Nelson of Massa- 
 chusetts, Patterson, Peek, Phelps, Philson, Pitcher, 
 Plumer, Rich, Richards, Richmond, Rogers, Ross, 
 Russ, Sampson, Silsbee, Sloan, Smith of New Jersey, 
 Southard, Storrs, Street, Strong of Vermont, Strong 
 of New York, Tarr, Taylor, Tomlinson, Tompkins, 
 Tracy, Upham, Van Rensselaer, Wallace, Wendover, 
 Whitman, and Wood. 
 
 NAYS. Messrs. Abhott, Alexander, Allen of Ten- 
 nessee, Anderson, Archer of Maryland, Archer of 
 Virginia, Baldwin, Ball, Barbour, Bayley, Bcecher, 
 Bloomfield, Brevard, Brown, Brush, Bryan, Bnffum, 
 Burwell, Butler of Louisiana, Campbell, Cannon, 
 Cobb, Cocke, Cook, Crawford, Crowell, Culbreth, 
 Culpeper, Cuthbert, Davidson, Earle, Edwards of 
 North Carolina, Floyd, Foot, Fullerton, Garnett, Hall 
 of North Carolina, Hardin, Hill, Holmes, Hooks, 
 Johnson, Jones of Virginia, Jones of Tennessee, 
 Kent, Little, Lowndes, McCoy, McCreary, McLane 
 of Delaware, McLean of Kentucky, Mason, Meigs, 
 Metcalfe, Neale, Nelson of Virginia, Newton, Over- 
 street, Parker of Virginia, Pinckney, Pindall, Quarles, 
 Randolph, Rankin, ReeJ., Rhea, Ringgold, Robertson, 
 Settle, Shaw, Simkins, Slocnmb, Smith of Maryland, 
 B. Smith of Virginia, A. Smyth of Virginia, Smith 
 of North Carolina, Stevens, Strother, Swearingen, 
 Terrell, Trimble, Tucker of Virginia, Tucker of 
 South Carolina, Tyler, Walker of North Carolina, 
 Warfield, Williams of Virginia, and Williams of 
 North Carolina. 
 
 It was then moved by Mr. HOLMES that the 
 House go into Committee of the Whole on the 
 said bill ; but, before the question was put on 
 this motion, the House, about 4 o'clock, ad- 
 journed. 
 
 TUESDAY, January 25. 
 Admission of Missouri. 
 
 The House, then, on the motion of Mr. SCOTT, 
 resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, 
 on the bill authorizing the people of the Mis- 
 souri Territory to form a constitution and State 
 government, &c. 
 
 Several important propositions were succes- 
 sively made in the course of the sitting to amend 
 the bill, and a great deal of discussion took 
 place. The committee rose without deciding on 
 any question, and obtained leave to sit again. 
 
 WEDNESDAY, January 26. 
 Missouri State Bill Compromise Proposed. 
 
 The House then again went into Committee 
 of the Whole on the bill for the admission of 
 Missouri. 
 
 The proposition under consideration was an 
 amendment offered yesterday, to the second 
 section of the bill, by Mr. STORES, substantially 
 to alter the limits of the proposed State, so as 
 to make the Missouri Kiver the northern boun- 
 dary thereof, with the view of drawing a line 
 on which those in favor of, and those opposed 
 to the slave restriction, might compromise their 
 views. 
 
 Mr. STORRS rose and withdrew the amend- 
 ment which he had offered yesterday, and in 
 b'eu thereof submitted the following : 
 
 A nd provided further, and it is hereby enacted, That, 
 forever hereafter, neither slavery nor involuntary 
 servitude, (except in the punishment of crimes, 
 whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,) 
 shall exist in the Territory of the United States, lying 
 north of the 38th degree of north latitude, and west 
 of the river Mississippi, and the boundaries of the 
 State of Missouri, as established by this act: Provided, 
 That any person escaping into the said Territory, 
 from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in 
 any of the States, such fugitive may be lawfully re- 
 claimed, and conveyed, according to the laws of the 
 United States in such case provided, to the person 
 claiming his or her labor or service as aforesaid. 
 
 On this motion, a debate ensued, of a desul- 
 tory character. Messrs. RANDOLPH, LOWNDES, 
 MERCER, BRUSH, SMITH of Maryland, STORRS, 
 and CLAY, successively followed each other in 
 debate. 
 
 Mr. S. SMITH, of Maryland, said, that he rose 
 principally with a view to state his understand- 
 ing of the proposed amendment, viz: That it 
 retained the boundaries of Missouri, as delinea- 
 ted in the bill ; that it prohibited the admission 
 of slaves west of the west line of the Missouri, 
 and north of the north line ; that it did not in- 
 terfere with the Territory of Arkansas, or the 
 uninhabited land west thereof. He thought the 
 proposition not exceptionable, but doubted the 
 propriety of its forming a part of the bill. He 
 considered the power of Congress over the Ter- 
 ritory as supreme, unlimited, before its admis- 
 sion; that Congress could impose on its territo- 
 ries any restriction it thought proper ; and the 
 people, when they settled therein, did so under 
 a full knowledge of the restriction. If, said he, 
 citizens go into the Territory thus restricted, 
 they cannot carry with them slaves. They 
 will be without slaves, and will be educated 
 with prejudices and habits such as will exclude 
 all desire on their part to admit slavery when 
 they shall become sufficiently numerous to be 
 admitted as a State. And this is the advan- 
 tage proposed by the amendment ; for, when 
 admitted as a State, they can, under the con- 
 stitution, be subjected to no other restriction 
 than is imposed by that instrument on all the 
 other States of the Union. 
 
 Mr. MEIGS, of New York, spoke as follows:
 
 478 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 Missouri State Bill Compromise Proposed. 
 
 [JANUAKY, 1820. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, I assure the committee that I 
 shall not detain them long by iny observations 
 upon this question ; nor should I now under- 
 take to consume the fifteen or twenty minutes 
 which I shall allot to myself, if it was not for 
 the somewhat peculiar situation in which I am 
 placed. 
 
 It is well known that the Legislature of the 
 respectable State which I have the honor in 
 part to represent, has requested the Represent- 
 atives of that State, upon this floor, to vote for 
 the restriction upon Missouri, now under con- 
 sideration. 
 
 I have examined, attentively, the mass of ar- 
 gument which has been so laboriously accu- 
 mulated on this question ; and never, perhaps, 
 was there on any occasion so much exhausted 
 as on this. But, sir, I freely own that I cannot, 
 in conscience or judgment, consent to impose 
 this restriction upon Missouri. 
 
 There is a wonderful singularity in the pres- 
 ent controversy, which destroys all confidence 
 in the weight and value of that process of mind 
 which we so proudly dignify with the title of 
 reasoning. Sir, I never yet knew that reason 
 and logic were to be found on this side or that 
 of a parallel of latitude or longitude. What is 
 the fact in this case ? Why, sir, the parallel of 
 latitude of 39 degrees almost precisely marks 
 the division between the reason and argument 
 of the North and South. That line of demar- 
 cation separates the slaveholding from the non- 
 slaveholding States. On the south side of that 
 line we find the climate and soil adapted to 
 slaves, and there are the slaves ; on the north 
 side of that line we discover that the soil and 
 climate require no slaves, and, therefore, few 
 or no slaves are found. What, sir ! is it possi- 
 ble, then, that one-half of us can be rationally 
 and argumentatively on one side of the parallel 
 of latitude, and the other half of us upon the 
 other ? I did believe that the truths of philos- 
 ophy, that reason, that the Principia of New- 
 ton, were the same in every latitude, in every 
 climate, and on every soil of this globe. Sir, 
 there must be some mistake among us upon this 
 occasion, and from the reflections which I have 
 made, I think I can point it out. 
 
 It is now at least twenty years, that I have, 
 with some pain and apprehension, remarked 
 the increasing spirit of local and sectional envy 
 and dislike between the North and South. A 
 continued series of sarcasms upon each other's 
 circumstances, modes of living, and manners, 
 so foolishly persevered in, has produced at 
 length that keen controversy which now enlists 
 us in masses against each other on the opposite 
 sides of the line of latitude. Gentlemen may 
 dignify it by whatever titles they please. They 
 may flatter themselves that all is logic, reason, 
 pure reason. But certain I am, that it is neither 
 more nor less than sectional feeling. Feeling, sir, 
 however gravely dignified, has brought us in 
 hostility to this singular line of combat, and we, 
 who are, you know sir, "but children of a 
 larger growth," are now most aptly comparable 
 
 to those celebrated and eternal factions of Up 
 Town and Down Town Boys. I put this obser- 
 vation to every one who hears me, witli the 
 wish that he may apply his own recollections 
 and reflections to it. Gentlemen may exhaust 
 ah 1 their arguments, all their eloquence upon 
 the question before us; they may pour out 
 every flower of rhetoric upon it ; but, sir, I 
 view their labors as wholly vain, and I fear that 
 their flowers will be found to be the most dele- 
 terious and most poisonous in the whole range 
 of botany. They poison national affection. 
 
 Eeason divided by parallels of latitude ! Why, 
 sir, it is easy for prejudice and malevolence, by 
 aid of ingenuity, to erect an eternal impenetrable 
 wall of brass between the North and South, at 
 the latitude of thirty-nine degrees ! But, in 
 the view of reason, there is no other line be- 
 tween them than that celestial arc of thirty- 
 nine degrees which offers no barrier to the 
 march of liberal and rational men. Is it for- 
 gotten that the enlightened high priest, the 
 archbishop of one belligerent, goes to the tem- 
 ple of the Almighty and chants " Te Deum 
 laudamus," for the victory obtained -by his 
 country, with carnage and devastation, over 
 the enemy; while the archbishop of another 
 belligerent is at the same time entering the 
 house of God, and singing also "Te Deura 
 laudamus pro victoria," upon the other side of 
 the line, the creek, or the river ? We, who 
 know these things, should profit by our knowl- 
 edge, learn liberality, and practise it. It is 
 true, and I glory in the knowledge of the truth, 
 that, in matters of religion, this country has, in 
 its constitutions, attained a high point of reason 
 and liberality. 
 
 Men, after forty or sixty years of religious in- 
 tolerance, here, at last, may worship the Cre- 
 ator in their own way. What a privilege! 
 how dearly acquired ! how much to be prized 1 
 It fills us with astonishment when we reflect 
 how hard it is for us to refrain from forcing by 
 power our opinions upon our brother men! 
 how readily each individual imagines that the 
 light is alone in his own breast, and how en- 
 thusiastically he engages in propagating it 
 among mankind by all possible means, fancy- 
 ing, dreaming that he is a prophet, a vicegerent 
 of Almighty God. 
 
 Sir, we have been now for a long time occu- 
 pied in this debate, mis-spending our time and 
 the public money. I feel well assured that the 
 body of the people will judge our conduct 
 rightly. They are able critics. Yes, sir, even 
 in matters of sublime art, even in those works 
 which none can execute, all are critics I . They 
 determine, at a glance of the eye, what is good 
 and beautiful in architecture, in statuary, in 
 painting, and what is to them still more easy, 
 what is good in governments and constitutions. 
 They will soon ask us, what is the controversy 
 about ? Did you, from motives of policy and 
 regard for the welfare of the whites, propose to 
 remove the growing black race from this coun- 
 try ? No. Did you, actuated by humane con- 

 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 479 
 
 JAXTJARY, 1820.J 
 
 Missouri State Bill Restriction on the State. 
 
 [H. OP R. 
 
 siderations for the unfortunate slaves, propose 
 to redeem them from their bondage, and restore 
 them to liberty and the land of their fathers ? 
 No. What then ? Did you propose to draw 
 such lines of restriction around the slave popu- 
 lation as would ere long starve them out, and 
 so prevent their becoming dangerous to the 
 whites ? If you did, remember that such is the 
 increasing kindne?s of the slaveholders, so 
 ameliorated the condition of the slave, that not 
 one slave, not one child less will be born, and 
 not one can die by starvation. Sir, the truth 
 is, that nothing has yet been proposed beneficial 
 either to the white or black race in all this long- 
 drawn debate. Give me leave to say, sir, that 
 this consideration induced me to introduce the 
 resolution which now lies upon the table, de- 
 voting the public lands to the emancipation 
 and colonization of the unfortunate slaves. If 
 we want some object upon which to exhaust 
 our enthusiasm, here is one worth it all. Not 
 the subjugation of a people, but the redemption 
 of a nation. 
 
 The question being taken on the motion of 
 Mr. STOEBS, was decided in the negative. 
 
 The reading of the bill proceeded as far as 
 the fourth section ; when 
 
 Mr. TAYLOR, of New York, proposed to amend 
 the bill by incorporating in that section the fol- 
 lowing provision : 
 
 Section 4, line 25, insert the following after the 
 word " States : " " And shall ordain and establish, 
 that there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary 
 servitude in the said State, otherwise than in the pun- 
 ishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have 
 been duly convicted: Provided, always, That any 
 person escaping into the same, from whom labor or 
 service is lawfully claimed in any other State, such 
 fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed, and conveyed to 
 the person claiming his or her labor or service as 
 aforesaid : And provided, also, That the said provision 
 shall not be construed to alter the condition or civil 
 rights of any person now held to service or labor in 
 the said Territory." 
 
 The main question of the restriction on sla- 
 very in the future State of Missouri, being thus 
 fully before the House, and the usual hour of 
 adjournment having arrived, the committee 
 rose, reported progress, and obtained leave to 
 sit again. 
 
 THTTBSDAY, January 27. 
 Missouri State Bill Restriction on ike State. 
 
 The order of the day on the Missouri bill 
 being announced 
 
 Mr. TAYLOE'S motion to amend the bill by 
 imposing a restriction on slavery, being under 
 consideration 
 
 Mr. TAYLOB, of New York, rose, and spoke as 
 follows : 
 
 Mr. Chairman : The bill on your table pro- 
 poses no act of ordinary legislation. No attri- 
 bute of sovereignty is more important, than 
 that which is exercised in the admission of new 
 parties to the Federal Compact. It was re- 
 
 served for America to exhibit, on an extensive 
 scale, an example of independent States uniting 
 for the general welfare, surrendering a part of 
 their sovereignty to a new created Government, 
 and authorizing it to constitute other States 
 similar to themselves. 
 
 By the Articles of Confederation, the appro- 
 bation of nine States out of thirteen was neces- 
 sary to the admission of a new member. In 
 the Convention that formed the Federal Con- 
 stitution, the subject of admitting new States 
 being under consideration, it was proposed that 
 to such admission the consent of two-thirds of 
 the members present in each House of Congress 
 should be necessary, and it passed in the affirm- 
 ative by the votes of all the States present, ex- 
 cept Virginia and Maryland. No other ques- 
 tion was taken on this single proposition, and 
 why it was not finally incorporated into the 
 constitution does not appear. Congress and 
 three-fourths of the States may change the con- 
 stitution may establish principles and create 
 powers injurious to the rights of the other 
 States. The period may arrive when the desire 
 to obtain this constitutional majority in support 
 of some project of ambition, or avarice, may 
 lead to the admission of States favorable to its 
 accomplishment. 
 
 This bill acquires additional importance from 
 the consideration that the territory in question 
 is no part of our ancient domain. The power 
 of admitting new States into the Union, when 
 adopted by the members of the good old Con- 
 federation, had to this territory no more appli- 
 cation than to Chili or Peru. It was a foreign 
 province alien to our laws, customs, and insti- 
 tutions. It sustained none of the conflicts of 
 our Revolution ; it was purchased not by the 
 blood of our fathers, but with the wealth of 
 their sons. If we believe that, by a liberal 
 construction of the constitution, the power of 
 admitting this Territory as a State is possessed 
 by Congress, we remember also that politician* 
 of no humble name have denied its existence ; 
 that an amendment to the constitution, for the 
 purpose of obtaining from the States a grant of 
 the power now about to be exercised, was pro- 
 posed in the United States Senate, by a states- 
 man eminently entitled to the confidence of this 
 nation ; that serious doubts on this subject ex- 
 isted in the minds of those who then occupied 
 in the Government its most distinguished sta- 
 tions doubts, which were finally removed, as 
 other doubts afterwards were, by considerations 
 of imperious necessity. 
 
 The magnitude of this question is apparent, 
 by casting your eye on a map of the Territory 
 from which it is proposed to carve this State ? 
 Who knows its extent? Who has explored its 
 boundaries ? The waters of its rivers traverse 
 a country of at least two thousand miles, before 
 they reach the Mississippi. It probably con- 
 tains more square miles than all the States of 
 the Old Confederacy. The rule you now apply 
 to Missouri, hereafter will be held applicable to 
 the residue of the Territory. The fertility of
 
 480 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 Missouri State Bill Restriction on the State. 
 
 [JANUARY, 1820. 
 
 its soil, the temperature and salubrity of its cli- 
 mate, its majestic rivers, its vegetable produc- 
 tions, its mineral wealth ; "all contribute to con- 
 firm our anticipations of its greatness. Under 
 the guidance of a wise policy, it will doubtless 
 exhibit, in future time, the fairest specimens of 
 American character, and the most perfect models 
 of free government. Cold, indeed, must be his 
 heart who can contemplate without emotion 
 the high destinies prepared for our posterity in 
 this land of promise secured to them without 
 possibility of failure, if Congress shall be true 
 to their interests and to our national principles. 
 Probably this very question, certainly the deter- 
 mination of a few Congresses, will irrevocably 
 decide, whether this Territory is indeed,, as it 
 has been pronounced on a former occasion, by 
 a gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. RANDOLPH,) 
 the most expensive acquisition made by the 
 United States, or whether its purchase was the 
 wisest expenditure of treasure ever made by 
 any nation. 
 
 The importance of this bill is further en- 
 hanced by the unparalleled excitement it has 
 produced in every section of the Union ; an ex- 
 citement occasioned not by the intrigues of po- 
 litical leaders, but arising from the intrinsic 
 merits of the subject, and manifested by the 
 spontaneous expression of public feeling. 
 
 The admission of Missouri, without a restric- 
 tion against slavery, is opposed by a majority 
 of the States in the Union. These States, it is 
 true, have parted with the power of legislating 
 on the subject ; but, ought not their judgment 
 and wishes to be respected ? In business part- 
 nerships, what would wisdom dictate in such a 
 case ? Although its managers or agents might 
 have power to admit new members, would they 
 be wise to exercise it in a manner hostile to the 
 known opinions of a majority of those, both in 
 number and amount, interested in the concern ? 
 What consequences would be likely to follow 
 such proceedings, even if the managers should 
 be able, by the means of votes thus acquired, to 
 retain their places, and control the interests 
 of the original partners ? Could the concern 
 flourish? Would not contention and distrust 
 unavoidably ensue ? And is harmony less de- 
 sirable in a confederacy of States, than in the 
 little concerns of mercantile profit ? 
 
 The adoption of the amendment is necessary 
 to retard the growth of that slaveholding spirit 
 which appears to gain ground in the United 
 States. Notwithstanding the exertions of abo- 
 lition and colonization societies, in various parts 
 of the Union, it is feared and believed that pub- 
 lic sentiment in the West is becoming less un- 
 friendly to slavery than it formerly was; no 
 new State has been admitted into the Union 
 since 1791, which has not established slavery 
 by law, unless prohibited by Congress. Ala- 
 bama, the last State admitted, has not left it to 
 the regulation of law, but has protected it by 
 a constitutional provision. In 1792, when Ken- 
 tucky was admitted, a powerful combination of 
 talent and influence was exerted in favor of the 
 
 gradual emancipation of her slaves. AVho were 
 then the zealous supporters of freedom in Ken- 
 tucky ? The history of their efforts and the 
 cause of their failure, are well known to some 
 honorable members of this committee from that 
 State. Unfortunately their efforts did not suc- 
 ceed. But, even an attempt to stop the pro- 
 gress of slavery in the West, though successful, 
 was no small honor. It evinced an elevation 
 of mind, a magnanimity of purpose, to which 
 the citizens of no new State have since attained. 
 Some old States have accomplished, for them- 
 selves, the objects of the Kentucky emanci- 
 pators ; but it has been done in latitude only 
 where cotton could not be grown, and where 
 the value of slaves was, on that account, com- 
 paratively small. The increase of a slave- 
 holding spirit appears, not only from these 
 facts, but also from the manner in which the 
 ordinance of 1787 is treated, both in Congress 
 and out of it. That ordinance was passed by 
 the unanimous vote of all the States. I have 
 the authority of an honorable Representative 
 from Virginia, when I say, that its sixth arti- 
 cle, which prohibits slavery, was proposed by a 
 delegate of that State. Its enactment was then 
 considered by all the States, as well slavehold- 
 ing as non-slaveholding, not only within the 
 legitimate powers of Congress, but especially 
 recommended by considerations of public policy. 
 Is this sentiment still maintained? No, sir, it 
 is not ; public journals, conducted under the 
 patronage of high authority, denounce it ; dis- 
 tinguished statesmen, in both Houses of Con- 
 gress, proclaim it an instance of rank usurpation ; 
 and a Legislative Assembly of one State, at 
 least, have threatened resistance if Congress 
 shall apply the same principle to Missouri. It 
 is not my purpose to declaim against these pro- 
 ceedings ; I mention them only in proof of my 
 proposition, that a slaveholding spirit is gain- 
 ing ground in the Union. 
 
 Congress may admit new States into the 
 Union. Congress also may declare war, and 
 may borrow money. These acts are alike to be 
 performed when required by the general wel- 
 fare. The constitution imposes upon Congress 
 no obligation to admit new States. It permits 
 none to demand admission. It authorizes no 
 member of the Confederacy to require such ad- 
 mission. The President and Senate cannot, by 
 treaty, admit a State into the Union ; nor can 
 they impose on Congress an obligation to do it. 
 The admission of Louisiana, which was part oi 
 the same territory with Missouri, was not 
 claimed as a matter of right ; it was solicited 
 as a favor. The propriety of imposing condi- 
 tions was not questioned. It was then thought 
 reasonable and constitutional, too, that a politi- 
 cal as well as every other society should pre- 
 scribe the time, manner, and conditions of ob- 
 taining the privilege of membership. That the 
 power of admitting new States and making the 
 laws necessary and proper therefor, give the 
 right for which we contend, according to the 
 plain and natural interpretation of language,
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 481 
 
 JANUARY, 1820.] 
 
 Missouri State Bill Restriction on the State. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 appears to me too evident to need further il- 
 lustration. 
 
 By the treaty with France, Congress acquired 
 " an incontestable title to the domain and pos- 
 session of the ceded territory in full sovereignty, 
 with all its rights and appurtenances." The 
 only limitation on the exercise of this sover- 
 eignty, must he found in the constitution. The 
 sovereignty is general, hut must be exerted in 
 a manner consistent with the principles of our 
 National Government. It, therefore, becomes 
 important to ascertain what these principles 
 are, in relation to the amendment on your table. 
 In other words, is the power of holding slaves 
 a federal right? In discussing this question, 
 we ought carefully to distinguish between the 
 principles of the United States Government 
 and those of particular States. The doctrines 
 of Xew Hampshire and of Georgia in regard to 
 slavery, are diametrically opposite, and cannot 
 both be the doctrines of the United States. 
 The Federal Government is as distinct from 
 each of these, as they are from each other. All 
 these rightfully exercise a limited sovereignty 
 in their proper spheres. We further premise, 
 that, in a confederacy like ours, the principles 
 of a dominant State naturally acquire a cur- 
 rency and au artificial value from their connec- 
 tion with honor and power. It is evident 
 enough, that the United States Government 
 does not belong to Virginia, any more than to 
 Ohio. It nevertheless may be quite Virginian. 
 Indeed we were told, but a few days since, that 
 we are indebted for the territory in question to 
 the wisdom and to the cash of Virginia. [Mr. 
 RANDOLPH rose and said, that if the gentleman 
 from New York quoted him, he hoped he would 
 not misquote him. He had used neither the 
 word wisdom nor cash.] Mr. TAYLOE replied, 
 that words were only useful as a means of com- 
 municating ideas. The gentleman from Vir- 
 ginia may have used sagacity instead of wisdom, 
 and treasure, wealth, or money, instead of cash. 
 The gentleman from Virginia shakes his head. 
 I cannot have mistaken the sentiment. His ex- 
 pressions, as usual, were very clear and distinct. 
 But it is not material. The political sagacity 
 of Virginia is unimpeached. She has mani- 
 fested it in many respects, and in none more 
 than in the ability she displays on this floor. 
 She selects for Congress her ablest sons. She 
 reposes in them a liberal confidence. While 
 faithful to her interests, she continues them in 
 her employment, thereby enabling them to 
 honor the nation and serve the State. She in- 
 structs them not to waste their strength at 
 home, in petty warfare, in scuffles for office, 
 and in the gratification of private resentments. 
 She points to the prize of high ambition, and 
 bids them secure it. They obey her mandate. 
 If they stumble, she upholds them. If they 
 fall, she raises them. If they wander, she re- 
 claims them. She publishes their virtues, and 
 covers their errors with a mantle of charity. 
 How unlike is Virginia in all these respects, to 
 swine of her sisters ! She has set before them 
 VOL, VI. 31 
 
 an example, which, failing to imitate, their 
 complaints of her influence will remain un- 
 availing. And, is there less danger that the 
 principles of Virginia, in regard to slavery, will 
 acquire popularity, and ultimately pass for those 
 of the nation, because she is wise in her policy 
 and maintains her consequence in every depart- 
 ment of your Government ? But let us exam- 
 ine what are the principles on which the United 
 States Government is founded. Do they justify 
 slavery ? I answer, they do not. Congress, 
 within its sovereignty, has constantly endeav- 
 ored to prevent the extension of slavery, and 
 has maintained the doctrine " that aU men are 
 born equally free." But has disclaimed, and 
 continues to disclaim, any right to enforce this 
 doctrine upon State sovereignties. 
 
 The first truth declared by this nation, at the 
 era of its independence, was, " that all men are 
 created equal ; that they are endowed by their 
 Creator with certain inalienable rights ; that 
 among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of 
 
 Are we willing to pronounce this declaration, 
 for the support of which the Fathers of oar 
 Revolution pledged their lives and fortunes, a 
 flagrant falsehood? Was this declaration a 
 solemn mockery ? Did such men as Jefferson, 
 Adams, Franklin, Sherman, and Livingston, 
 proclaim to the world, as self-evident truth, 
 doctrines they did not believe ? Did they 
 lay the foundation of this infant Republic in 
 fraud and hypocrisy? The supposition is in- 
 credible. These men composed the committee 
 which reported the Declaration of Independ- 
 ence. Four of them were delegates from Mas- 
 sachusetts, Pennsylvania, Connecticut and New 
 York. They expressed the opinions of the 
 States they represented. The sentiments of 
 their chairman on this interesting subject are 
 not contained in the declaration alone. If fur- 
 ther evidence be required as to his opinions, it 
 is abundantly furnished in his " Notes on Vir- 
 ginia." His denunciation of slavery is there 
 expressed in language too distinct to be misun- 
 I derstood. Its injustice is portrayed in glowing 
 ' colors, and its evils described with irresistible 
 eloquence. While books are read, or truth re- 
 vered, his sentiments on this subject will insure 
 to their author unfading honor. 
 
 In 1803, Louisiana, including the Territory of 
 Missouri, was purchased from France. The 
 third is the only article of the treaty relating to 
 the subject before us. It consists of three 
 parts ; first, " the inhabitants of the ceded ter- 
 ritory shall be incorporated into the union of 
 the United States." This provision was to be 
 executed immediately. It extended to all the 
 inhabitants, wherever resident, and depended 
 on no contingency. Without it they might 
 have continued aliens, and have been treated 
 like the inhabitants of a conquered province. 
 The obligation imposed by this clause was dis- 
 charged by Congress in passing the act of 1804, 
 erecting Louisiana into two territories, and 
 oroviding for the temporary government there:
 
 482 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R] 
 
 Missouri State Hill Restriction on the State. 
 
 [JANUARY, 1820. 
 
 of. By this act they were incorporated into 
 the Union, and the laws of the United States 
 were extended to them ; they became part of 
 the American family, subject to its rules and 
 regulations, and bound to obey its authority. 
 Their allegiance was transferred from France to 
 the United States ; they were obligated to sup- 
 port our constitution and obey our laws; they 
 necessarily acquired some new privileges, and 
 lost some formerly enjoyed ; for example, they 
 lost the privilege of employing ships in the 
 slave trade of buying foreign slaves of pun- 
 ishing heresy, and, in short, of being governed 
 by the colonial laws of France ; and they ac- 
 quired the privilege of being governed by the 
 American Congress on principles of freedom. 
 These consequences necessarily followed their 
 incorporation into the Union. 
 
 The second clause is contingent, and requires 
 that the inhabitants "shall be admitted, as 
 soon as possible, according to the principles of 
 the Federal Constitution, to the enjoyment of 
 all the rights, advantages, and immunities of 
 citizens of the United States." The subject- 
 matter of this clause is inhabitants not territory. 
 In all the cessions of territory previously ac- 
 quired by Congress, a provision had been in- 
 serted in the compacts, " that the territory 
 should be formed into a State or States." These 
 compacts had been made by Congress, which 
 had power to admit new States into the Union. 
 But this treaty was made by the President and 
 Senate, who had no such power. It was 
 doubted by many whether, according to the 
 principles of the Federal Constitution, new 
 States could be erected in this territory, and it 
 was uncertain whether the existing States 
 would so amend the constitution as to confer 
 the power. But if Congress had the power, it 
 was uncertain when, and on what conditions, 
 they would ithinb proper to exercise it ; and, 
 until the general welfare of the United States 
 should, in the opinion of Congress, require its 
 exercise, it was not possiWe-for them to be ad- 
 mitted. Moreover, the rigl'its, advantages, and 
 immunities, to the enjoyment of which they 
 are to be admitted, are those of citizens of the 
 United States. The power of holding slaves is 
 no right, advantage, or immunity, arising from 
 United States citizenship. Whatever those 
 rights are, they must be nniform: that is, 
 United States citizenship confers the same 
 rights in New Hampshire as in Kentucky. If 
 in Kentucky it gives the power of holding 
 elaves, by virtue of it a citizen of the United 
 States may hold slaves in New Hampshire. 
 The error is in confounding the rights of United 
 States citizenship with those arising under the 
 laws of Kentucky. By the latter an authority 
 to hold slaves exists : by the former it does not. 
 The rights of United States citizenship are 
 founded on the constitution; they are para- 
 mount to, and cannot be taken away or affect- 
 ed by State laws. But the right of holding 
 slaves may be taken away by State laws ; there- 
 fore it is ot a right of United States citizen- 
 
 ship, and consequently was not guaranteed to 
 the inhabitants of this territory by treaty. 
 
 The inhabitants had no right to calculate on 
 a power of holding slaves. Neither the princi- 
 ples of the constitution, nor the practice of the 
 Government, justified that expectation. Con- 
 gress had allowed slavery to exist in no terri- 
 tory where its allowance had not been made, 
 by the State ceding it, an express condition of 
 the cession. These inhabitants could not rea- 
 sonably expect greater rights than were enjoy- 
 ed by those of the original territory of the 
 United States. They were authorized to ex- 
 pect the privilege of self-government, in the 
 same manner as it had been granted to them ; 
 but, like them, they were subject to the deter- 
 mination of Congress as to time, manner, 
 boundaries, and every other condition. The 
 third clause of the article provides " that the 
 inhabitants, in the mean time, shall be main- 
 tained and protected in the free enjoyment of 
 their liberty, property, and the religion which 
 they profess." Without stopping to inquire 
 into the general signification of the word prop- 
 erty, I take it for granted that it does not in- 
 clude the future generations of men who may 
 be born in the territory ; and the condition of 
 those now held to service will not be changed 
 by agreeing to the amendment. With this 
 single remark, I proceed to observe, that the 
 free enjoyment of property cannot mean an ab- 
 solute right to use it without control; nor, 
 that the control shall be exercised in the same 
 manner and degree that it had been under the 
 former government. If this were its meaning, 
 and the treaty be considered in the nature of a 
 charter of rights to the inhabitants, they may 
 at this time rightfully carry on the slave trade, 
 and do many other acts prohibited by law. 
 But the right granted freely to enjoy their lib- 
 erty, property, and religion, only requires that 
 they shall be protected by the Constitution and 
 laws of the United States, in the same manner 
 as the liberty, property, and religion of other 
 citizens, similarly situated, are protected. It 
 is a protection according to the principles of 
 this, and not of a foreign Government. 
 
 The act of 1804, to which I have already ad- 
 verted, strongly illustrates the solicitude of 
 Congress to prohibit the extension of slavery 
 even in the Orleans territory. It forbade the 
 introduction, first^ of all foreign slaves ; second- 
 ly, of all slaves brought into the United States 
 after May 1, 1798, or thereafter to be import- 
 ed ; thirdly, of all other slaves, except by citi- 
 zens of the United States, removing into the 
 territory for actual settlement, and bona fide 
 owning snch slaves. All slaves brought into 
 the territory of Orleans, contrary to these pro- 
 visions, were entitled to freedom, and penalties 
 were imposed on the importers. Congress 
 could not endure the idea that even New 
 Orleans should become a market for the sale ot 
 human flesh. 
 
 The residue of Louisiana was placed under 
 the Government of the Governor and Judges
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 483 
 
 IAXCARY, 1820.] 
 
 Missouri State Bill Restriction on the State. 
 
 [a OF R. 
 
 of Indiana, where slavery was forever prohibit- 
 ed by the ordinance of 1787. It was believed 
 that these officers would apply to Missouri the 
 same principles of government on which they 
 were bound to administer that of Indiana. 
 Unhappily for Missouri, these gentlemen enter- 
 tained different views, and suffered the evil to 
 increase,, without an effort to retard it. The 
 subsequent acts in regard to this Territory are 
 of so recent a date, that it is unnecessary to 
 detail their provisions. 
 
 The contests of party at home, and the great 
 national questions in which we were soon in- 
 volved with foreign Governments, drew the 
 attention of Congress from this particular sub- 
 ject. It now is brought forward at a time 
 when political animosities have in a good de- 
 gree subsided, and every circumstance is favor- 
 able to its just decision. 
 
 The States of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, 
 were admitted into the Union in 1802, 1816, 
 and 1818, and the restriction against slavery 
 was applied, without opposition, to all of them. 
 They formed their constitutions accordingly, 
 and are now reaping the rich reward of civil as 
 well as political freedom. 
 
 The slave trade was abolished by act of 1807, 
 to take effect on the first day of January, 1808, 
 being the earliest day on which Congress could 
 exercise that power. 
 
 In this manner Congress has respected the 
 rights of man, and has endeavored, in pursuance 
 of the principles of the United States Govern- 
 ment, to limit the extension of slavery as much 
 as possible. 
 
 Mr. HOLMES, of Massachusetts, rose, and 
 spoke as follows : Mr. Chairman, when a man 
 is fallen into distress, his neighbors surround 
 him to offer relief. Some, by an attempt at 
 condolence, increase the grief which they would 
 assuage ; others, by administering remedies, in- 
 flame the disorder; while others, affecting all 
 the solicitude of both, actually wish him dead. 
 It is so with Liberty. Always in danger often 
 in distress she not only suffers from open and 
 secret foes, but officious and unskilful friends. 
 And among the thousands and millions that 
 throng her temple from curiosity, fashion, or 
 policy, how few very few there are, who are 
 her sincere, faithful, and intelligent worshippers ? 
 
 Among these few, I trust, are to be found all 
 the advocates for restriction in this House. 
 And I readily admit that most of those out of 
 doors, whose zeal is excited on this occasion, 
 are of the same description. But, is it not 
 probable that there are some jugglers behind 
 the screen who are playing a deeper game 
 who are combining to rally under this standard, 
 as the last resort, the forlorn hope of an ex- 
 piring party? 
 
 But, while we admit this in behalf of the 
 respectable gentlemen who advocate the restric- 
 tion of slavery in Missouri, we ask, may we 
 demand of them the same liberality ? We are 
 not the advocates or the abettors of slavery. 
 For one, sir, I would rejoice if there was not a \ 
 
 slave on earth. Liberty is the object of my 
 love my adoration. I would extend its bless- 
 ings to every human being. But, though my 
 feelings are strong for the abolition of slavery, 
 they are yet stronger for the constitution of my 
 country. And, if I am reduced to the sad al- 
 ternative to tolerate the holding of slaves in 
 Missouri, or violate the constitution of my 
 country, I will not admit a doubt to cloud my 
 choice. Sir, of what benefit would be abolition, 
 if at a sacrifice of your constitution ? Where 
 would be the guarantee of the liberty which you 
 grant? Liberty has a temple here, and it is 
 the only one which remains. Destroy this, 
 and she must flee she must retire among the 
 brutes of the wilderness to mourn and lament 
 the misery and folly of man. 
 
 The proposition for the consideration of the 
 committee is to abolish slavery in Missouri, as a 
 condition of her admission into the Union. 
 
 This constitution which I hold in my hand I 
 am sworn to support, not according to legisla- 
 tive or judicial exposition, but as I shall under- 
 stand it ; not as private interest or public zeal 
 may urge, but as I shall believe ; not as I may 
 wish it, but as it is. 
 
 I have carefully examined this constitution, 
 and I can find no such power. I have looked 
 it through, and I am certain it is not in the 
 book. This power is not express, and, if given 
 at all, it must be constructive. This amplifying 
 power by construction is dangerous, and will, 
 not improbably, effect the eventual destruction 
 of the constitution. That there are resulting or 
 implied powers, I am not disposed to deny ; but 
 they are only where the powers are subordi- 
 nate and the implication necessary. All pow- 
 ers not granted are prohibited, is a maxim to 
 which we cannot too religiously adhere. 
 
 I come now to the power of Congress. And 
 my first proposition is, that Congress cannot re- 
 strict a State which was party to the compact 
 in the exercise of a political power not surren- 
 dered by the constitution. This is a political 
 axiom which scarcely admits of proof or illus- 
 tration. The tenth article of the amendment 
 preserves every power not surrendered. If it 
 did not, and Congress could take, they might 
 another, until the States were robbed of every 
 attribute of sovereignty. Remark, sir, that I 
 confine the proposition to existing States. I 
 am disposed to do one thing at a time ; this is 
 enough for my present purpose. If this princi- 
 ple is established, and it appears to establish 
 itself, I proceed to my second proposition, that 
 the power to restrict an existing State, in the 
 admission or rejection of slavery, is not surren- 
 dered to Congress by the constitution. 
 
 And here, sir, I cannot but notice the con- 
 fusion that exists in the ranks of the advo- 
 cates of restriction. Two gentlemen have ad- 
 dressed the committee, one before and the other 
 since the proposition was made. Instead of 
 presenting us with one single precept, one 
 source of this power, they have presented six ! 
 From that of laying and collecting taxes, &c.,
 
 484 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 The Missouri Bill Restriction on the State: 
 
 [JANUARY, 1820. 
 
 regulating commerce, prohibiting migration and 1 
 importation, admitting new States, governing 
 territories, and making treaties ! And, what is 
 singularly unfortunate, the gentlemen agree 
 only in one of the six, and that the most excep- 
 tionable and least plausible of the whole. These 
 are all disconnected and distinct, and this power 
 can be derived from only one of them. The 
 
 different dishes, and offer us our choice. We 
 demand of them the power the true genuine 
 coin, and no counterfeit. They present us six 
 pieces, five of which are unquestionably base, 
 and tell us they all look so much alike that they 
 cannot distinguish, and we must select for our- 
 selves. What should we answer? Precisely 
 what we do ; we will take neither, for we be- 
 lieve them all counterfeit. This is not the 
 whole. The memorialists, and others abroad, 
 have furnished some ten or a dozen more sources 
 of this power. 
 
 There seemed to be some doubt as to the 
 meaning of this ninth section of the first article 
 of the constitution. I believe I entertained an 
 opinion last session, which I then expressed, 
 that migration and importation related wholly 
 to slaves ; the former to bringing by land, and 
 the latter by water. I was led to this by the 
 circumstance that the taxation was confined to 
 importation presuming that the difficulty of 
 taxation, in case of bringing by land, was the 
 reason why "migration" was dropped in the 
 latter part of the clause. Although this con- 
 struction is better than theirs, I am satisfied it 
 is not the best. The error consists in using the 
 words very differently from their common and 
 ordinary import. Take the sentence as it is, 
 and it is plain enough " the migration or im- 
 portation of such persons as the existing States 
 shall see cause to admit, shall not be prohibit- 
 ed," &c. ^ "Persons" means slaves, when ap- 
 plied to importation, and free persons, when 
 applied to migration. The former implies con- 
 straint, and excludes volition ; the latter implies 
 volition, and excludes constraint. Importation 
 is bringing either by land or water ; migration 
 is a voluntary going from one jurisdiction or 
 sovereignty to another. The Convention were 
 then speaking of persons coming from abroad : 
 importing of slaves could not be prohibited en- 
 tirely ; a tax was the only restraint that could 
 be obtained before 1808. But the policy of the 
 United States would not allow a tax on migra- 
 tion, or voluntary coming. Such a tax on for- 
 eigners might be urged, from motives of popu- 
 larity, against the general policy of the nation. 
 A right to prohibit this introduction of foreign- 
 ers would not be exercised except when, upon 
 necessary or extraordinary occasions, the safety 
 of the nation might require it. It was proper, 
 then, that Congress should have power to pro- 
 hibit, but not to tax, strangers emigrating from 
 abroad. When this clause was reported by a 
 committee of the Convention, the taxation ex- 
 tended to migration as well as importation. 
 Had the Convention understood that this word 
 
 related only to a transfer from one State to 
 another, would the committee have reported 
 this provision, in direct contradiction to another 
 clause of the same section ? While the clause 
 was under debate in the Convention, a member 
 proposed to insert the word "free" before "per- 
 sons." Had this been the meaning of the word, 
 no one, unless he was delirious or in sport, 
 would have proposed an amendment which 
 would have operated to authorize Congress to 
 prohibit a transfer of none but free persons 
 from one State to another. 
 
 I trust I have succeeded in proving that Con- 
 gress cannot restrict a State which was party to 
 the compact, in the exercise of a political power 
 not surrendered by the constitution ; that the 
 political power of a State which was party to 
 the compact, to establish or prohibit slavery, is 
 not surrendered by the constitution, and there- 
 fore cannot restrict an original State in the ex- 
 ercise of this power. 
 
 FRIDAY, January 28. 
 The Missouri Bill. 
 
 The House then again went into committee on 
 this subject, (Mr. BALDWIN in the chair.) 
 
 Mr. SMYTH, of Virginia, addressed the Chair. 
 He said that the constitutionality of the measure 
 proposed was the subject which he intended 
 first to consider. The constitution, said he, 
 provides that " new States may be admitted by 
 Congress into this Union." 'if, then, a new 
 State is admitted into " this Union," must it 
 not be on terms of equality? Can the old 
 States, the first parties to this Union, bind other 
 States farther than they themselves are bound? 
 Can they bind the new States not to admit sla- 
 very, and preserve to themselves the right to 
 admit slavery ? Shall the old States preserve 
 rights of which the new States shall be de- 
 prived ? Can this Government demand of the 
 new States a right to exercise powers over 
 them that it cannot exercise over the old 
 States ? If so, you may demand of the new 
 States power to legislate over them as you legis- 
 late over the District of Columbia. Can you 
 stipulate with a new State that she shall have 
 but one Senator ; that her representation in 
 this House shall be apportioned by the number 
 of her free inhabitants only ; that she shall not 
 appoint her full number of Electors of the Presi- 
 dent ; or that she shall not have a republican 
 form of government? You cannot, for the 
 constitution fixes the rights of every State in 
 these respects. Can you stipulate for the regu- 
 lation of the press, for the establishment of re- 
 ligion, or for a power to appoint militia officers? 
 You cannot, for in these respects also, the rights 
 of the States are declared by the constitution. 
 And if you cannot stipulate for the exercise of 
 a power prohibited, you cannot stipulate for 
 the exercise of a power withheld. 
 
 Will you not admit that you cannot stipulate 
 for a power to appoint militia officers in a new 
 State ? You will ; because that power is spe-
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 485 
 
 JANUARY, 1820.] 
 
 The Missouri Bill Restriction on the State. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 daily, and in direct terms, reserved to the 
 States. All powers not granted are reserved in 
 general terms. If the power is reserved, is it 
 not the same, whether it he reserved in direct 
 or in general terms ? It is the same. A power 
 reserved to the States or to the people, either 
 in direct or in general terms, you cannot exer- 
 cise without committing an act of usurpation. 
 
 The case supposed, of stipulating for power to 
 appoint militia officers, illustrates the danger 
 which might arise to freedom by forming a new 
 class of States, over which this Government 
 should possess powers different from those 
 which it exercises over the old States. A con- 
 solidated government might be established over 
 such new States. At the time of the Revolution 
 it was a cause of complaint against the British 
 King, that, by acquiring Canada, and establish- 
 ing a despotic government therein, he endan- 
 gered the liberty of the American Colonies. 
 The people would never have adopted the con- 
 stitution, had they supposed that Congress was 
 to exercise over the new States powers different 
 from those granted by the constitution. 
 
 The legislative power of every State is origin- 
 ally co-extensive. Each State, by the consti- 
 tution, commits an equal portion of its legislative 
 powers to Congress ; and all the residue is re- 
 served to the States, unless prohibited to them, 
 or to the people. The only powers of this Gov- 
 ernment are given by the constitution. The 
 powers granted are to be exercised over every 
 State ; and the powers reserved, are retained by 
 every State. In Pennsylvania and in Virginia, 
 the power to legislate respecting slavery is in 
 the Legislature. In Ohio and Indiana that 
 power is in the people, who have denied it to 
 their Legislatures. No power has been dele- 
 gated to Congress to legislate on that subject. 
 The constitution provides that, " the powers not 
 delegated to the United States by the constitu- 
 tion, nor prohibited by it to the States, are re- 
 served to the States, respectively, or to the 
 people." The powers not delegated being re- 
 served to the States, respectively, are reserved 
 to each of the States, whether new or old. 
 
 Has the power to legislate over slavery been 
 delegated to the United States? It has not. 
 Has it been prohibited to the States ? It has 
 not. Then it is reserved to the States, respect- 
 ively, or to the people. Consequently, it is re- 
 served to the State of Missouri, or to the people 
 of that State. And any attempt by Congress 
 to deprive them of this reserved power, will be 
 unjust, tyrannical, unconstitutional, and void. 
 
 The only condition that may constitutionally 
 be annexed to the admission of a new State into 
 this Union is, that its constitution shall be repub- 
 lican. This the constitution authorizes us to re- 
 quire, and it is the only condition that is neces- 
 sary. We possess power to make all needful 
 regulations respecting the territorial property 
 of the United States. Our acts in pursuance of 
 the constitution are paramount to the laws of 
 any State. When we pursue our constitutional 
 authority, we need no aid from stipulations; 
 
 and when we exceed it, our acts are acts of 
 usurpation, and void.- 
 
 It has been questioned by some, whether a 
 constitution can be said to be republican, which 
 loes not exclude slavery. But we must under- 
 stand the phrase, " republican form of govern- 
 ment," as the people understood it when they 
 adopted the constitution. We are bound by the 
 construction which was put upon the constitu- 
 tion by the people. It would be perfidious to- 
 ward them to put on the constitution a different 
 construction from that which induced them to 
 adopt it. 
 
 The people of each of the States who adopted 
 the constitution, except Massachusetts, owned 
 slaves ; yet they certainly considered their own 
 constitutions to be republican. And the Federal 
 Government has not, by virtue of its power to 
 guarantee a republican constitution to each State 
 in the Union, required a change of the constitu- 
 tion of any one of those States. 
 
 The constitution recognizes the right to the 
 slave property, and it thereby appears that it 
 was intended, by the Convention and by the 
 people, that that property should be secure. 
 The representation of each State, in this House, 
 is proportioned by the whole number of free per- 
 sons, and three-fifths of the number of the slaves. 
 In forming the constitution, the Southern States, 
 Virginia excepted, insisted on, and obtained a 
 provision, authorizing them to import slaves for 
 twenty years.* And the constitution provides 
 that slaves running away from their masters in 
 one State, and going into another, shall be de- 
 livered up to their masters. 
 
 But the gentleman from New York contended, 
 that, by a " person held to service or labor in 
 one State, under the laws thereof," the consti- 
 tution means an apprentice, or bound servant. 
 Sir, the definition of a word conveys its meaning 
 to our understandings more clearly than the word 
 itself; and the very best definition of the word 
 " slave" that can be given, is, a person held to 
 service or labor under the laws of a State. The 
 constitution describes apprentices or bound ser- 
 vants as " those bound to service for a term of 
 years ;" and directs that they shall be included 
 in the number of free persons. The apprentice 
 
 * Extract from LuXhe,r Martin's report to th Legis- 
 lature of Maryland. 
 
 " We were then told by the delegates of the two first of 
 those States, (Georgia and South Carolina,) that their States 
 would never agree to a system which put it in the power of 
 the General Government to prevent the importation of 
 slaves ; and that they, as the delegates from those States, 
 must withhold their assent from such a system." 
 
 The clanso referred to relates solely to the importation of 
 slaves from abroad. The Convention used the words, " mi- 
 gration or importation" as synonymous. In like manner 
 they say, tax or duty, alliance or confederation, imposts or 
 duties, agreement or compact, service or labor, resolution 
 or vote, for the purpose of elucidating their meaning. This 
 clause at one time stood thus before the Convention : "The 
 migration or importation of such persons as the several 
 States, now existing, shall think proper to admit, shall not 
 be prohibited by the Legislature prior to the year 1800 ; but 
 a tax or duty may bo imposed on such migration or impor- 
 tation at a rate not exceeding the average of the duties laid 
 on imports." This proposition to lay an ad valorem duty, 
 shows that nothing was in the contemplation of the Con- 
 vention but the slave trade.
 
 480 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OP R.] 
 
 The Missouri Bill Restriction on the State. 
 
 [JANUARY, 1820. 
 
 or bound servant is bound to service or labor by 
 contract ; the slave is held to service or labor 
 by law. A person " held to service or labor" 
 is the constitutional and legal definition of the 
 word " slave," and is superadded to the word 
 "slave" or "slaves," in one act of Congress for 
 suppressing the slave trade no less than eight 
 times.* Thus the obligation of State laws, 
 which hold men to service or labor, is acknowl- 
 edged by the constitution, and by the laws of 
 the United States. 
 
 To render this right, with other rights, still 
 more secure, Virginia, in adopting the constitu- 
 tion, declared that " no right, of any denomina- 
 tion, can be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or 
 modified, except in those instances in which 
 power is given by the constitution for those pur- 
 poses ;" and New York declared, " that every 
 power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by 
 the said constitution clearly delegated to the 
 Congress of the United States, remains to the 
 people of the several States, or to their respective 
 State Governments." Several of the other States 
 made similar declarations. But the States were 
 not content to declare their rights. An amend- 
 ment to the constitution declares 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." The right to own slaves 
 being acknowledged and secured by the consti- 
 tution, can you proscribe what the constitution 
 guarantees ? Can you touch a right reserved to 
 the States or the people ? You cannot. 
 
 If you possessed power to legislate concerning 
 slavery, the adoption of the proposition on your 
 table, which goes to emancipate all children of 
 slaves hereafter born in Missouri, would be a 
 direct violation of the constitution, which pro- 
 vides that " no person shall be deprived of 
 property without due process of law ; nor shall 
 private property be taken for public use without 
 just compensation." If you cannot take prop- 
 erty even for public use, without just compen- 
 sation, you certainly have not power to take it 
 away for the purpose of annihilation, without 
 compensation. And, if you cannot take away 
 that which is in existence, you cannot take away 
 that which will come into existence hereafter. 
 If you cannot take away the land, you cannot 
 take the future crops ; and if you cannot take 
 the slaves, you cannot take their issue, who, by 
 the laws of slavery, will be also slaves. You 
 cannot force the people to give up their property. 
 You cannot force a portion of the people to 
 emancipate their slaves. 
 
 By adopting this proposition, yon will have 
 proved that the clauses of the constitution 
 deemed most sacred by the people, are not sa- 
 cred with you. The constitution was the work 
 of politicians. The amendments were the work 
 of the people. They are the parts of the con- 
 stitution which protect the rights of the people. 
 The amendment which secures property, you 
 
 * Vol. 4 Laws, p. 94. 
 
 ire about to violate by emancipating, without 
 ;he consent of the masters, the offspring of ten 
 ;housand slaves. 
 
 The people of Missouri will be rightfully 
 jound by our laws made for the whole Union ; 
 :>ut we have no right to make local laws for the 
 people of Missouri alone. "We have no right to 
 5ass partial laws, that shall operate in some of 
 ;he States, and not in others. 
 
 You cannot limit the new States in the 
 exercise of their retained powers. "Whether 
 slavery shall exist or not in the new States, 
 must depend on the free will of the State Legis- 
 atures, and of the people. If yon can in this way 
 Describe the course of legislation on one subject, 
 you can on any subject or on every subject. 
 
 No State can be bound not to change its con- 
 stitution. The same right which Pennsylvania 
 lias of self-government, every new State must 
 possess of self-government. They are bound to 
 adopt a republican constitution, for that is a law 
 of the whole Union. 
 
 If you impose on Missouri the contemplated 
 restriction, and Missouri forms her constitution 
 accordingly, it will not be your act, but the act 
 of Missouri that will become a law. Then sup- 
 pose Missouri changes her constitution ; as she 
 made the law, she can repeal it. Your act can 
 have no force, because not passed in pursuance 
 of the Constitution of the United States. The 
 acts of Congress, passed in pursuance of the 
 constitution, are laws; but the stipulations or 
 declarations of Congress, not authorized by the 
 constitution, are not laws ; and they can have 
 no sanction ; for it is only the acts passed in 
 pursuance of the constitution that are the su- 
 preme laws of the land. If your act is a law, it 
 needs not the aid or consent of Missouri ; and 
 if Missouri is to pass the law, Missouri may re- 
 peal it. But this, say our opponents, would be 
 perfidious on the part of Missouri ; they will 
 not presume that Missouri would violate her 
 plighted faith. They detest all perfidy except 
 that which they themselves recommend. This 
 would not be perfidy on the part of Missouri. 
 The people of Missouri would only have eluded 
 the effects of the perfidy of those who would 
 have violated a solemn treaty. 
 
 It has seemed to some that as Ohio was re- 
 quired to form a constitution agreeing with the 
 ordinance of Congress of 1787, which excluded 
 slavery from the territory northwest of the Ohio 
 River, therefore Missouri may be likewise re- 
 quired to exclude slavery by her constitution. 
 Whatever be the effect of the ordinance of 1787, 
 it has no application to Missouri. But I con- 
 tend that Ohio is not bound by the ordinance ; 
 that she is at liberty to decide as she pleases the 
 question, whether she will or will not exclude 
 slavery. 
 
 It has been said that the constitution vests in 
 Congress a power to make all needful regula- 
 tions respecting the territory of the United 
 States; and this power, it is supposed, author- 
 izes us to exclude slaves from the territories of 
 the United States, and also to demand from any
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 487 
 
 JANUARY, 1820.] 
 
 The Missouri Bill Restriction on the State. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 of those territories about to become States, a 
 stipulation for the exclusion of slavea The 
 clause of the constitution referred to reads thus : 
 " The Congress shall have power to dispose of, 
 and make all needful rules and regulations re- 
 specting the territory or other property belong- 
 ing to the United States." It has been contended 
 that this gives a power of legislation over per- 
 sons and private property within the territories 
 of the United States. The clause obviously re- 
 lates to the territory belonging to the United 
 .Suites, as property only. The power given is 
 to dispose of, and make all needful regulations 
 respecting, the territorial property, or other 
 property of the United States ; and Congress 
 have power to pass all laws necessary and 
 proper to the exercise of that power. This 
 clause speaks of the territory as property, as a 
 subject of sale. It speaks not of the jurisdic- 
 tion.* That the convention considered as being 
 provided for by the ordinance of Congress.f 
 This clause contains no grant, of power to legis- 
 late over persons and private property within a 
 territory. A power to dispose of, and make all 
 needful regulations respecting the property of 
 the United States, is very different from a 
 power to legislate over the persons and prop- 
 erty of the people. When it was the intention 
 of the Convention that the constitution should 
 convey to Congress power to legislate over per- 
 sons and private property, they expressed them- 
 selves in terms not doubtful. Thus, they said, 
 u Congress shall have power to exercise exclu- 
 sive legislation in all cases whatsoever," within 
 the ten miles square. But no such power to 
 legislate over the territories is granted. The 
 power is, to dispose of, and make all needful 
 
 * This clause, as first proposed in Convention, read thus : 
 "To dispose of the unappropriated lands of the United 
 
 5; to institute temporary governments for new States 
 arising therein." The latter power was not granted. See 
 Journal Convention, page 260. 
 
 t Mr. Smyth is very distinct here upon a much contested 
 point. He considers the "needful rules and regulation" 
 clause as applying to property only, and that the property of 
 the ynited States. He considers it no grant of the jurisdic- 
 tion, or the right of government, that (to wit, jurisdiction 
 and government) being provided for in the ordinance. This 
 is historically and logically true. The ordinance was the 
 constitution of the territories, made for them at the same 
 time, (and, it may be said, by the same men,) who made 
 the constitution for the States. It was not necessary for 
 the new constitution to provide for the territorial govern- 
 ments, because their own constitutions had done it And 
 that territorial constitution, to wit, the ordinance of '87, was 
 part and parcel of the new system, going with the new con- 
 stitution, and doing for the territories what the constitution 
 was doing for the States. The territories had no share in 
 the constitution, and looked to the ordinance and the power 
 of Congress for their governments. The ordinance of'STwas 
 not made under the articles of confederation; for no power 
 to make it is there ; but as an incident to sovereignty and 
 ownership, and in virtue of the compacts with the ceding 
 States. The new territories are governed by the same 
 rights of ownership of soil and sovereignty, and by virtue 
 of the compacts with the powers from which they are 
 acquired. 
 
 regulations respecting the property of the United 
 States. When that is sold and conveyed, it 
 ceases to be an objeet of the power to make 
 regulations respecting the property of the 
 United States ; and if the construction contended 
 for by our opponents be correct, and Congress 
 possess power to legislate for a territory, that 
 would not authorize them to make regulation* 
 which should continue in force when the terri- 
 tory became a State, and the United State* 
 ceased to own property therein. 
 
 By treaty we are bound to admit Missouri 
 into the Union ; to allow her a representation 
 for her slaves ; to guarantee to her a republican 
 form of government, (that is, a government by 
 and for the people themselves, not a govern- 
 ment imposed on them, nor a patrimonial gov- 
 ernment ;) and to leave her all power not dele- 
 gated by the constitution to the United States, 
 nor prohibited by it to the States. Treaties are 
 in part the supreme law of the land, and para- 
 mount to the constitution of any State ; yet you 
 propose to violate the treaty with France by the 
 means of a State constitution, which is of infe- 
 rior obligation to a treaty. 
 
 It has been urged, not indeed at this session, 
 as a reason for violating tke treaty with France, 
 that the present Government of that nation 
 will not insist on the strict performance of its 
 stipulations. Although the right of the people 
 of Missouri rests on a treaty, the question 
 arises between them and their own Govern- 
 ment ; and it would be considered criminal in 
 them to apply for protection to any other Gov- 
 ernment. But the, former sovereign of the 
 country has made a stipulation on behalf of the 
 people, and to that stipulation we have agreed 
 in the most solemn manner. If we do not per- 
 form our engagements, we shall be deemed a 
 perfidious, faithless nation ; and yet it has been 
 proposed to violate the treaty, because the pow- 
 erful Monarch with whom we made it reigns 
 no more. 
 
 Will you be unjust, false, and perfidious, be- 
 cause you are powerful? Would it be honor- 
 able to violate a treaty because those who claim 
 the benefits of its provisions are our own citi- 
 zens ? Should the treaty with Spain be ratified, 
 will you refuse to pay your own citizens for 
 Spanish spoliations, because Spain, who stipu- 
 lated on their behalf, is not likely to declare 
 war against you if you do not? By your con- 
 stitution, a treaty is the supreme law of th 
 land, and paramount to the constitution which 
 you propose to force Missouri to adopt. You 
 may, indeed, repeal the treaty by an act of Con- 
 gress ; but the effect of a measure of that kind 
 should be well considered. And you must re- 
 peal the treaty directly or by implication before 
 the proposed measure can have the desired ef- 
 fect ; for the treaty, until it is repealed, is para- 
 mount to the imposed constitution ; and the 
 judges would sustain it. 
 
 Beware ! You have no right to Missouri but 
 what the treaty gives yon. The treaty gives 
 you Missouri, on condition that you secure the
 
 488 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 The Missouri Bill Restriction on the State, 
 
 [JANUARY, 1820. 
 
 property of the inhabitants, and incorporate 
 them into the Union of the United States, with 
 nil the rights of citizens, according to the prin- 
 ciples of the Federal Constitution, Which re- 
 serves to them all powers not delegated by 
 that constitution. If I receive a deed on condi- 
 tion, I am bound to perform the condition. 
 Every engagement in a treaty is a condition, 
 the breach of which releases the other party 
 from his engagements.* Perhaps they are mis- 
 taken who suppose that the present Govern- 
 ment of France is deficient in spirit and honor, 
 and will not insist on the observance of exist- 
 ing treaties made with France. Would not 
 England like to see France and the United 
 States brought into collision ? Would not all Eu- 
 rope be pleased to see the power of France inter- 
 posed between the United States and Mexico ? 
 France wants colonies and commerce; and 
 half the people of Louisiana are Frenchmen. 
 
 I will next consider the effect which the pro- 
 posed measure may have upon the safety of the 
 community. There were in the United States, 
 at the taking of the last census, of free whites 
 5,765,000, of slaves 1,165,000, or about one slave 
 to five free whites. There were of free blacks 
 181,000, making the whole number of the 
 blacks about 1,346,000, there being more than 
 four whites to one black. Now, it is apparent 
 that, were these people equally dispersed in 
 every district, county, and town, of every State, 
 there would be no danger from any insurrectional 
 movement by them in any part of the United 
 States. Equal dispersion would produce not 
 only an increase of comfort to the slaves, but 
 also perfect security to the whites. 
 
 Let us suppose that, instead of being dispersed 
 through ten of the States, as they now are, 
 that the slaves were all collected in Virginia ; 
 that State would then have whites 551,000, 
 blacks 1,846,000, or about five blacks to two 
 whites. What would be the consequence? 
 Let St. Domingo answer. But Virginia has 
 actually 392,000 slaves, or about eight slaves 
 to eleven white persons. She is yet safe, if her 
 legislators have foresight, decision, and firm- 
 ness. And I hope it will never be said of Vir- 
 ginia, " Died Abner as a fool dieth : thy hands 
 were not bound, nor thy feet put into fetters." 
 
 As equal dispersion of the slaves would be 
 perfect security, and concentration of them in 
 a single State would be probable destruction, 
 what may be said of the policy of the amend- 
 ment on your table, which proposes to return 
 upon the old States, or throw into Mississippi 
 and Louisiana, where they are already too nu- 
 merous, ten thousand slaves from Missouri. It 
 is evident that the more you concentrate them, 
 the greater the danger ; the more you disperse 
 them, the greater the safety. Where the pro- 
 portion of the slaves to the free persons is too 
 great, it ought, by all just means, to be lessened. 
 
 Dispersion is the true policy to pursue to- 
 wards a distinct people, whose numbers in any 
 
 * Grotius. 
 
 part of an empire endanger its peace. Thus 
 Salmanazar dispersed the Israelites throughout 
 his empire; and Vespasian, Adrian, and Con- 
 stantine, dispersed the Jews. It was good 
 policy in Valens to disperse the children of the 
 Goths, in Asia. So in our own times, the Brit- 
 ish finding that the Maroons were dangerous 
 in Jamaica, transported them to Nova Scotia. 
 Suppose that fifty thousand prisoners had been 
 taken in the late war, would you have deemed 
 it safe to have cantoned the whole of them in 
 Vermont ? Or would you not have dispersed 
 them through several of the States? Doubtless 
 you would have dispersed them. And for 
 the same reason you should disperse the slaves. 
 
 The tendency of the proposition to create 
 jealousies between the States, deserves serious 
 consideration. It seems to me to be a sacred 
 duty of those who govern this nation, to guard 
 against every cause of division with the utmost 
 care, and to practise forbearance. The consti- 
 tution was formed in a spirit of concession ; and 
 it has been, and will be, necessary to administer 
 it in the same spirit. The people of the South 
 deem the proposed measure a serious wrong. 
 That circumstance alone should be a sufficient 
 objection to any measure which cannot be 
 shown to be essential to the preservation of the 
 community. In the effects of the embargo we 
 have seen how impolitic it is to adopt a measure 
 against the general ^opposition of a large section 
 ot the country. We saw that measure repealed 
 for want of power to enforce it ; but not until 
 it had produced extensive disaffection, which, 
 in the last war, paralyzed the right arm of the 
 United States, and led to that convention, which 
 is now the subject of universal regret. 
 
 You are about to prove to the Southern and 
 Western people that their property and their 
 lives are unsafe under your Government ; that 
 you mean to violate their claim of a right to 
 make laws for themselves. It will not be good 
 policy to convince the Southern and Western 
 people of this. Are you certain that injustice 
 cannot have the effect of breaking the bands of 
 the Union? Doubtless they are strong; .but 
 the attachment to life, property, and the rights 
 of freemen, is stronger. The States who hold 
 slaves cannot consent that any State shall sur- 
 render to this Government power over that de- 
 scription of property. Its value amounts to 
 five hundred millions of dollars. Power over it 
 has not been granted to this Government for 
 any purpose, except that of taxation ; nor can 
 power over it be obtained by the concession 
 of particular States, or otherwise than by an 
 amendment to the constitution. 
 
 Every State is interested that every other 
 State shall preserve its rights. The States 
 should possess the same rights, so that the inva- 
 sion of the rights of one should be the invasion of 
 the rights of all. You will unite in opposition 
 ten of the States ; you will form local parties, 
 the most dangerous of all parties; you will 
 unite the State governments, defending State 
 rights, to the people, defending their prop-
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 FEBRUARY, 1820.] 
 
 The Missouri Bill Restriction on the State. 
 
 [H. OF R 
 
 erty to the amount of five hundred millions. 
 Louisiana, being equally interested in the con- 
 struction of the treaty, must make common 
 cause with Missouri, and the other slavehold- 
 ing States may make common cause with them. 
 If you let the people of Missouri alone to ex- 
 ercise the right of self-government, as it is exer- 
 cised by the people of the other States, perhaps 
 they may of themselves exclude slavery. If 
 such is their sovereign will and pleasure, be it 
 so. Let the will of the people be done. But 
 if you attempt to force your own will upon 
 them, perhaps they may know and duly appre- 
 ciate their rights. Then they will not give up 
 the sacred right of self-government. The 
 people who have not a right to legislate for 
 themselves are not free. They do not enjoy a 
 republican form of government. It would be 
 an event to be lamented if any portion of this 
 free people should give up their constitutional 
 rights. 
 
 TUESDAY, February 1. 
 The Missouri Bill. 
 
 The House then again went into Committee 
 of the Whole, on this bill the proposed restric- 
 tion still under consideration. 
 
 Mr. REID, of Georgia, addressed the House. 
 That this was a question deeply interesting to 
 that quarter of the Union whence he had the 
 honor to come, was the only apology he urged 
 for offering his opinions to the committee. 
 
 The subject (he continued) is said to be deli- 
 cate and embarrassing. It is so, and particu- 
 larly in one point of view. The sentiments, to 
 which the heat and ardor of debate gave ex- 
 pression, will not expire here, like the broken 
 echoes of your Hall ! They will penetrate to 
 the remotest corners of the nation, and may 
 make an impression upon the black population 
 of the South, as fatal, in its effects to the slave, 
 as mischievous to our citizens. This not mere 
 idle surmise. In a professional capacity, I was 
 recently concerned for several unhappy beings, 
 who were tried and convicted of a violation of 
 the laws, by attempted insurrection. They had 
 held conversations, as the testimony developed, 
 with certain itinerant traders, who not only 
 poisoned their minds, but incited them to rebel- 
 lion by proffered assistance. Such influence 
 have the opinions of even the most depraved and 
 ignorant white men upon this unfortunate race 
 of people. But the subject is neither delicate 
 nor embarrassing, as it is considered to imply re- 
 proach, or a high offence against the moral law 
 the violation of the liberty of our fellow-men. 
 Such imputations "pass by us as the idle wind, 
 which we respect not." They are "barb- 
 less arrows, shot from bows unstrung!" The 
 slaveholding States have not brought this ca- 
 lamity upon themselves. They have not volun- 
 tarily assumed this burden. It was fastened 
 upon them by the mother country, notwith- 
 standing the most earnest entreaties and expos- 
 tulations. And, if the gentlemen were well 
 acquainted with the true state of slavery in 
 
 the South, (I speak particularly of Georgia, for 
 my information extends little farther,) I am very 
 sure their understandings would acquit us of the 
 charges which their imaginations prefer. 
 
 Sir, the slaves of the South are held to a ser- 
 vice which, unlike that of the ancient villein, is 
 certain and moderate. They are well supplied 
 with food and raiment. They are "content, 
 and careless of to-morrow's fare." The lights 
 of our religion shine as well for them as for 
 their masters ; and their rights of personal se- 
 curity, guaranteed by the constitution and the 
 laws, are vigilantly protected by the courts. It 
 is true, they are often made subject to wanton 
 acts of tyranny ; but this is not their peculiar 
 misfortune ! For, search the catalogue of crimes, 
 and you will find that man the tyrant is 
 continually preying upon his fellow-men ; there 
 are as many white as black victims to the 
 vengeful passions and the lust of power ! Be- 
 lieve me, sir, I am not the panegyrist of slavery. 
 It is an unnatural state ; a dark cloud which 
 obscures half the lustre of our free institutions ! 
 But it is a fixed evil, which we can only alle- 
 viate. Are we called upon to emancipate our 
 slaves ? I answer, their welfare the safety of 
 our citizens, forbid it Can we incorporate 
 them with us, and make them and us one peo- 
 ple? The prejudices of the North and of the 
 South rise up in equal strength against such a 
 measure; and even those who clamor most 
 loudly for the sublime doctrines of your Decla- 
 ration of Independence, who shout in your ears, 
 "all men are by nature equal l' : would turn 
 with abhorrence and disgust from a party-col- 
 ored progeny ! Shall we then be blamed for a 
 state of things to which we are obliged to 
 submit? Would it be fair ; would it be manly ; 
 would it be generous ; would it be just ; to offer 
 contumely and contempt to the unfortunate 
 man who wears a cancer in his bosom, because 
 he will not submit to cautery at the hazard of 
 his existence ? For my own part, surrounded 
 by slavery from my cradle to the present mo- 
 ment, I yet 
 
 " Hate the touch of servile hands ; 
 
 I loathe the slaves who cringe around:" 
 and I would hail that day as the most glorious 
 in its dawning, which should behold, with safety 
 to themselves and our citizens, the black pop- 
 ulation of the United States placed upon the 
 high eminence of equal rights, and clothed in 
 the privileges and immunities of American 
 citizens ! But this is a dream of philanthropy 
 which can never be fulfilled ; and whoever shall 
 act in this country upon such wild theories, 
 shall cease to be a benefactor, and become a 
 destroyer of the human family. 
 
 The Constitution of the United States is plain 
 and simple ; it requires no superiority of intel- 
 lect to comprehend its dictates ; it is addressed 
 to every understanding ; u he who runs may 
 read." It is, then, a proof of the absence of all 
 authority for the proposed measure, when its 
 advocates, and some, too, of great names, fly 
 from cluuse to section and from section to arti-
 
 490 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 The Missouri Bill Restriction on the Stale. 
 
 [FEBRUAHV, 1820. 
 
 cle, without finding " rest for the sole of the 
 foot ;" without finding or agreeing upon any 
 one line, phrase, or section, whence this power 
 for which all contend may be brought into 
 existence. And it is perfectly natural that this 
 effect should be produced. A search for the 
 philosopher's stone might as soon be expected 
 to end in certainty. 
 
 But it is argued that Congress has ever im- 
 posed restrictions upon new States, and no ob- 
 jection has been urged until this moment. If 
 it be true, that only one condition can consti- 
 tutionally be imposed, it would seem that any 
 other is null and void, and may be thrown off 
 by the State at pleasure. And then this argu- 
 ment, the strength of which is in precedent, 
 cannot avail. Uniformity of decision for hun- 
 dreds of years cannot make that right which at 
 first was wrong. If it were otherwise, in vain 
 would science and the arts pursue their march 
 towards perfection ; in vain the constant pro- 
 gress of truth ; in vain the new and bright lights 
 which are daily finding their way to the human 
 mind, like the rays of the distant stars, which, 
 passing onward J'rom the creation of time, are 
 said to be continually reaching our sphere. 
 Malus usu# dbolendus est. When error appears, 
 let her be detected and exposed, and let evil 
 precedents be abolished. 
 
 It is true that the old Confederation, by the 
 6th section of the ordinance of 1787, inhibited 
 slavery in the territory northwest of the Ohio, 
 and that the States of Ohio, Illinois, and In- 
 diana, have been introduced into the Union 
 under this restriction. 
 
 fectly worthy of the end it seems destined to 
 accomplish. It had no authority in the Articles 
 of Confederation, which did not contemplate, 
 with the exception of Canada, the acquisition of 
 territory. It was in contradiction of the res- 
 olution of 1780, by which the States were allured 
 to cede their unlocated lands to the General 
 Government, upon the condition that these 
 should constitute several States, to be admitted 
 into the Union upon an equal footing with the 
 original States. It is in fraud of the acts of 
 cession by which the States conveyed territory 
 in faith of the resolution of 1780. And, when 
 recognized by acts of Congress, and applied to 
 the States formed from the territory beyond the 
 Ohio, it is in violation of the Constitution of 
 the United States. So much for the efficacy of 
 the precedent which, although binding here, is 
 not, it would seem, of obligation upon Ohio, 
 Indiana, or Illinois, or, if you impose it, upon 
 Missouri. It is not the force of your legal 
 provisions which attaches the restrictive 6th 
 article of the ordinance to the States I have 
 mentioned. It is the moral sentiment of the 
 inhabitants. Impose it upon Missouri, and she 
 will indignantly throw off the yoke and laugh 
 you to scorn ! You will then discover that you 
 have assumed a weapon that you cannot wield 
 the bow of Ulysses, which all your efforts 
 cannot bend. The open and voluntary exposure 
 
 of your weakness will make you not only the 
 object of derision at home, but a byword among 
 nations. Can there be a power in Congress to 
 do that which the object of the power may 
 rightfully destroy ? Are the rights of Missouri 
 and of the Union in opposition to each other ? 
 Can it be possible that Congress has authority 
 to impose a restriction which Missouri, by an 
 alteration of her constitution, may abolish ? Sir, 
 the course we are pursuing reminds me of the 
 urchin who, with great care and anxiety, con- 
 structs his card edifice, which the slightest touch 
 may demolish, the gentlest breath dissolve. 
 
 But let us stand together upon the basis of 
 precedent, and upon that ground you cannot 
 extend this restriction to Missouri. You have 
 imposed it upon the territory beyond the Ohio, 
 but you have never applied it elsewhere. Ten- 
 nessee, Vermont, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missis- 
 sippi, and Alabama, have come into the Union 
 without being required to submit to the con- 
 dition inhibiting slavery ; nay, whenever the 
 ordinance of 1787 has been applied to any of 
 these States, the operation of the 6th article has 
 been suspended or destroyed. According, then, 
 to the uniform tenor of the precedent, let the 
 States to be formed of the territory without the 
 boundaries of the territory northwest of Ohio 
 remain unrestricted, and in the enjoyment of 
 the fulness of their rights. 
 
 Thus, it appears to me, the power you seek to 
 assume is not to be found in the constitution, or 
 to be derived from precedents. Shall it, then, 
 without any known process of generation, spring 
 spontaneously from your councils, like the 
 armed Minerva from the brain of Jupiter ? The 
 Goddess, sir, although of wisdom, was also the 
 inventress of war and the power of your crea- 
 tion, although extensive in its dimensions, and 
 ingenious in its organization, may produce the 
 most terrible and deplorable effects. Assure 
 yourselves you have not authority to bind a 
 State coming into the Union with a single hair ! 
 If you have, you may rivet a chain upon every 
 limb, a fetter upon every joint. Where, then, 
 I ask, is the independence of your State govern- 
 ments? Do they not fall prostrate, debased, 
 covered with sackcloth and crowned with allies, 
 before the gigantic power of the Union ? They 
 will no longer, sir, resemble planets, moving in 
 order around a solar centre, receiving and im- 
 parting lustre. They will dwindle to mere 
 satellites, or, thrown from their orbits, they 
 will wander " like stars condemned, the wrecks 
 of worlds demolished I" 
 
 I beg leave to offer a few words upon the 
 expedience of this amendment, and I declare 
 myself at a loss to divine the motive which so 
 ardently presses its enactment. It is said that 
 humanity, a tender concern for the welfare, 
 both of the slave and his master, is the moving 
 principle. And here I cannot refrain from 
 repeating the words of a periodical writer, as 
 remarkable for his good taste as the justness of 
 bis sentiments : " The usual mode," ?ays he, 
 of making a bad measure palatable to a virtu-
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 491 
 
 FEBRUARY, 1820.] 
 
 The Missouri Bill Restriction on the State. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 ous and well-disposed community, is that of 
 holding it up as conducing to some salutary 
 end, by which the whole people are eventually 
 to be greatly benefited. " It is thus that every 
 mischievous public measure is sheltered behind 
 some pretext of public good." But it is a ques- 
 tion which deserves consideration, whether, if 
 slavery -be confined to its present limits, the sit- 
 uation of the master or the slave, or both, will 
 be made better ? Will not the increased num- 
 ber of slaves, within a given space, diminish 
 the means of subsistence ? Will not the num- 
 ber of masters diminish as the number of slaves 
 increases ? And what are the consequences ? 
 Extreme wretchedness, penury, and want, to 
 the slave ; care, anxiety, imbecility, and servile 
 war to the master ! Then, indeed, will be pro- 
 duced what the advocates of this amendment so 
 much deprecate tyranny, in all its wantonness, 
 on one hand, despair and revenge on the other. 
 At this moment the situation of the Southern 
 slave is, in many respects, enviable. Adopt 
 your restriction, and his fate will not be better 
 than that of the mastiff, which howls all day 
 long from the kennel, where his chains confine 
 him. But, let the dappled tide of population 
 roll onwards to the West ; raise no mound to 
 interrupt its course, and the evil, of which we 
 on all sides so bitterly complain, will have lost 
 half its power to harm by dispersion. Slaves, 
 divided among many masters, will enjoy greater 
 privileges and comforts than those who, cooped 
 within a narrow sphere, and under few owners, 
 will be doomed to drag a long, heavy, and 
 clanking chain through the space of their exist- 
 ence. Danger from insurrection will diminish. 
 Confidence will grow between the master and 
 his servant. T he one will no longer be consid- 
 ered as a mere beast of burden ; the other as a 
 remorseless despot, void of feeling and commiser- 
 ation. In proportion as few slaves are possessed 
 by the same individual, will he look with less 
 reluctance to the prospect of their ultimate 
 liberation. Emancipations will become common, 
 and who knows but that, the Great Being, to 
 whose mercies all men have an equal claim, 
 may, in the fulness of his time, work a miracle 
 in behalf of the trampled rights of human na- 
 ture? Sir, humanity, unless I am egregiously 
 deceived, disclaims those doctrines, the practi- 
 cal result of which is to make the black man 
 more wretched, and the white man less safe. 
 She turns with shivering abhorrence from the 
 fetters which, while you affect to loosen, you 
 clasp more firmly around the miserable African. 
 But, let gentlemen beware! Assume the 
 Mississippi as the boundary. Say, that to the 
 smiling Canaan beyond its waters, no slave shall 
 approach, and you give a new character to its 
 inhabitants, totally distinct from that which 
 shall belong to the people thronging on the east 
 of your limits. You implant diversity of pur- 
 suits, hostility of feeling, envy, hatred, and 
 bitter reproaches, which 
 
 " Shall grow to clubs and naked sworda, 
 To murder and to death." 
 
 If you remain inexorable ; if you persist in 
 refusing the humble, the decent, the reasonable 
 prayer of Missouri, is there no danger that her 
 resistance will rise in proportion to your op- 
 pression ? Sir, the firebrand, which is even now 
 cast into your society, will require blood ay, 
 and the blood of freemen for its quenching. 
 Your Union shall tremble, as under the force of 
 an earthquake! While you incautiously pull 
 down a constitutional barrier, you make way 
 for the dark, and tumultuous, and overwhelm- 
 ing waters of desolation ! If you " sow the 
 winds, must you not reap the whirlwind ?" 
 
 Mr. CLAGETT, of New Hampshire, rose and 
 addressed the Chair as follows : Mr. Chairman, 
 when I reflect that the subject under considera- 
 tion involves a constitutional question of the 
 first magnitude, in which the whole Union is 
 deeply interested, I confess I feel fully sensible 
 of my own inability to perform that duty which 
 I owe to those I represent, and to my country. 
 Nor am I insensible to the solicitude felt by 
 this honorable body, while this discussion pro- 
 ceeds. But as equal solicitude, and, probably, 
 greater, agitated the Convention who formed 
 our constitution, when the same subject was 
 before them ; and, as their deliberations closed, 
 so, I hope ours will, in a spirit of amity. Theirs 
 was the greater task ; they had a compromise 
 to make : we find it already made ; they had a 
 constitution to form : we find one already form- 
 ee. With these impressions, and a full sense of 
 my own responsibility for the course I pursue, 
 and for the motives by which I am governed, I 
 ask your attention to the brief view of the sub- 
 ject which my best reflections enable me to 
 present. And, sir, it will be my endeavor to 
 avoid every thing contrary to that spirit of har- 
 mony so desirable ; and I regret that any re- 
 marks should have been made which may re- 
 quire animadversion or retort. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, I have said that, among the 
 statesmen who formed this constitution, were 
 many of those who subscribed to the Declara- 
 tion of Independence, the Act of Confederation, 
 and established the Ordinance of 1787; and in 
 all their proceedings it evidently appears that 
 they considered slavery as a great evil, and 
 inconsistent with those pure principles of liberty 
 for which they contended ; and in no act ia this 
 more apparent than in that ordinance by which 
 slavery is expressly excluded from all the Ter- 
 ritory and States northwest of the river Ohio, 
 forever. But the same subject was among the 
 most perplexing and painful in the Convention 
 who formed the constitution, as appears by 
 their journals. Slavery had been introduced, 
 indeed, under a Government whose principles 
 were not congenial with ours. It was an exist- 
 ing evil in our laud, and could not be imme- 
 diately eradicated, but it could be restricted, 
 and further extension of the evil prohibited. 
 After much agitation, this course was amicably 
 acrreed upon, as clearly appears from the consti- 
 tution : leaving it, however, with such original 
 States where the evil existed, to regulate their
 
 492 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OP R.] 
 
 Journal of the Old Congress. 
 
 [FEBRUARY, 1820. 
 
 own internal concerns, and giving to Congress 
 full power over this subject in all other respects, 
 but suspending the operation of that power 
 until the year 1808. 
 
 Sir, let me ask your attention to the 9th sec- 
 tion of the 1st article of the constitution ; and, 
 if we keep in view the principle contended for, 
 the object to be attained, it would seem that we 
 inufet come to a correct conclusion. "The 
 migration or importation of such persons as any 
 of the States now existing shall think proper to 
 admit, shall not be prohibited by Congress prior 
 to the year 1808 ; but a tax or duty may be 
 imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten 
 dollars lor each person." 
 
 Sir, plain as this section really is, different 
 constructions have been attempted. The hon- 
 orable gentleman from Massachusetts, last men- 
 tioned, has facetiously called upon the friends of 
 this amendment to agree. Sir, I have perceived 
 no material disagreement on this side of the 
 question, but have noticed a little on the other, 
 and must be permitted to retort the remark. 
 The honorable gentleman contends that the 
 term " migration" applies only to free persons, 
 (emigrants ;) but the honorable gentleman from 
 Virginia (Mr. SMYTH,) who followed on the 
 same side, contends that it applies only to slaves ; 
 and here the two honorable gentlemen seem to 
 be at issue. But the honorable gentleman from 
 Massachusetts frankly confesses that his " first 
 impressions led him to the opinion that the 
 term migration, as here used, applied only to 
 slaves." Sir, I am convinced the " first impres- 
 sions" of the honorable gentleman from Massa- 
 chusetts were correct ; and that " first impres- 
 sions" should not be too soon surrendered. But, 
 sir, the words " migration" and " importation," 
 though different in signification, both apply here 
 to the same persons to " such persons as any 
 of the States now existing shall think proper to 
 admit." Migration, in common parlance, is the 
 act of removing from place to place ; and, as 
 used here, can only mean from State to State ; 
 because the compact was between States, and 
 was intended to protect non-slaveholding States 
 against the intrusion of slaves, and to restrict 
 them within the States where the evil was tole- 
 rated. "Importation" means bringing from 
 abroad, and can have no other meaning, and 
 yas intended to prevent the farther introduc- 
 tion of slaves from abroad. 
 
 The words " such persons as any of -the States 
 now existing shall think proper to admit," show 
 that all the States did not think proper to ad- 
 mit ; and the fact is well known that six only of 
 the thirteen original States did then admit 
 slaves ; seven (which were a majority) were 
 opposed to their admission ; but all entered into 
 this compact, as the best and only remedy in 
 their power ; suspending the operation of the 
 power of Congress upon the original States 
 until 1808, when it was believed, restrictions 
 even upon the original States might safely com- 
 mence, but, without any limitation or suspension 
 of power over the subject, as to new States. 
 
 But, it has been said, that " migration" applies 
 only to white emigrants. Sir, if there can be 
 a doubt that slaves are the persons intended, 
 the 5th article of the constitution will remove 
 it ; for that article is wholly in favor of slave- 
 holding States, and provides, that " no amend- 
 ment of the constitution, prior to 1808, shall 
 affect the 1st and 4th clauses in the 9th section 
 of the 1st article, which wholly apply to slaves. 
 The 6th article of the ordinance of 1787, ex- 
 cluding slavery from new States, but permitting 
 reclamation of fugitives from original States 
 only, must, from its analogy to the 9th section 
 and 1st article of the constitution, have been 
 in view of the Convention when the constitu- 
 tion was formed, and has a strong bearing on 
 this subject. Can it then be doubted that Con- 
 gress have a superintending and complete power 
 over this subject, except only as to the internal 
 regulations in the original States ? And did 
 not Congress commence this work by a law of 
 1807, which took effect on the 1st day of the 
 year 1808? Sir, they did; and I think we 
 are bound to pursue it. 
 
 Mr. Chairman: Look back to times which 
 tried the " principles" of men ; to the Congress 
 of 1774, and examine the proceedings of those 
 men to the adoption of the constitution ; the 
 professions and the acts of those patriots all 
 speak the same language, and tend to the same 
 object civil and religious liberty, the rights 
 of man ; and then say, if we can so far depart 
 from their principles, as to extend slavery over 
 this free and happy land. Is there no evil in 
 this traffic ? Why were Congress so assiduous 
 to enforce the ordinance of 1787, upon our cit- 
 izens now of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois ? Why 
 was your law of 1807 prepared to meet the 
 first day of the year 1808, when you could first 
 prohibit the importation of slaves into the 
 original States? 
 
 WEDNESDAY, February 2. 
 Journal of the Old Congress. 
 Mr. STEOTHEE offered the following joint 
 resolution : 
 
 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 
 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
 That the Secret Journal of the Old Congress, from 
 the date of the ratification of the definitive Treaty of 
 Peace between the United States and Great Britain, 
 in the year 1783, to the formation of the present 
 Government, now remaining in the office of the Sec- 
 retary of State, be published under the direction of 
 the President of the. United States, and that one 
 thousand copies thereof be printed and deposited in 
 the Library, subject to the disposition of Congress. 
 
 The resolution having been twice read, Mr. 
 STROTHER moved that it be ordered to be en- 
 grossed and read a third time to-morrow. He 
 saw no objection to its taking this course, 
 which would afford the opponents of the pro- 
 position, if it had any, the opportunity fully to 
 urge their objections ; and would have the ad- 
 vantage, should it meet the favor of the House, 
 

 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 1UARY, 1820.] 
 
 Journal of the Old Congrest, 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 of being acted on at once, and not lost or en- 
 dangered by the delay that would attend the 
 usual course of commitment to a Committee of 
 the Whole, &c. 
 
 Mr. SMITH, of North Carolina, was opposed 
 to the motion ; and hoped, as it was a propo- 
 sition involving the expenditure of money, that 
 it would take the ordinary course, and be com- 
 mitted. He moved, therefore, that the resolu- 
 tion be committed to a Committee of the whole 
 llouse. 
 
 Mr. PIXOKXEY, of South Carolina, was in 
 favor of ordering the resolution now to a third 
 reading. He was a member, he said, of the 
 Old Congress, and knew very well what the 
 secret part of its journal contained, and, should 
 it be ordered to be published, the House would 
 find that the little cost which the printing 
 would incur, would be well laid out. 
 
 After some conversation between Mr. STBOTH- 
 EB, Mr. SMITH, and Mr. LIVERMOBB, as to the 
 course proper for the resolution to take, Mr. 
 SMITH withdrew his motion ; and the resolution 
 was ordered to be engrossed for a third read- 
 ing. 
 
 The Missouri Bitt. 
 
 The House then resumed, as in Committee 
 of the Whole, the consideration of the restric- 
 tive amendment proposed to this bill. 
 
 Mr. RANDOLPH rose and addressed the com- 
 mittee nearly three hours against the amend- 
 ment; but had not concluded his remarks, 
 when he gave way for a motion for the com- 
 mittee to rise ; and the House adjourned. 
 
 THUESDAY, February 3. 
 American Colonization Society. 
 Mr. RANDOLPH presented a representation 
 of the President and Board of Managers of the 
 American Colonization Society, stating, that 
 they are about to commence the execution of 
 the object to which their views have been 
 long directed, and without a larger and more 
 sudden increase of their funds than can be ex- 
 pected from the voluntary contributions of 
 individuals, their progress must be slow and 
 uncertain ; they therefore pray that the Execu- 
 tive Department may be authorized to extend 
 to the Society such pecuniary and other aid, 
 as it may be thought to require and deserve ; 
 and that the subscribers to the said Society 
 may be incorporated by act of Congress, to 
 enable them to act with more efficiency in car- 
 rying on the great and important objects for 
 which they have associated ; which was read, 
 and referred to the committee on so much of 
 the President's Message as relates to the Afri- 
 can slave trade. 
 
 Journal of the Old Congress. 
 The engrossed resolution for authorizing the 
 publication of the Secret Journal of the Con- 
 gress under the Confederation, from the Treaty 
 of Peace of 1783, to the formation of the 
 present constitution, was read a third time; 
 
 and the question being stated on its pas- 
 sage 
 
 Mr. SMITH, of Maryland, expressed his de- 
 sire to hear from the gentleman who intro- 
 duced it, some explanation of the object of this 
 proposition, and of the particular reasons which 
 at this time called for its adoption. 
 
 Mr. STEOTHEE, of Virginia, rose in support 
 of the resolution. By a resolution of the last 
 Congress, he said, directions had been given for 
 the publication of the Secret Journal and the 
 Foreign Correspondence of the Old Congress 
 up to the Treaty of 1783 ; and why it had stop- 
 ped there, he was at a loss to conceive. The 
 theory of our Government, he said, was, that 
 it stood on the virtue and intelligence of the 
 people ; and its practice should be, that public 
 men should be judged of by their acts. He 
 was of opinion, with a colleague who yesterday 
 expressed that sentiment, that the tree should 
 be judged of by its fruit ; and he wished now 
 for an opportunity to see the fruit, that he 
 might judge of the tree. What objection, he 
 asked, could be made to this proposition ? Most 
 of the men who had, at the period to which 
 this proposition referred, taken part in the de- 
 liberations of Congress, had descended to the 
 tomb, and their memories were justly vener- 
 ated. Some, he said, yet lived, mingling in 
 public life, and eagerly courting its distinc- 
 tions. If their course had been generous and 
 frank, they could have no objection to a dis- 
 closure of the transactions of that day. Who, 
 he asked, were interested in concealing the 
 transactions of that day from the American 
 people? Not, he was sure, the descendants of 
 those who were now slumbering in the tomb ; 
 it must be, if any, the survivors, who were yet 
 struggling for political influence or advance- 
 ment who wished to get yet higher than they 
 were on the political ladder. If, said Mr. S., 
 I had had the fortune to have had an ancestor 
 who contributed largely to the acknowledg- 
 ment of our independence, and to the measures 
 whicli succeeded in confirming it, should I op- 
 pose the proposition now before the House, I 
 should think, by so doing, I assailed the repu- 
 tation of my parent. Could it be, he asked, 
 that any gentleman objected to this resolve 
 from feelings of friendship to any who were 
 engaged in the occurrences of that day ? "Was 
 there any one who was desirous to shut out 
 light for the purpose of sustaining a reputation 
 surreptitiously obtained ? He trusted not. The 
 constitution itself, he said, required that the 
 Journals of Congress should be published, un- 
 less where important circumstances should re- 
 quire a different course. Ought we, he asked, 
 to have State secrets ? Were there any move- 
 ments, either under the old Confederacy or the 
 present form of Government, which were not 
 fit to be seen by the American people ? Was 
 that period of degeneracy already arrived that 
 the acts of the Government were so corrupt as 
 not to be tit to be seen ? He could see no pos- 
 sible objection to the publication of the Journal
 
 494 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 Journal of the Old Congress. 
 
 [FEBRUARY, 1820. 
 
 in question. He knew, he said, that this was a 
 delicate topic with some, who shrunk from the 
 inquiry why, he could not divine. This very 
 sensitiveness, he said, was with him an argu- 
 ment in favor of the resolution. Would any 
 honest public agent, he asked, desire a veil to 
 be drawn over his acts, to hide his conduct 
 from the public eye ? He conceived not. At 
 that time, he said, we had a negotiation on foot 
 with Spain, which had terminated lately in the 
 celebrated Florida Treaty. 
 
 Mr. HILL, of Massachusetts, said, that it had 
 been stated yesterday, by a gentleman from 
 South Carolina, (Mr. PINCKNEY,) who had him- 
 self been one of the old Congress, that, in his 
 opinion, the Secret Journal ought to be pub- 
 lished, as containing matters interesting to the 
 people to know. This was with him a suf- 
 ficient reason to vote for its publication ; and, 
 when it was further recollected that the pub- 
 lication was to be made under the direction of 
 the President of the United States, he thought 
 every objection to it must vanish. 
 
 Mr. PINCKNEY, of South Carolina, hoped the 
 motion would not be postponed. Until yester- 
 day, he thought the resolve of Congress pro- 
 vided for printing the Secret Journal of the 
 Proceedings of Congress, subsequent to the 
 Treaty of 1783, as well as anterior to it. Why, 
 he asked, had not the whole been ordered to be 
 published ? Did it not look as if there was 
 something in it which was not fit to meet the 
 eye ? There were some of those proceedings 
 which ought to be published for general infor- 
 mation. He would state one of them, he said, 
 which perhaps was not known to the nation, 
 and was a most important part of the history 
 of our country. It was not noticed by Judge 
 Marshall or Dr. Ramsay, in their histories of 
 our country; and was not noticed, probably, 
 because they knew nothing of it, not having 
 access to the Secret Journal which contained 
 it. In the year 1785, Mr. P. proceeded to state, 
 the Spanish Government sent a Minister to this 
 country, with full powers to treat for a sur- 
 render of the right to navigate the Mississippi 
 for twenty-five or thirty years exclusively to 
 Spain. If that treaty had taken place, the con- 
 sequence would have been, that the whole of 
 the country on the Mississippi would have been 
 either separate and independent of this Govern- 
 ment, or in the hands of France. This propo- 
 sition from the Spanish Government, when 
 made, was referred to Mr. Jay to report upon 
 it; and to the astonishment of the country, Mr. 
 P. said, that gentleman had not only reported 
 in favor of accepting it, but supported that opin- 
 ion with much earnestness and with the best 
 exertion of his talents. The question was then 
 submitted to the votes of the States. All the 
 Eastern and Northern States, said Mr. P., join- 
 ed in support of the treaty ; and, had it not 
 have been for the greatest exertions I ever 
 witnessed in a public body, from those opposed 
 to it, that treaty would have been ratified. If 
 it had been, where would now have been the 
 
 members who fill these seats ? Either subjects 
 of a power hostile to us, or members of a Gov- 
 ernment wholly independent of us, and our 
 rivals. Mr. P. asked the honorable gentleman 
 from Maryland, and others, whether facts like 
 these, ought to be withheld from the public 
 eye? It was information for which he had al- 
 ready said, one would in vain search the most 
 approved of our histories. But, was it not 
 extraordinary that, in ordering the Secret Jour- 
 nal to be published, Congress should have stop- 
 ped at the Treaty of 1783? The inference 
 must be, unless some better reason were given, 
 that Congress did not wish the world to be 
 acquainted with the whole of it. He was, 
 therefore, of opinion that it was a matter of 
 course that the remainder should be published. 
 If there was information in the Secret Journal 
 which it was desirable should not be published, 
 the whole should have been withheld. But, 
 he presumed the fact which he had stated was 
 sufficient to show that the portion of the Jour- 
 nal embraced by this resolve ought to be pub- 
 lished. 
 
 Mr. MERCER, of Virginia, explained the views 
 which had governed the committee of the last 
 Congress in the course which they had pursued 
 in regard to this subject. The reason why 
 they had limited their report to the printing of 
 the Secret Journal and Foreign Correspondence 
 to the Treaty of 1783, was, that it had been 
 thought unadvisable to disclose to the world 
 the correspondence and Secret Journal, from 
 the Treaty of Peace up to the formation of the 
 constitution, since there were yet many actors 
 on the scene here, and some perhaps in Europe, 
 who might be injuriously affected by it. That, 
 Mr. M. said, was the reasoning of the commit- 
 tee it was not his. He knew, he said, that a 
 great lexicographer had defined an ambassador 
 to be one hired to tell lies for the good of his 
 country ; but he believed that all State secrets 
 were unnecessary, and that the most candid 
 would ever be the most successful negotiator. 
 The only secret which our Government had 
 purchased was from a swindler, and was cal- 
 culated at the time to expose the Administra- 
 tion and the country to the contempt of the 
 world. 
 
 Mr. BALDWIN, of Pennsylvania, said, that the 
 fa'cts stated by the gentleman from South Caro- 
 lina, had been disclosed in the debate in the 
 Virginia Convention, at the time of the adop- 
 tion of the constitution, as long as thirty years 
 ago. After that disclosure, the part of the 
 Journal in question not being published, was a 
 strong indication that it could not now be ne- 
 cessary or desirable to publish it. There might 
 be things in it not proper to be published ; and 
 it was worth consideration, whether the veil 
 should not be continued where our predeces- 
 sors had thought proper to spread it. If, when 
 an excitement prevailed on the subject, it was 
 thought proper not to reveal the proceedings 
 in relation to it, there were reasons now also 
 why they should not be introduced to the pub-
 
 DEBATES OF CONGKESS. 
 
 495 
 
 FEBRUARY, 1820.] 
 
 Journal of the Old Congress. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 lie eye. We have enough now, said Mr. B., to 
 agitate and distract us, without adding to the 
 excitement. He did not know that he should 
 have objected to this publication, however, 
 were it not that, with a knowledge of all the 
 facts, under all changes of the Government, 
 the publication not having been made, the 
 duty of. deliberately weighing the proposition 
 was imposed on the House. It ought not to 
 be hastily acted on. Why this hasty deter- 
 mination to go back forty years into the re- 
 cesses of our history, and examine transactions 
 which the interest of our country perhaps re- 
 quires to remain where they are 1 
 
 Mr. AKDEESON, of Kentucky, was in favor of 
 the resolve lying on the table, because he de- 
 sired to see "an amendment introduced to it. 
 From the naked publication of the Journal, we 
 might infer that motives actuated the public 
 men of that day different from their real mo- 
 tives. He, therefore, considered it important 
 that the public papers, reports, &c., connected 
 with the Journal, should be published; and 
 moved to refer the resolve to a select commit- 
 tee, Avith instructions to extend its scope so as 
 to embrace all the information on the subject, 
 that no partial publication should be made of 
 the transactions of that day. Such a publica- 
 tion of votes. &c., without the motives of their 
 being understood, might do an injury to those 
 who were concerned in them. 
 
 Mr. STOKRS, of New York, was opposed to a 
 reference of this resolve, preferring to see it 
 met directly and rejected. When this propo- 
 sition was first introduced, he said, he had 
 been inclined to support it. But, upon reflec- 
 tion, he was convinced that the interests of the 
 country not only required that the Journal 
 should not be published, but imperiously re- 
 quired it. There was a reason for publishing 
 the Secret Journal and Correspondence of the 
 Revolutionary Congress, which did not apply 
 to that embraced by this motion ; and good 
 reasons had been assigned for the discrimina- 
 tion. But, in his opinion, there was a better 
 reason ; our domestic quarrels, said he, formed 
 but a small portion of our legislation previously 
 to the Treaty of 1783. There was nothing, 
 then, in the Journal which it was desirable to 
 withhold ; and nothing in the secret papers 
 which could affect the feelings or characters 
 of any but open and known traitors. It was 
 proposed now, however, to lift the veil from 
 those scenes of domestic quarrelling, in which 
 the feelings of different portions of the country 
 had been interested to a degree which seldom, 
 until this moment, had been witnessed in the 
 councils of the country, to give to the world 
 all the history of our family bickerings; to show 
 that, before the adoption of the constitution, 
 the North was opposed to the South, the South 
 detracting from the North, &c. For what use? 
 He could not see any occasion for it. One 
 word, he said, as to a venerable name which 
 had been introduced in this debate. He knew 
 the gentkman from South Carolina too well to 
 
 suppose him intentionally to have misstated 
 any thing. But, it was due to Mr. Jay, and to 
 his character, to say, that the gentleman had 
 not told the whole history of the affair referred 
 to by him. It might be supposed that it was 
 proposed to give up to Spain the navigation of 
 the Mississippi without an. equivalent. Not so, 
 however. There was to be an equivalent, and 
 he should like to hear what it was. He was 
 not to be told that Mr. Jay, than whom there 
 was not a more worthy man or more strenuous 
 patriot in any country, proposed to surrender, 
 without an equivalent, the navigation of the 
 river Mississippi. 
 
 [Mr. PINCKXEY rose to explain. He had 
 stated that Spain had sent a Minister to this 
 country with the express purpose to persuade 
 us to cede to her, for twenty-five or thirty 
 years, the exclusive navigation of the Missis- 
 sippi, and that she had offered a treaty embracing 
 such a cession. That treaty, he now stated, 
 proposed benefits to the Northern States, in 
 which the Southern States had no participation. 
 They were to pay the price ; they were to yield 
 the navigation of the Mississippi but they 
 were not to be benefited by the equivalent, as 
 it had been called, which proposed to open to 
 our flag certain ports, such as Manilla, &c., but 
 did not propose to open the ports of South 
 America. It was by no means such a price as 
 Spain ought to have paid for the important 
 cession she sought from us. With respect to 
 Mr. Jay, he said no more of him than that, in 
 the ordinary routine of business, the treaty had 
 been referred to him, and that he, in a long re- 
 port, which was considered a very able per- 
 formance, recommended the adoption of the 
 treaty. He did not by any means detract from 
 the character of Mr. Jay.] 
 
 Mr. STORKS said he did not suppose that the 
 gentleman did intend to detract from the char- 
 acter of Mr. Jay ; because he knew him to be 
 incapable of it. But, when first up, the gentle- 
 man had not stated the matter as clearly as he 
 had now done. Mr. S. said he was certain Mr. 
 Jay never would have agreed to surrender the 
 right of navigating the Mississippi, without 
 what he had at least deemed an equivalent 
 benefit to the country yielded by Spain. What 
 was really the fact, as it now appeared ? That 
 a foreign nation offered to us a treaty, under 
 the old Confederation, which one part of the 
 nation thought it their interest to accept, and 
 the other did not. Was there any thing impor- 
 tant in this transaction? Only in one point of 
 view, and that rather an unhappy one ; as show- 
 ing, that there did exist in the Old Congress a 
 contrariety of views, which we should rather 
 be ashamed to develop than anxious to publish. 
 I mentioned the name of Mr. Jay, said Mr. S., 
 because it had been brought into the debate ; 
 and I now take the opportunity to say, that 
 this nation will be unfit for freedom whenever 
 the name of John Jay shall cease to be venerat- 
 ed from one end of the continent to the other. 
 As to the effect of this resolve, if agreed to, Mr.
 
 496 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. or R.] 
 
 Journal of the Old Congress. 
 
 [FEBRUARY, 
 
 S. said it would serve to teach to the powers of 
 Europe our weakness. They will find from it 
 the grounds on which this Confederacy is most 
 accessible to attack the different interests to 
 which they may appeal, if it be an object with 
 them to attempt the severance of the Union. 
 The same interests, said he, exist at this day as 
 did then. I need only refer to the subject (the 
 Missouri question) which is now agitated in this 
 House, to show that it would be extremely un- 
 wise to develop, to those who may be here- 
 after our enemies, the avenues by which we 
 may be assailed. To pass this resolve might 
 answer another purpose, also to be deprecated. 
 It would show to the present generation, after 
 their fathers had descended to their graves, 
 those things which ought never to be touched. 
 We know that the Old Congress was composed 
 of members, representing rather legislatures 
 than the people of the States, and in many 
 cases legislated with a view to their particular 
 political interests ; they were not, as the Con- 
 gress of the present Government, a representa- 
 tion of the people. The publication of this 
 Journal would only add fuel to the flame of 
 dissensions, already sufficiently great. Are we 
 not, he asked, warm enough already? Have 
 there not been debates which show that our 
 zeal wants no additional excitement here ? Is 
 it not wise is it not prudent, till we are once 
 more seated in domestic peace, that we should 
 suffer that Journal to slumber where it now 
 reposes; that it should remain until the men 
 who were actors in public life at that day, and, 
 if possible, until with them all the prejudices 
 and resentments arising out of sectional inter- 
 ests, shall have passed away? Under the influ- 
 ence of that impression, Mr. S. said he hoped 
 the resolution would be rejected. 
 
 Mr. RANDOLPH, of Virginia, said, in rising, 
 that the observations of the gentleman from 
 New York were not the only observations that 
 he had ever heard on the floor of this House or 
 out of it, against a proposition, which went (in 
 his judgment) powerfully to support it. He 
 agreed, with the honorable gentleman who had 
 just sat down, that, to use the coarse expression 
 of a man whose name, if fame, if notoriety, was 
 an object, would last as long as the world 
 whose destinies he had so important an agency 
 in governing we should wash our dirty linen 
 at home. But the proposition now was, to 
 commit this resolution to inquire, in fact, 
 whether or not it was expedient to adopt it ; 
 and was the honorable gentleman afraid to 
 trust a committee of this House ? Mr. R. said 
 he had nothing to say irreverent of the name 
 of John Jay, or of any other of ihepatres con- 
 scripti of our better times. But nothing could 
 be more fallacious than the notion of keeping 
 the Cabinets of Europe out of our secrets by 
 refusing to publish them by our authority. The 
 Minister of Spain had long ago informed his 
 Government of every thing relating to this 
 matter ; and in the archives of the Escurial or 
 of Saint Ildefonso might be already found every 
 
 thing it was in the power of Congres to disclose 
 to them. When this publication should have 
 been made, Mr. R. said he should himself learu 
 from it nothing new : but was it not important, 
 he asked, that the people should be informed on 
 those matters which the gentleman from New 
 York was so desirous, and so unavailingly de- 
 sirous, of keeping from the crowned heads of 
 Europe or, rather, from their Ministers ? He 
 was on the point, he said, of expressing this 
 wish : that at Paris, or some other spot, there 
 should be a repository in which all the records 
 of diplomacy might be preserved, that history 
 might rest on her own basis. He trusted that 
 all the transactions of our Government would 
 be developed, when they could be no longer in- 
 jurious to the feelings, the characters, or repu- 
 tations of those who were living. With regard 
 to the knowledge of foreign nations respecting 
 us, Mr. R. said they knew the only mode in 
 which this Republic, or any other, is assailable. 
 Divide et impera that, said he, is the tyrant's 
 maxim ; that is the way in which they will ap- 
 proach us and, I am sorry to say, that mate- 
 rials for their operations are daily furnishing, 
 ready to their hand. 
 
 Mr. COOK, of Illinois, spoke against the prin- 
 ciple of the resolve. If he wished to walk 
 among the tombs of his ancestors ; to visit the 
 graves of the venerable patriots who framed 
 the constitution of the country, and discharged 
 the important duties of government during the 
 Confederation, and inscribe on their tombs cen- 
 sure or approbation, he would vote for this reso- 
 lution, because it would produce the informa- 
 tion necessary to enable him to do so. But 
 the information communicated by the gentle- 
 man from South Carolina had satisfied him that 
 the resolve ought not to be adopted. The coun- 
 try, he said, was now nearly rent in twain, by 
 an agitation almost as serious as that of the 
 Western insurrrection, or of the discovery of the 
 Spanish conspiracy. The statement which had 
 been made by the gentleman from South Caro- 
 lina, was calculated to increase that excitement. 
 The peace and tranquillity of the country re- 
 quired, Mr. C. said, that the wouuds which time 
 had cicatrized, should not be opened again; 
 that the veil which had been dropt over the 
 incidents of that day should not now bo lifted. 
 With respect to that statement, the gentleman 
 from South Carolina must excuse him for say- 
 ing, that, from the lapse of time, Mr. C. appre- 
 hended he had forgotten the objection which 
 he owed, as a member of the Old Congress, not 
 to divulge its proceedings. The character of 
 that gentleman forbade the imputation to him 
 of any incorrect motive; but, if the proceed- 
 ings were secret at the time, and so ordered to 
 remain, they should not now have been disclosed, 
 unless some important emergency required it. 
 The hint already given was sufficient to arouse 
 feelings which should lie dormant. Wash- 
 ington, the sage and patriot, had recommend- 
 ed that the veil which covered the conflicts of 
 that day, should not be lifted ; and his warning
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 497 
 
 FEBKCABT, 1820.] 
 
 The Missouri Bill Eestrictivn on the State. 
 
 [H. OF K. 
 
 voice against the encouragement of local preju- 
 dices and sectional distinctions, operated, Mr. 
 C. said, on his mind forcibly on this occasion. 
 On further consideration of this subject, Mr. 0. 
 said, he thought gentlemen would agree with 
 him there were strong reasons against acting 
 on it as proposed. The gentleman from Vir- 
 ginia had urged the adoption of this resolution 
 as the representative of the hardy yeomanry 
 in the name of the people of whom he is the 
 servant. It is for the interest, the peace, the 
 tranquillity of those people, said Mr. C., that I 
 wish to see this resolution laid in eternal sleep ; 
 that it shall lie with the ashes of the departed 
 which it is attempted to disturb. Many of the 
 actors of that day have gone off the stage of 
 life. Some of them may, in their political 
 course, have committed what we now consider 
 errors. But, is nothing due to him who, on 
 reflection, abandons an erroneous course, and 
 pursues the proper interest of his country ? Is 
 he not to be sheltered from reproach for errors 
 committed in the outset of his life ? Mr. C. 
 thought it important that those things which 
 the venerable fathers of the land had kept secret 
 should not now be brought up, by writ of 
 error, to be reversed before the tribunal of the 
 people. He was willing to submit this ques- 
 tion to the elders of the country ; they had de- 
 cided on it then- decision had been long ac- 
 qniesced in, and he hoped the House would not 
 undertake to reverse their decision. 
 
 Mr. PINCKXEY said that he had just been in- 
 formed that, under the resolution of the last 
 Congress, the President and Secretary of State 
 had considered themselves authorized to pub- 
 lish the whole of the secret journal, as well 
 after as before the Treaty of 1783. If so, there 
 was of course no occasion to act further on 
 this subject.* 
 
 Mr. WABFIELD, of Maryland, said he could 
 not readily express the astonishment he felt at 
 the opposition given to the resolution then be- 
 fore the House ; for he did not suppose there 
 would have been the least hesitation in adopt- 
 ing it. He believed the public proceedings of 
 our Government, and the greater part, if not 
 the whole of the confidential communications, 
 had been published up to the year 1783. From 
 that period to the ratification of the present 
 Government, if we have not been left alto- 
 gether in the dark, we have certainly a very 
 imperfect and indistinct knowledge of the im- 
 portant measures which were then acted on by 
 those in power. Why the proceedings of our 
 public characters, for the period alluded to, 
 
 * This Is fact Under the resolution of Congress, of the 
 27th March, 1818, which provides for the publication of the 
 secret journals of the acts and proceedings and the foreign 
 correspondence of the Congress of the United States, the 
 construction has been such as to Include the period subse- 
 quent to the treaty of 1788. Had this been known to the 
 mover of the resolve now debated, of course it would not 
 have been introduced. The allusions in the debate were, 
 however, of such a nature, that, having a sketch of it in 
 possession, we did not feel ourselves justified in withhold- 
 ing it from the public eye. Editors National InMli- 
 goncer. 
 
 VOL. VI. 32 
 
 should be concealed from the view of the citi- 
 zens of this country, he was altogether at a 
 loss to understand. He was informed, from 
 very good authority, and by some who were 
 members of Congress at that time, that subjects 
 were discussed, and questions brought before 
 them, of great and national importance ; many 
 of which had been communicated to, and were 
 distinctly understood by Governments in Eu- 
 rope, whilst the knowledge of them in this 
 country was chiefly confined to those who were 
 at that time actors on our great political thea- 
 tre. They had been denominated the secret 
 proceedings of Congress, and under that appel- 
 lation had been concealed from public scrutiny. 
 This doctrine of secret proceedings, and thereby 
 concealing from the public eye measures im- 
 portant in their consequences, and which ought 
 to be known to the citizens of this country, is 
 a doctrine against which he would take leave 
 to enter his solemn protest. It was a doctrine 
 which might be advocated and maintained 
 under some Governments ; but it was one 
 which he considered altogether incompatible 
 with the spirit and genius of Republicanism. 
 In a Republic the people ought to know, they 
 had a right to know, the political course pur- 
 sued by those whom they had clothed with 
 power. He had no fear, Mr. W. said, of trust- 
 ing the people of this country with a full knowl- 
 edge of their political concerns ; he had great 
 confidence in their wisdom, their prudence, and 
 their patriotism. If, upon the publication of 
 these secret proceedings, it should be found that 
 the estimate which had been made of the public 
 worth of men, had been a mistaken one, it 
 might, perhaps, be a cause of regret, but, so far 
 from being an argument against their publica- 
 tion, he conceived it to be one of the most co- 
 gent reasons that could be assigned in support 
 of the measure. Men ought to stand or fall, in 
 public estimation, according to their intrinsic 
 merit or demerit. The acts of men on great 
 and important political questions, is the stand- 
 ard by which they ought to be judged. 
 
 The question was then taken on referring the 
 resolve to a select committee, and was decided 
 in the affirmative. 
 
 The Missouri Bill. 
 
 The House spent some time in Committee of 
 the Whole, on the Missouri bill. Mr. RAN- 
 DOLPH spoke for some time, in continuation 
 of the argument he commenced yesterday. 
 When he concluded, the committee rose, on 
 motion of Mr. HARDIN, who is, according to 
 usage, now entitled to the floor ; and the House 
 adjourned. 
 
 TUESDAY, February 4. 
 
 On motion of Mr. SLOCTJMB, the President of 
 the United States was requested to communi- 
 cate to this House if any, and what, progress 
 has been made in surveying certain parts of the 
 coast of North Carolina, and in ascertaining the
 
 498 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 Accountability for Public Moneys. 
 
 [FEBRUARY, 1820. 
 
 latitude and longitude of the extreme points of 
 Cape Hatteras, Cape Lookout, and Cape Fear, 
 pursuant to a resolution, approved 19th January, 
 1816. 
 
 On motion of Mr. STEVENS, the Committee of 
 Commerce were directed to report whether, in 
 their opinion, it would he expedient to erect a 
 light-house on the south coast of Lake Erie, at 
 or near the confluence of its waters with those 
 of Sandusky Bay. 
 
 Accountability for Public Moneys. 
 Mr. EANDOLPH rose to offer a motion, having 
 for its ohjectan inquiry respecting the enforcing 
 a stricter accountability for the public moneys, 
 &c. The United States reminded him, he said, 
 of those generous and gallant young fellows, 
 ready to do justice, at all times, to everybody 
 but themselves. The moneys of the United 
 States were scattered over the country from 
 Passamaquoddy to Yellow Stone from Chicago 
 to Mobile, in a manner which would fritter 
 away the resources of any other nation in the 
 world than this. Nothing, said he, but the 
 rapid growth of the infant Hercules has enabled 
 us to support this dilapidation of the public 
 estate. We are something like the Georgia and 
 Virginia Planters cotton being at fifty cents, 
 and tobacco at thirty dollars. Do you want a 
 tooth-pick ? Take a hundred dollars. Do you 
 want a tooth-brush ? Take a hundred dollars. 
 Do you want tooth-powder? Take a hundred 
 dollars. And, sir, we want pens, paper, and 
 ink ; and these different wants supply business 
 for several individuals, to whom money is ad- 
 vanced, to be accounted for hereafter. Is it 
 accounted for? What is the deficit now ? It 
 exceeds greatly the average annual revenue 
 during the administration of Washington. Let 
 us see, said he, the aggregate receipts on which 
 the father of his country, as he has been over 
 and over called, administered the Government 
 of the United States. From the 4th of March, 
 1789, to the 31st of December, 1791, making 
 almost half of his first term of service, the re- 
 ceipts into the Treasury amounted to $4,400,000. 
 For the year ensuing they were only $3,600,000 ; 
 for the year folio whig, $4,600,000. These were 
 the receipts of the four years composing the 
 first Presidency. In the first year of the next 
 term, the revenue was $5,100,000 ; for the next, 
 $5,900,000 ; and for the last, $7,000,000. These 
 facts, Mr. E. said, were conclusive. They spoke 
 to the understanding of every man who kept 
 his eye on the receipts and expenditures of the 
 Government. I recollect, said he, when we 
 thought, if we could get a receipt of ten millions 
 of dollars of which seven millions went to the 
 Sinking Fund, and shortly after, on the pur- 
 chase of Louisiana, eight millions we should 
 be in the full tide of successful experiment. 
 Was there no way, Mr. R. asked, to recover the 
 public assets from the hands of those who were 
 living on the public funds ? .This system would 
 not answer a system more simple might an- 
 Bwer in the case of the United States, as he 
 
 knew it would in that of this House. For what, 
 said he, is our situation ? We meet in a room 
 in which we can neither hear nor see but even 
 the blind can see what I wish to bring to the 
 attention of the House it is the universal di- 
 lapidation of the public funds. As for accom- 
 modation and adaptation to public business, I 
 should as soon think of attempting to be heard 
 across the Potomac, in the face of a northwester, 
 as to be heard here, where the physical tri- 
 umphs over the intellectual power. Have gen- 
 tlemen adverted, Mr. E. asked, to how much of 
 the money of the public was in the hands of the 
 Columbia banks, or how it got there ? And do 
 we, said he, know any thing of the Central 
 Bank, the Patriotic Bank, and of the other 
 banks, so numerous that it would be in vain to 
 attempt to repeat their titles ? For my part, 
 continued Mr. E., I am not at all sorry for the 
 effect which the public at this time experience, 
 although perhaps I pay as dearly for it as most 
 of us I lament the cause but, sir, we are 
 punished, if I may use the term, in the offend- 
 ing member. I trust it may bring us to a sense, 
 not only of what is best for our ownselves, but 
 of what is due to our constituents ; that the 
 system of peculation shall be broken up ; that 
 the Augean stable shall be cleansed ; that the 
 stream of public treasure, compared to which 
 the Missouri itself is but a rill, shall not be 
 dammed up by peculators and defaulters, &c. 
 Mr. E. said he would therefore move 
 
 ' That the Secretary of the Treasury be directed 
 to report to this House such measures as, in his opin- 
 ion, may be expedient to enforce the more speedy 
 payment of public moneys, due from individuals and 
 corporate bodies in tbe United States." 
 
 Mr. LOWNDES said he had no objection what- 
 ever to the object of this motion. He would 
 only remark, that a part of it appeared to him 
 to be comprehended in calls already made on 
 the Treasury Department, and a part of it with- 
 in the prescribed duties of a committee of this 
 House. With regard to the unaccounted-for 
 moneys of the United States, Mr. L. conceived 
 both the facts and apprehensions of the gentle- 
 man from Virginia to be exaggerated. In order 
 to take a correct view of the subject, he sug- 
 gested the propriety of so modifying the reso- 
 lution as to call for an accurate statement of 
 the amount of public moneys outstanding and 
 unaccounted for, &c. 
 
 Mr. EANDOLPH said he would readily agree to 
 modify his motion in the manner which the 
 gentleman from South Carolina, or any other 
 gentleman, should deem it expedient, to effectu- 
 ate the object of it. If the gentleman would 
 prepare such an amendment he would adopt it 
 with pleasure. The resolution, he said, must 
 speak for itself. While up, he would observe 
 that, with regard to the banks of this District, 
 while he had mentioned one or two by name, 
 he did not know that there was a pin to choose 
 between them. He had no idea, be said, of 
 selling off the public lands, increasing the bal-
 
 DEBATES OF CONGKESS. 
 
 499 
 
 FEBRUARY, 1820.] 
 
 The Missouri Bill Restriction on the State. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 ances already due for them, and making up the 
 present deficit by taxes on the people, when it 
 could be made up merely by making these 
 leeches disgorge. The honorable gentleman 
 has mistaken me, said Mr. K., if he supposes I 
 have any hostility to the Secretary of the Treas- 
 ury. I have none. But, Mr. Speaker, you 
 know very well no man ought to know better 
 what it is to disturb a hornet's nest. The 
 Secretary of the Treasury is not going to array 
 himself against these individuals without a call 
 from this House. The present system, Mr. R. 
 said, would not work ; and, if it would not, we 
 must either go on with it as it is, and continue 
 to increase the public burdens, or we must en- 
 deavor to get rid of it. He wished that the 
 present Secretary of the Treasury, or the former 
 Secretary of the Treasury of whose intended 
 return to this country rumors were afloat or 
 some one of equal capacity with either, would 
 devote himself to rectifying the disorders in the 
 public expenditures. The disorder in the re- 
 ceipts was bad enough no other Government, 
 perhaps, could go on with it but when to this 
 was added the disorders in the expenditures, 
 Croesus himself could not sustain it. The Eng- 
 lish, Mr. R. said, were remarkable for having 
 brought their system of collection to the least 
 possible expense he would not say to perfec- 
 tion, but certainly much nearer it than we have 
 attained. France, though her revenue be not 
 so cheaply collected as that of England, yet, as 
 far as his information extended, in the economy 
 of its expenditures greatly surpassed her. The 
 English are profuse in their expenditure he 
 spoke not of the gross amount, nor of the ob- 
 ject, whether great armies, the navy, &c., but 
 of the dollar for dollar's worth. But, he said, 
 we are more profuse in the expense of the col- 
 lection of revenue than either of these powers, 
 and we outdo the outgoings of every former 
 generation in the profusion of expenditure and 
 total want of responsibility in public agents. 
 Now. said he, meo periculo, I undertake to say, 
 if you will call in the balances due to the Gov- 
 ernment from individuals ; if you will make the 
 great corporations and men who pass for rich, 
 with public moneys in their hands ; if you will 
 make these leeches disgorge ; if you will make 
 them pay the people, it will cure your deficit ; 
 it will make it unnecessary to lay taxes. They 
 do not pay interest on the money they hold ; 
 and very likely, if you authorize a loan, they 
 will take it and who are better able than men 
 who have both their pockets stuffed with public 
 money ? Mr. R. said he hoped the Secretary of 
 the Treasury would consider it a part of his 
 duty, in suggesting a remedy, to give the House 
 some little history of the nature of the disease. 
 If, however, it should be thought necessary 
 specially to require it, he had no objection so to 
 modify the resolution. 
 
 The question was then taken on Mr. RAH- 
 DOLPH'S motion, and carried without a division. 
 
 The Missvuri Bill 
 
 The House again resolved itself into a Com- 
 mittee of the Whole, (Mr. BALDWIN in the 
 chair,) on this bill. 
 
 Mr. HARDIN, of Kentucky, addressed the 
 committee in the following words : Mr. Chair- 
 man, I am under great obligations to the com- 
 mittee for indulging me in my request on yes- 
 terday evening, for the committee to rise, and 
 give me the floor this morning. But, were I to 
 consult the safety of the little reputation I have, 
 I ought not, although pledged, to address you 
 and this House to-day upon the present subject. 
 I readily acknowledge that, at this moment, I 
 feel the most thorough conviction of my own 
 incapacity to do any thing like tolerable justice 
 to the question now under consideration, or 
 even to acquit myself with credit. 
 
 The importance of the present subject ren- 
 ders it my indispensable duty to myself, to this 
 House, my country, and posterity, however re- 
 luctant I may be, to assign those reasons which 
 have occurred to me, and which compel me to 
 vote against the amendment offered by the gen- 
 tleman from New York. There is one point, 
 and I believe only one, in which there is an en- 
 tire concurrence of opinion in this House and 
 the Senate; that is, the immense importance 
 and magnitude of the present question now be- 
 fore us important, not only on account of the 
 extraordinary excitement existing throughout 
 the nation, but also on account of the new con- 
 stitutional doctrine broached on the opposite 
 side of the House. One portion of the United 
 States bring forward and support this amend- 
 ment, under the imposing names of humanity, 
 sympathy, and religion ; at the same time nt- 
 tering the bitterest curses against the odious 
 and abominable practice of retaining a part of 
 the human family in bondage. I acknowledge 
 there would be great propriety in reprobating 
 the practice upon this occasion, if we were the 
 authors of it, or could get clear of it ; but it has 
 been our misfortune to have it entailed upon us 
 by that Government under which we were col- 
 onized ; and, however eloquently gentlemen 
 may declaim upon the subject of universal lib- 
 erty, it proves nothing upon the present ques- 
 tion, although it may captivate and enlist all 
 the finer feelings and sensibilities of the heart. 
 But I fear, I greatly fear, Mr. Chairman, that 
 gentlemen are fighting under false colors that 
 they have not yet hoisted their true flag. As 
 this contest is upon the great theatre of the 
 world, in the presence of all the civilized na- 
 tions of the earth, and as it is to be viewed by 
 an impartial posterity, would it not be more 
 magnanimous to haul down the colors on which 
 are engraven humanity, morality, and religion, 
 and in lieu thereof unfurl the genuine banner, 
 on which is written a contest for political con- 
 sequence and mastery ? 
 
 On our side of the House, Mr. Chairman, we 
 are contending not for victory, but struggling 
 for our political existence. We have already
 
 500 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OP R.] 
 
 The JUissouri Bill Restriction on the State. 
 
 [FEBRUARY, 1820. 
 
 surrendered to the non-slaveholding States all 
 that region of the American empire between 
 the great rivers Ohio and Mississippi ; and if 
 yon tear from us that immense country west of 
 the Mississippi, we may at once surrender at 
 discretion, crouch at the feet of our adversa- 
 ries, and beg mercy of our proud and haughty 
 victors. 
 
 Behold, Mr. Chairman, and see how our ta- 
 bles groan with the cumbrous mass of memori- 
 als and petitions from town meetings, coloniz- 
 ing societies, and emancipating clubs, together 
 with resolutions from all the non-slaveholding 
 States. This mode of operating upon this 
 House is extremely unfriendly, and hostile to 
 the enactment of good, wise, and salutary laws. 
 It prevents and destroys the beneficial effects of 
 a free interchange of sentiments upon great na- 
 tional subjects. I acknowledge that three of 
 the slaveholding States have sent also to this 
 House requests and instructions ; they were 
 only intended by way of counteraction to the 
 ponderous mass on the other side. I duly ap- 
 preciate the motive that induced their being 
 sent; it was a display of effort in the good 
 cause. But it was entirely unnecessary ; it was 
 an act of supererogation, for we had been in- 
 structed before. Our instructions come from 
 higher authority ; they came from the Conven- 
 tion of 1V88. I hold them in my hand ; they 
 are known throughout the civilized world by 
 the name of the Constitution of the United 
 States. In pursuing the investigation of this 
 subject, in the order I proposed, it will be ne- 
 cessary, Mr. Chairman, in the first place, that 
 we should have a clear and distinct view of the 
 relative power of the General and State Gov- 
 ernments. I take this proposition to be unde- 
 niable, that, were it not for the contract be- 
 tween the States, which is the Constitution of 
 the United States, that the States would be 
 completely sovereign to all intents and purposes, 
 and that every power and attribute incidental 
 to, or connected with sovereignty, would belong 
 to the States. The proposition is equally in- 
 controvertible that, as the Government of the 
 United States possessed no sovereignty origin- 
 ally, or even existence itself, and being com- 
 posed entirely of delegated powers from the 
 States, that it possesses none of the original at- 
 tributes of sovereignty, and it can do nothing 
 which it is not authorized to do by the consti- 
 tution, either by an express grant of power, or 
 by an implicit grant as necessary to carry into 
 effect some power already given. If the two 
 propositions above stated be correct, and of the 
 truth of which there can be no doubt, it follows 
 as a consequence, independent of the amendment 
 to the constitution, which reads in these words, 
 " 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," that Congress can do nothing 
 which they are not authorized to do, and that 
 the States can do every thing that is not dele- 
 gated to Congress, or which they are not forbid 
 
 to do. The above conclusions refute all the ar- 
 guments which we have heard about the om- 
 nipotence of Congress. Doctrines at all times 
 dangerous, but extremely so now on account of 
 their being so fashionable. 
 
 In pursuing this inquiry, Mr. Chairman, we 
 must pause for a moment, until we ascertain 
 what kind of property a man has in his slave. 
 The answer to this question is not difficult, for 
 none will pretend to deny but that his property 
 is absolute and unqualified, as much so as to 
 any property a man can possess, except the 
 right to take from his slave his life ; and this 
 right to slave property is unequivocally recog- 
 nized by the constitution, first, in the clause 
 which gives a representation in this House for 
 three-fifths, and secondly, in that part which 
 reads in these words : " No person held to ser- 
 vice or labor in one State, under the laws there- 
 of, escaping into another, shall, in consequence 
 of any law or regulation therein, be discharged 
 from such service or labor, but shall be deliv- 
 ered up, on claim of the party to whom such 
 service or labor may be due." Mr. Chairman, 
 having progressed thus far in the argument, I 
 may safely say to my opponents, you allege that 
 Congress has the power.to impose the restric- 
 tion ? We deny it ; and it being admitted upon 
 all hands, and from all sides of the House, that 
 if Congress have the power it must exist in the 
 constitution and nowhere else, I therefore call 
 upon you to lay your finger upon that part of 
 the constitution which will sustain you in the 
 high ground you assume. In answer to this 
 call, which is made not by me alone, but other 
 gentlemen also, we see on the other side of the 
 House nearly as great confusion and uproar as 
 prevailed at the Tower of Babel, when the angel 
 from Heaven was sent down to disperse the 
 people and confound their language. One takes 
 one part of the constitution, another disclaims 
 that and selects another part, and no two seem 
 to agree throughout. 
 
 It is time, sir, that this plea of necessity for 
 the extension of power should be disregarded 
 and no longer allowed. I would ask you, Mr. 
 Chairman, and this House, to cast your eyes 
 back upon the nations of the world, both an- 
 cient and modern, from the formation of the 
 first Government, under Nimrod, who was a 
 mighty hunter, to the present day, and tell me, 
 has not every encroachment upon the civil, po- 
 litical, and religious rights of the people been 
 justified, or apologized for, under this same plea 
 necessity? The Ministers of Great Britain 
 plead necessity for the present system of taxa- 
 tion, which now bows down to the earth with 
 the heaviest load of oppression, the people of 
 that country. Bonaparte plead necessity for 
 his conscriptions ; even the Sultan of Turkey, if 
 he takes off the head of one of his subjects, 
 pleads necessity. I do assure you, Mr. Chair- 
 man, that civilly, morally, politically, and re- 
 ligiously, a greater tyrant never existed than 
 this same necessity. 
 
 The amendment is fraught with the greatest
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 501 
 
 FEBRUARY, 1820.] 
 
 The Missouri Bill Restriction on the State. 
 
 [H. opR. 
 
 injustice towards the people of Missouri. Those 
 who lived there and had slaves, when that 
 country was transferred to the United States, 
 were told in the most solemn manner, by the 
 very terms of the treaty itself, that they were 
 to be secured in the free enjoyment of their 
 property ; and it was then well known to the 
 contracting parties, that a great number of the 
 inhabitants had slaves. To those who have 
 moved there since, what has been the language 
 of this Government to them? It was, that 
 slavery should be tolerated there, because Con- 
 gress, in the territorial administration of the 
 government of that country, did not prohibit it. 
 Under the persuasion that that description of 
 property was and would continue to be well 
 secured to the rightful proprietors, numbers 
 have been induced to move from all the slave- 
 holding States to that country, and carry their 
 negroes along with them. That quarter of the 
 world being alike free and open to emigrants 
 from all parts of the United States, the demand 
 for land was increased, the price of it enhanced, 
 and this Government had been the gainer there- 
 by. Carry this amendment, and what is the 
 result? A violation of national honor and 
 plighted faith to those who are there, and who 
 have not the means of resistance. They are 
 completely at our mercy ; and although justice 
 is on their side, they have no way to ob- 
 tain it, unless we grant it to them. But I am 
 afraid that their appeal for their political rights 
 is addressed to a tribunal with which justice, 
 humanity, and religion is but a name, a shadow, 
 a phantom. We are told that the slave prop- 
 erty which is now there shall be secure to the 
 owners. I have shown that the increase is to 
 be taken from them. If the amendment be 
 adopted, and the same, from necessity, acceded 
 to by the people of Missouri, what will follow 
 as the consequence? This that emigration 
 from all the slaveholding States being substan- 
 tially prohibited, the population will flow into 
 that country exclusively from the North, and 
 in the course of a few years, by State regula- 
 tions, their slaves will be taken from them. 
 The gentlemen who advocate this amendment 
 well know the consequence that will follow 
 from the restriction as now proposed. Their 
 declaration that the slave property now there is 
 not eventually to be affected, is insidious; it 
 cannot deceive us, the nation, or gull the people 
 of Missouri. If this were not the expected and 
 looked for consequence, that master-stroke of 
 Northern politics, to make it a non-slaveholding 
 State, would be an abortion, and fall short 
 of its mark. The people of Missouri have sa- 
 gacity enough, if this amendment shall be adopt- 
 ed, to know upon what they have to depend ; 
 that is, either resistance to the measure, or an 
 abandonment of their country and homes, be- 
 cause they never will consent to give up and 
 lose their slave property. If they choose the 
 latter alternative, and seek out other countries 
 to remove to, and other lands for habitations, 
 their possessions which they have purchased in 
 
 its virgin state at a high price, and with great 
 labor rescued part of it from the forest and 
 wilderness, will have to be thrown into the 
 market. That, together with the land of the 
 Government, which will be for sale, will greatly 
 reduce the price, on account of the dispropor- 
 tion between the article in market and the 
 demand. Those of the inhabitants of Missouri 
 who will be expelled their country by this re- 
 striction, will be compelled to sell their lands 
 at whatever price that may be offered; the 
 purchasers will be from the North ; and the 
 people of that country, although famed for their 
 outward show of religion, humanity, and sober 
 habits, have never been remarkable for their 
 liberality, but on the contrary, notorious for 
 their capacity at driving a good bargain. They 
 are, in truth, exceedingly sharp-sighted in money 
 matters as well as politics. There are other 
 considerations which ought to prevent the pas- 
 sage of the present proposed restriction. In- 
 justice, as it relates to the slaveholding States. 
 They form, in point of numbers, one-half of 
 this Union. They paid their proportion to- 
 wards the purchase of this territory. I would 
 ask of this House, Mr. Chairman, and particu- 
 larly those who advocate the opposite side of 
 the question, if towards those States it be fair, 
 honorable, and just, by the dead weight of num- 
 bers here, to interdict and prohibit their inhab- 
 itants from an equal participation in the enjoy- 
 ment of the country west of the Mississippi, the 
 largest and fairest portion of the American 
 world ? Where, I would ask, can the people of 
 those States which tolerate slavery move to, if 
 you forbid them, by a system of measures, from 
 going there ? The whole of the territories, ex- 
 cept the Missouri, which belong to the United 
 States, have already been surrendered to the 
 non-slaveholding States ; for it must not be for- 
 gotten, that where slavery is prohibited, there 
 the slave owners cannot go, because they can- 
 not give up their slave property. Nay, more, 
 in a variety of cases, even affection forbids a 
 separation. It has been said, that we can 
 move, if we are desirous to emigrate, to the 
 Mississippi and the Alabama ; but, I would ask, 
 how can a Marylander, a Virginian, and a Ken- 
 tuckian, move there ? He and his family have 
 been accustomed to a colder climate. It is un- 
 congenial to their constitutions. The danger 
 of sickness will to them be alarming, and they 
 never will attempt a removal to those States, a 
 few rare instances excepted. If you take from 
 us the whole of the Missouri Territory, we 
 strike at once and give up the ship. 
 
 I call upon the gentlemen from both sides of 
 this House to tell me what is to be the conse- 
 quence if this section be not settled in some 
 way this session? I may be asked, how is that 
 to be done ? I answer, by a compromise, and 
 in no other way. Can either party be so vain 
 as to expect a victory ? Behold I and see how 
 this nation is divided: eleven States against 
 eleven ; a small majority in this House in favor 
 of the amendment ; a small one in the Senate
 
 502 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 The Missouri BUI Restriction on the State. 
 
 [FEBRUARY, 1820. 
 
 against it ; and the Cabinet, perhaps, not unani- 
 mous. In this state of public sentiment the 
 bill falls, and Missouri is not permitted to be- 
 come a member of the Union. Her claims are 
 just and well founded, but we have refused 'to 
 recognize them, and turned a deaf ear to her 
 petitions, from time to time ; not only that, but 
 manifested a strong disposition not even to al- 
 low -her citizens the rights of self-government 
 the birth-right of all Americans. 
 
 The flame of seventy-six may burst out. 
 They call a convention, form a constitution 
 agreeably to their own ideas of the best practi- 
 cable mode of obtaining happiness ; they dis- 
 claim their territorial vassalage and, set up for 
 themselves. Are we to drive them to submis- 
 sion at the point of the bayonet, because being 
 citizens of the United States, they claim the 
 high destinies of freeborn men ? If the bayonet 
 is the policy, who is to wield it? Not the 
 Southern, Western, or Middle States, for the 
 hearts of their people are with them ; and, ten 
 chances to one, if arms, the last argument of 
 nations, are resorted to, they will assist and aid 
 them. This dispute is like no other that ever 
 came into this House, that was ever laid before 
 the Legislative body of this nation. Party 
 spirit, I know, has at times run high, but the 
 great danger from this question, as it relates to 
 the safety and integrity of the Union, is this, 
 that it is not the same State divided into par- 
 ties ; it is not the States in the same section of 
 the Union divided against each other. It is 
 the North and East against the South and 
 West. It is a great geographical line that sep- 
 arates the contending parties. And those par- 
 ties, when so equally divided, shake mighty 
 empires to their centre, and break up the foun- 
 dations of the great deep, that sooner or later, 
 if not settled, will rend in twain this temple 
 of liberty, from the top to the bottom. My 
 friends reply to me, and say, how can you 
 compromise how can you surrender princi- 
 ple? 
 
 It strikes me, Mr. Chairman, that this matter 
 can be settled with great facility, if each party 
 be so disposed, and neither give up any point 
 in this question which may be called prin- 
 ciple. Can it not be done by permitting Mis- 
 souri to go into the Union without the restric- 
 tion, and then draw a line from the western 
 boundary of the proposed State of Missouri, due 
 West to the Pacific? North of the line pro- 
 hibit slavery, and South admit it? 
 
 SATURDAY, February 5. 
 Mr. MEIGB submitted the following preamble 
 and resolution : 
 
 Whereas, slavery in the United States is an evil of 
 great and increasing magnitude ; one which merits 
 the greatest efforts of this nation to remedy : There- 
 fore, 
 
 Resolved, That a committee he appointed to inquire 
 into the expediency of devoting the public lands as a 
 fund for the purpose of, 
 
 1st. Employing a naval force competent to the an- 
 nihilation of the slave trade. 
 
 2dly. The emancipation of slaves in the United 
 States; and, 
 
 3dly. Colonizing them in such a way as shall be 
 conducive to their comfort and happiness, in Africa, 
 their mother country. 
 
 The said preamble and resolution were read ; 
 and, on motion of Mr. WALKEB, of North Caro- 
 lina, laid on the table. 
 
 The Missouri Bill 
 
 The House then again resolved itself into a 
 Committee of the Whole (Mr. BALDWIN in the 
 chair) on this bill. 
 
 Mr. HEMPHILL, of Pennsylvania, addressed 
 the Chair as follows : I have a wish, Mr. Chair- 
 man, to express my sentiments on the subject 
 before the honorable committee. I approach it 
 with great diffidence, as I have not been in the 
 habit of public speaking for many years. I 
 confess that the magnitude of the question im- 
 presses me with fear that I may become embar- 
 rassed in the discussion. 
 
 I have taken all the pains in my power, con- 
 sistently with the state of my health, to gain 
 information, and have listened with attention 
 to the speeches in this House, and to many of 
 those in the Senate, and I may unintentionally 
 confound what I have heard in the two places, 
 for I have taken no notes of any thing that has 
 fallen from any gentleman. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, the present amendment does 
 not interfere with the slaves now held by the 
 inhabitants of Missouri ; but, by its operation, 
 their offspring will be free. The cause in which 
 we are embarked is just, as its object is to afford 
 to the descendants of an unhappy race those 
 enjoyments that heaven intended to give them. 
 But we are met on the threshold of the discus- 
 sion, and told that Congress has no right to 
 legislate on the subject; it is said that the 
 power is too large ; it has been compared to an 
 ocean, and that Congress ought not to be en- 
 trusted with it, the danger of its being abused 
 is so great. It is contended that, if Congress 
 possess this power, they might descend to the 
 minutest acts of legislation, and introduce new 
 States into the Union as mere dwarfs, stripped 
 of all the grandeur of sovereignty. 
 
 I acknowledge that it is difficult to answer 
 these general observations, this reasoning against 
 the existence of power from the possibility of 
 its abuse. There is but one way that I know 
 of to give any thing like an answer, and that is, 
 by saying, in the same general terms, that this 
 power is a near relation to all other powers, 
 and that powers of every description are liable 
 to be abused. 
 
 Congress possesses a string of powers, all of 
 which might be abused. Among others it pos- 
 sesses the power to levy and collect taxes, to 
 borrow money on the credit of the United 
 States, and to declare war. The powers to col- 
 lect taxes and to declare war give to Congress 
 a command over the purse and the sword of the
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 503 
 
 FEBRUARY, 1820.] 
 
 The Missouri Bill Restriction on the State. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 nation. These powers, if wickedly exercised, 
 might not only jeopardize, but might put an end 
 to the existence of the Government. To make 
 a comparison of the privilege of merely chang- 
 ing the relations of a Territory into a State, 
 upon certain stipulations, with the powers just 
 mentioned, would be, truly, like comparing a 
 star to. the sun. 
 
 The President and the Senate also possess 
 important powers, which, physically speaking, 
 might easily be abused; instead of appointing 
 men of virtue to office, they might fill them 
 with the vilest malefactors of the nation. But 
 is there any danger of all this ? 
 
 Congress being, then, expressly intrusted with 
 such vast powers, is it not a very feeble argu- 
 ment to urge the possible abuse of power against 
 its existence in a minor case, even if it were a 
 doubtful one ? 
 
 I have gone far enough for my purpose, as I 
 wish to be brief on each head of my argument. 
 
 Is there, then, any cause of alarm in regard 
 to the power in question ? How can there be, 
 as nothing can be done without the assent of 
 those who are applying to compose a State ? It 
 is not an act of ordinary legislation, but a mere 
 act of compact and agreement and can it for a 
 moment be supposed that Congress will ever insist 
 on any terms, except such as may affect the re- 
 publican character of the Government, or some 
 other important interest of the nation ; and, on 
 such occasions, why shall the people be deprived 
 of the right to pass their judgment through 
 their immediate representatives? 
 
 As to another remark, that an act of Congress 
 will be irrevocable, and without responsibility, 
 the position is incorrect ; the inhabitants are 
 under no obligation to accept the terms pro- 
 posed by Congress ; they may appeal to the 
 people, who, if displeased with their represent- 
 atives, can change them ; and even if the terms 
 are accepted, they can be altered by the con- 
 sent of both parties. 
 
 After these observations, I think I am at 
 liberty to confine myself to the particular 
 amendment before the committee. 
 
 But, it has been said, that even this condition 
 in restraint of slavery, would manacle a limb of 
 the sovereignty of the proposed State of Mis- 
 souri, and bring her into the Union as an object 
 of scorn, altogether unworthy of the association 
 of her sister States. This picture is most un- 
 naturally drawn ; it ought rather to have rep- 
 resented her as the goddess of liberty, a being 
 incapable, from the composition of her nature, 
 of doing wrong, in this respect, and yet deprived 
 of no political strength ; if any of her sister 
 States should disdain to associate with her, the 
 general spirit of the age would condemn such 
 lofty pretensions. 
 
 Our ancestors treated this subject in the true 
 light in which liberty and slavery ought always 
 to be considered ; but is the spirit that warmed 
 their breasts to pass for nothing ? Is the ordi- 
 nance of 1787 to be reproached as a mere usur- 
 pation, and nothing more ? Let us at least con- 
 
 descend to inquire into these first principles, 
 and afterwards we can perceive whether they 
 apply to this particular case or not. 
 . I now, Mr. Chairman, beg leave to call the 
 attention of the committee to the peculiar kind 
 of sovereignty that is to be withheld from the 
 proposed State of Missouri. It is pretended 
 that she will be deprived of the right of hold- 
 ing man in bondage. But how can this be 
 deemed a right ? It is nothing more than a 
 tyrannical abuse of sovereignty ; all the laws on 
 earth cannot make a right of it. When a peo- 
 ple are overcome and enslaved for want ol 
 ability to resist, they do not lose their rights, 
 the laws of the oppressing country take from 
 them their remedy they are not held as slaves, 
 because they have no rights, but they are held 
 by force, and because there is no remedy in 
 their power. 
 
 I may be told that it is an attribute of sover- 
 eignty to judge for itself as to what is right 
 and what is wrong. This is true in the ab- 
 stract ; still sovereignty has its limits. In Vat- 
 tel, I read u that all nations have a right to re- 
 pel by force what openly violates the laws of 
 society which nature has established among 
 them, or that directly attacks the welfare and 
 safety of that society." 
 
 And, sir, may I not ask what can more di- 
 rectly attack the welfare of society than to hold 
 a race of people in bondage ? 
 
 If the State of New York, or any other State, 
 should enslave the small tribes of Indians with- 
 in their limits, would the other parts of the 
 Union acquiesce ? Would it not rather be con- 
 sidered as offending against divine and human 
 justice, than as the exercise of any right of sov- 
 ereignty ? It is a right that does not belong to 
 the constituents, and of course cannot be depu- 
 ted to the Supreme head. 
 
 I do not make these remarks as applicable to 
 the present condition of slaveholding States. 
 After what has passed, Congress cannot inter- 
 fere with then* slaves without their own con- 
 sent ; and I am willing to go further, and to 
 say that, independently of the constitution, the 
 slaveholding States have acquired, if I may be 
 allowed the expression, a certain kind of rights 
 which have grown up out of original wrongs ; 
 they have the right now of self-preservation, 
 and of domestic tranquillity and peace, as a sud- 
 den and general emancipation, or even a material 
 laxity of their laws, might lead to dangerous 
 and bloody consequences, and in these rights 
 they must be protected by the arm of the Gen- 
 eral Government, if any occasion should re- 
 quire it, until some plan can be fallen upon for 
 the gradual abolition of slavery. 
 
 But we find the inhabitants of Missouri un- 
 der very different circumstances. With them 
 no such danger exists ; the children of their 
 slaves, hereafter born, can be made free with as 
 much facility as those that were similarly cir- 
 cumstanced in Pennsylvania. When the in- 
 habitants of Missouri, then, apply to be admit- 
 ted as a State in the Union, is it not our duty,
 
 504 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF K.] 
 
 The Missouri Bill Restriction on the State. 
 
 [FEBRUARY, 1820. 
 
 and do not the sacred laws of nature call upon 
 us to look back to these first principles ? As 
 to the sovereignty, of which she would be de- 
 prived, if we allow to the opposite side the 
 largest scope, it would be only that of saying 
 for herself whether or no she would do a wrong 
 of a political cast that would reflect dishonor 
 on the nation ; for it must dishonor any nation 
 to spread slavery, unless there is an absolute 
 necessity for it. In such a case, shall we be 
 over nice and scrupulous, and fear to act, unless 
 we find the power in the constitution in so many 
 words is it not sufficient, if it is found by a 
 fair and reasonable construction ? 
 
 The questions before the committee, as I di- 
 vide them, are two : does Congress possess the 
 power of admitting the inhabitants of Missouri 
 to compose a State, and, at the same time, an- 
 nexing a condition in restraint of slavery ? 
 
 If the power belongs to Congress, is it good 
 policy, under all the circumstances, to exercise 
 it? With regard to the Territories, the lan- 
 guage of the constitution is explicit, and no 
 question can exist. But it is said that, when a 
 new State is to be admitted into the Union, 
 there is a restraint imposed on Congress, and 
 that, in such a case, it can only act by way of 
 negation or affirmation. Had Congress been 
 destined to such narrow limits, some peculiar 
 phraseology would have been used by the Con- 
 vention, corresponding with such a simple ne- 
 gative or affirmative authority ; and the consti- 
 tution would not have contained the general 
 expression, that the new States may be admit- 
 ted by the Congress into the Union. Let us for 
 a moment ascend to the fountain of this power 
 it must have belonged originally to the peo- 
 ple of the States, and wherever it existed it 
 was comprehensive and plenary under the old 
 Confederation, the people or the States could 
 have admitted a new State to participate with 
 them on any terms or conditions they pleased, 
 it would have been a matter of discretion on 
 both sides, a mere compact, and, in the forma- 
 tion of the new constitution, the members of 
 the Convention were authorized to say how 
 much of this full and original power should vest 
 in Congress, and, by the general grant, the 
 whole passed, unless it is restricted in some 
 other part of the same instrument. Is there 
 any division of this original power, unless it is 
 to be found in the way I have mentioned ? 
 
 The ordinance itself, of 1787, has undergone 
 repeated recognitions. But, it has been re- 
 proached as the production of usurped power. 
 This is an assertion without proof; the States 
 had relinquished all right and jurisdiction over 
 this Territory, and there existed no capacity of 
 self-government or organization ; under such 
 circumstances, it could not be irregular for Con- 
 gress to act, particularly as the cessions were 
 made by virtue of the resolve of Congress of 
 the 10th of October, 1780, which contained this 
 clause: that the said lands shall be "granted or 
 settled at such times and under such regulations 
 as shall hereafter be agreed on by the United 
 
 States in Congress assembled, or any nine or 
 more of them." And, independently of this, the 
 first Congress after the adoption of the consti- 
 tution, which had express power to make all 
 needful rules and regulations respecting the 
 Territory, recognized the ordinance by passing 
 a supplementary act ; and the State of Virginia, 
 also, after the constitution, on the 30th Decem- 
 ber, 1788, adopted it, by agreeing to the 5th 
 article verbatim, which has reference to all the 
 articles, and contains in itself the important 
 proviso that the constitution and Government 
 so to be formed shall be republican, and in con- 
 formity to the principles contained in these 
 articles; in addition to this, it has been re- 
 cognized by three different Congresses, on the 
 admissions of the States of Ohio, Indiana, and 
 Illinois, into the Union; and by those three 
 bodies of people in the acceptance of their ad- 
 mission into the Union agreeably to its provi- 
 sions. There are many other instances of its 
 recognition, which make it sufficient to quiet 
 even a doubtful question, for the sake of stabil- 
 ity in human affairs, and for the repose and 
 happiness of society.* 
 
 There is another part of the constitution that 
 has attracted much attention. I mean that 
 which relates to migration and importation. 
 The committee will perceive that this clause 
 does not directly support the amendment in 
 full, as it would not work an entire extinguish- 
 
 * The clause in the constitution which declared the 
 engagements of the Congress of the Confederation to be 
 valid against the new Government, was supposed at the 
 time to be applicable to the ordinance of 1787, and intended 
 to sanction its compacts. Thus, Judge Tucker, Professor of 
 Law in the college of William and Mary, Virginia, and 
 editor of an edition of Blackstone's Commentaries, says: 
 " Congress, under the former confederation, passed an 
 ordinance, July 18, 1787, for the government of the Terri- 
 tory of the United States, northwest of the Ohio, which 
 contained, among other things, site articles, which were 
 to oe considered as articles of compact between the original 
 States and the people and States of the Territory, and to re- 
 main unalterable, unless by common consent These arti- 
 cles appear to have been confirmed by the sixth article of 
 the constitution, which declares, that all debts contracted, 
 and engagements entered into before the adoption of the 
 constitution, shall be as valid against the United States un- 
 der the constitution as under the confederation.'''' (Appen- 
 dix D, p. 279, Phil, edition, 1803.) This would seem to bo a 
 fair understanding of the engagement clause in the constitu- 
 tion, and to give to the ordinance the virtue of a constitu- 
 tional enactment. The Congress of the confederation had 
 certainly entered into engagements with the ceding States, 
 to wit, an engagement to dispose of the soil which they ceded, 
 and an engagement to build up political communities upon 
 it This is what the old Congress had begun to do under ite 
 ordinance, and it is certainly what the constitution requires 
 the new Congress to continue doing; and it is in this sense 
 that the power of Congress to govern the Territories, was 
 usually referred by our first generation of statesmen to their 
 engagements in accepting the territorial cessions, and not 
 to the clause in the constitution which authorized it to dis- 
 pose of, and make all needful rules and regulations respect- 
 ing the territory or other property of the States.
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 505 
 
 FEBRUARY, 1820.] 
 
 The Missouri Bill Restriction on the State. 
 
 [H. OP R 
 
 ment of slavery in the State of Missouri, it 
 could only prevent future migration to it. But 
 perhaps it may be of some consequence to ex- 
 amine it, as it may have a collateral bearing 
 upon the subject. 
 
 It is declared " that the migration or impor- 
 tation of such persons as any of the States now 
 existing shall think proper to admit, shall not 
 be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year 
 1808." 
 
 What is meant by the words " migration or 
 importation?" If the Convention had meant 
 importation into the United States only, why 
 use the word "migration?" "Importation" 
 was the appropriate word for that purpose, and 
 would have included such persons as should be 
 brought from beyond the seas, as well as those 
 brought from the adjoining countries ; it would 
 include, with great propriety, persons brought 
 into the country from any other place whatever. 
 
 The subject of slavery was one that occasion- 
 ed the most animated contest between the mem- 
 bers of the Convention; and I presume that 
 they did not employ these words without weigh- 
 ing their signification well. 
 
 I will give my idea of the word importation 
 first. On the one hand it was agreed that Con- 
 gress might prohibit the importation of slaves 
 after the year 1808 ; but as Congress had a right 
 to lay a tax or duty on every thing imported into 
 this country, it was in their power to lay it so 
 high as would virtually amount to a prohibition. 
 To prevent this, the slaveholding States had the 
 precaution to have the tax or duty limited to a 
 sum not higher than ten dollars on each person. 
 This compromise ended the contest as to the 
 word importation. 
 
 But what is meant by the word " migra- 
 tion ?" That it was intended as a significant 
 word, is manifest from the minutes of the Con- 
 vention. 
 
 It was moved and seconded, to amend the 
 first clause of the report, to read, "The impor- 
 tation of slaves into such of the States as shall 
 permit the same, shall not be prohibited by the 
 Legislature of the Union, until the year 1808." 
 
 In the proposed amendment, the word im- 
 portation stood alone ; but the motion passed 
 in the negative, and the word migration was 
 retained. Such a variety of opinions are en- 
 tertained as to the meaning of this word that it 
 excites curiosity. Some think it is synonymous 
 with importation ; some, that it relates to free 
 persons coming into this country ; others, that 
 it has a double meaning, relating either to free 
 persons or to slaves ; and others, that it is con- 
 fined to slaves to be brought into this country 
 from the adjacent countries. 
 
 I shall say nothing as to the first and third ex- 
 positions. Can it for a moment be imagined that 
 Congress were to be restrained from prohibit- 
 ing an influx of strangers into this country, if 
 the safety of the country should require it, 
 until 1808 ? Such a power is incident to every 
 Government; good policy may require it in 
 times of peace, but it is absolutely necessary as 
 
 preparatory to a state of war, and in war. It 
 appears by the minutes of the Convention, that 
 the clause at one time stood in these words : 
 " But a tax or duty may be imposed on such 
 migration or importation, at a rate not exceed- 
 ing the average duty laid on imports ;" but, as 
 free persons could not have been valued, of 
 course they could not have been intended as the 
 clause then stood. For my own part I think the 
 clause was always intended to embrace slaves, 
 and no other description of persons. 
 
 As to the other exposition, that the word mi- 
 gration means slaves to be brought from the ad- 
 jacent countries ; if so, can any sensible reason 
 be given why a duty or tax was not attached to 
 the word migration, as well as to the importa- 
 tion. In both cases slaves would be brought 
 into this country from foreign nations, and why 
 should the tax or duty be stricken out as it re- 
 lated to migration ? The word migration must 
 have meant one of two things either a change 
 of situation from a foreign nation into this 
 country, or a change in this country from one 
 State to another State; in this respect the 
 clause is left at large ; it does not contain the 
 word State or United States. The idea of the 
 two words being synonymous, seems now to be 
 abandoned. Suppose, then, that Congress had 
 laid a duty or tax on slaves to be brought from 
 any of the adjacent countries, would such a law 
 have been declared unconstitutional ? If not, 
 the case is included by the word importation ; 
 and, of course, the word migration has no em- 
 ployment there. If we consider the meaning 
 to be a change of situation from one State to 
 another, and that is from one government to 
 another, are we not furnished with the reason 
 why no tax or duty was attached to the word 
 migration, as would not have been agreeable to 
 other parts of the constitution : " No tax or 
 duty shah 1 be laid on articles exported from any 
 State ; nor shall vessels bound to or from one 
 State be obliged to enter, clear, or pay duty, in 
 another." 
 
 I have adopted this construction, because it is 
 most free from objection, and because it accords 
 best with humanity, and with the spirit of the 
 times which produced the constitution. 
 
 If this construction, is correct, that Congress 
 possesses the power over migration from State 
 to State, and should ever exercise that power, 
 then I may be permitted to ask, how could a 
 State that has abolished slavery ever introduce 
 it into its limits again? Importation from 
 abroad would be cut off; migration from State 
 to State would be inhibited, and the badge of 
 slavery could not be fastened on any white 
 freemen or black freemen ; they would be in- 
 stantly discharged on a Tiabeas corpus. Such is 
 the genius of our republican institutions, that 
 no person that is born free can ever be en- 
 slaved ; and, independently of this. I wish to 
 maintain it as a principle throughout this dis- 
 cussion, that it would be a breach of morality 
 and a true sovereignty, and a dishonor to a 
 State, to introduce slavery, unless there should
 
 506 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 The Missouri Bill Restriction on the State. 
 
 [FEBRUARY, 1820. 
 
 exist an absolute necessity for it. Under the 
 view which I have taken, if the restriction is 
 not carried, Missouri will be in a better situa- 
 tion, (if she should so consider it,) than such 
 States as I have mentioned, as the existing 
 slavery in Missouri could not be extinguished, 
 but must be permitted to remain and spread 
 over that whole country. 
 
 The existence of slavery in this country must 
 be considered as involuntary ; that it is a great 
 political evil is generally acknowledged, and 
 that no blame is attached to the present gen- 
 eration is equally admitted. It was a bitter in- 
 heritance, and one that imposed the necessity 
 of its being accepted. 
 
 That it is in direct hostility with the princi- 
 ples of our Eevolution we all agree ; sentiments 
 different in the extreme at that period seized 
 the American mind, and the voice of true liber- 
 ty was heard throughout the colonies. 
 
 The most pathetic appeals were made on the 
 subject, not only to the people of this country, 
 but to the people of England and Ireland, to 
 the Canadians, and to some of the Islands. 
 
 The contest for liberty was bloody and ex- 
 pensive, and after it terminated in the achieve- 
 ment of our independence, and when the repre- 
 sentatives of the people assembled to make a 
 constitution, among the first difficulties that 
 were presented to them was this unfortunate 
 practice of slavery. It was pregnant with 
 every species of embarrassment ; they had 
 fought for liberty, but were obliged to counte- 
 nance within the borders of their own country 
 a state of bondage ; for themselves they could 
 not bear political restraint, yet their situation 
 had been a paradise compared to the condition 
 of this miserable race. A large portion of the 
 people at that critical moment were constrained 
 to yield to certain principles contained in the 
 constitution, as a federal alliance was consider- 
 ed as the only political event that could effec- 
 tually contribute to the tranquillity and future 
 greatness of the United States, as a nation ; a 
 compromise was happily effected, and to it we 
 are indebted for the many blessings which we 
 have enjoyed; but, to these compromises the 
 inhabitants of Missouri must be considered as 
 perfect strangers. 
 
 Could the present question in any shape have 
 been proposed to the Convention, I appeal to 
 the candor of the committee, if, in their opin- 
 ion, it would have been sustained for a moment 
 by the patriots of that early day ? Slavery in 
 the old States could not be extinguished, but as 
 to States that were to grow up out of the con- 
 stitution, it never was intended that they 
 should be inconsistent with the solemn profes- 
 sions made to the world. The sentiments of 
 the nation on this subject were fairly evinced 
 by the disposition of the territory northwest of 
 the Ohio ; and shall it now be made a serious 
 question whether we will deliberately extend 
 the practice of slavery to this boundless region, 
 and deny the blessings of liberty to millions un- 
 born, when we are left at liberty to act accord- 
 
 ing to our own wishes, and when there is no 
 plea of necessity for an excuse? I ardently 
 hope that a different result will be the effect of 
 our deliberations. 
 
 As slavery exists, it is asked where is the 
 difference whether they live in one part of the 
 country or another ? If no slavery existed in 
 this country, a similar question might be put : 
 it might be asked, as slavery exists in any part 
 of the world, why might they not be brought 
 into this country will the change affect their 
 happiness? Yet, in such cases, it is highly ma- 
 terial, and one reason is, that Missouri will be 
 a new sovereignty, and slavery ought to be ex- 
 tinguished in the limits of every sovereignty, if 
 it can be effected without dangerous conse- 
 quences. Its existence will interest the State 
 in the perpetuation of slavery. 
 
 It is represented as a violation of every prin- 
 ciple of justice to prevent slaveholders from 
 carrying their slaves with them to this State, 
 if they should be inclined to remove into it, as 
 the country was purchased by the general fund. 
 With equal propriety the same argument could 
 have been employed in relation to the States 
 formed out of the Northwest Territory, as that 
 was likewise a common fund; but has any 
 serious inconvenience been experienced hereto- 
 fore in this respect? None has been publicly 
 made known. Gentlemen, moreover, say that 
 it would be cruel to oblige those who should be 
 desirous to settle in this State, to part with 
 such slaves as had gained their affections, such 
 as their favorite nurses and the playmates of 
 their children. The number of this description 
 would be few, and it did not occur to gentlemen 
 that this would be a happy opportunity to give 
 the best evidence of their attachment, by manu- 
 mitting these favorites, and taking them along 
 as free persons: this would afford them com- 
 fort the remainder of their lives, and the gen- 
 erous act would amply reward the master. 
 
 It has been intimated that this has become a 
 question of high excitement and passion, and 
 that we are carried away in the tide of popu- 
 larity. Let it be recollected that, if the meas- 
 ure of restriction is popular in the North, the 
 doctrine of non-restriction is equally popular in 
 the South, and the result will show whether 
 they will leave the Southern ranks and entitle 
 themselves to the praise of the North for their 
 firmness and independence. I have heard it 
 said (but I am not certain that it was in the 
 House) that slaves are as happy as the lower 
 class of white people. If this is correct, it must 
 be in consequence of the degradation to which 
 they are reduced ; their faculties are not allow- 
 ed that expansion which nature intended ; they 
 are kept in darkness, and are unacquainted 
 with their true situation, as well in regard to 
 their present state as to their future existence. 
 Slavery in the abstract strikes the heart with 
 abhorrence : this h'fe can have no charms if it 
 
 not sweetened with liberty ; and if a slave 
 has any accurate knowledge of his own condi- 
 tion, nothing can appear before him but sad-
 
 DEBATES OF CONGKESS. 
 
 507 
 
 FEBRUARY, 1820.] 
 
 The Missouri Bill Restriction on the State. 
 
 [H. OP R 
 
 ness, from the dawn of the morning to the 
 close of the evening. 
 
 Many suggestions have been made in relation 
 to a compromise. But, if we reflect a moment, 
 it will be easily perceived that, under the cir- 
 cumstances, it will be impossible to compromise 
 a question of this character. A compromise 
 usually has for its basis mutual concessions, 
 which are equally obligatory ; but, if we should 
 pass a law excluding slavery from the remain- 
 ing territory, where would be the security that 
 another Congress would not repeal it? It will 
 be but an ordinary act of legislation, and 
 whenever there shall be an application for a 
 new State, we shall be met with the same con- 
 stitutional objections that now exist. It is, in 
 fact, yielding all for which we have been con- 
 tending, and if we once give up the ship, 
 slavery will be tolerated in the State of Missou- 
 ri, and we can never after remove it. 
 
 It is true that a compromise was made on the 
 subject of slavery at the adoption of the consti- 
 tution, but it was one of an obligatory nature, 
 and it arose out of circumstances that could not 
 be controlled. The constitution was necessary 
 to save us from domestic discord and foreign 
 ambition; we were then in our infancy; but 
 now our national strength bids defiance to any 
 nation, where, I ask, is the necessity of deceiv- 
 ing ourselves or our constituents by this mere 
 pretence of a compromise ? 
 
 The genllemen on the other side tell us that, 
 if the restriction is carried, the Union will be 
 dissolved. Missouri alone, notwithstanding her 
 high displeasure, could make but a feeble effort 
 in this respect, and will the respectable, patri- 
 otic, and high-minded State of Virginia, be dis- 
 posed to break up the Union on this occasion 
 Virginia that has enjoyed the highest honors of 
 the nation, both in war and in peace ? Will the 
 other slaveholding States join in the contest? 
 What is there to justify such a calamitous 
 event ? Wherein are we betraying our coun- 
 try ? Do we not stand on the ground of our 
 ancestors ? Are we not maintaining the same 
 principles that animated their hearts when, like 
 a band of patriotic brothers, they unanimously 
 excluded slavery from the Northwestern Terri- 
 tory ? I have no wish to say that the honor- 
 able gentlemen only mean to intimidate us 
 that would be unkind but I beg leave to differ 
 with them on this subject. I have a more ex- 
 alted opinion of the patriotism of the South ; 
 they will never cause American blood to be 
 spilt, unless for reasons that would justify them 
 in the eyes of the world ; and, in the language 
 of Mr. Jefferson, " the Almighty has no attri- 
 bute that would side with them in such a cause 
 as this would be." Has it come to this, that the 
 extension of slavery is to be considered as one 
 of the pillars of our liberty? This, indeed, 
 would be a political paradox. 
 
 MONDAY, February 7. 
 The Missouri Sill. 
 
 The House resumed, as in Committee of the 
 Whole, (Mr. BALDWIN in the chair,) the con- 
 sideration of the Missouri bill, the restrictive 
 amendment being still under consideration. 
 
 Mr. HEMPHLLL, of Pennsylvania, resumed and 
 concluded the speech which he commenced on 
 Saturday, in favor of the restriction. His speech 
 is given entire in the preceding pages. 
 
 Mr. McLANE, of Delaware, addressed the com- 
 mittee as follows : 
 
 Mr. Chairman If it were not for the peculiar 
 situation in which I shall be placed, in regard 
 to some respectable opinions prevailing in the 
 State from which I have the honor to come, by 
 the vote I shall feel it my duty to give upon the 
 present occasion, I should not trespass upon the 
 time of the committee. If the eloquence and 
 ability which have been already employed in 
 this debate have not produced any change of 
 opinion, I have not the presumption to suppose 
 that it will be in my power to vary the result ; 
 but, if it is not for me to disturb the opinions 
 of others, I may afford a justification of my own, 
 and furnish to those who may hereafter feel any 
 interest in the course I deem it my duty to pur- 
 sue, an exposition of the motives by which I am 
 governed. 
 
 I concur with the honorable mover of the 
 amendment, that it presents an act of no ordi- 
 nary legislation ; and I am very sure he cannot 
 easily overrate its importance an importance 
 derived not more from the intrinsic magnitude 
 of the question, in all its relations, than the ex- 
 citement and tumult to which it has given rise 
 in every part of the Republic. I do not believe 
 that any subject has ever arisen in this country, 
 since the formation of the Government, which 
 has produced a more general agitation, or in 
 regard to which greater pains have been taken 
 to inflame the public mind, and control the de- 
 liberations of the national councils. The daz- 
 zling reward of popular favor, invested with all 
 its fascinations, has been held up on the one 
 hand, and the appalling spectre of public denun- 
 ciation, with all its frightfulness, on the other. 
 The sincere and humane, actuated I am sure by 
 the best and purest motives ; the aspiring dema- 
 gogue and ambitious politician ; those who wish 
 well to their country ; and those who seek power 
 in the troubled sea of popular commotion ; have 
 promiscuously united in these public agitations, 
 until the press has teemed and our tables groaned, 
 with a mass of pamphlets and memorials beyond 
 example. 
 
 The State which I have the honor, in part, to 
 represent, has been the theatre of a full share of 
 this agitation ; and the honorable Legislature of 
 that respectable State has been pleased, recently, 
 to take up the subject, and have unanimously 
 resolved that, in their opinion, Congress have 
 the constitutional power, and ought to impose 
 this restriction upon the new States. 
 
 Entertaining the respect I do for the intelli-
 
 508 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OP R.] 
 
 The Missouri Bill Restriction on the State. 
 
 [FEBRUARY, 1820. 
 
 gence of the people of my own State, and the 
 character of their Legislature, I cannot find my 
 opinion in opposition to theirs without the most 
 unfeigned regret. For, although I do not con- 
 cede to the Legislature of a State the right of 
 instructing the representatives of the people in 
 Congress, or of employing its official character 
 to influence their conduct, or to affect their re- 
 sponsibility, yet, viewing their acts, in this re- 
 spect, as the opinions of the individual members 
 merely, I cannot regard them with indifference, 
 selected, as they undoubtedly should be, from 
 their fellow-citizens, as distinguished for some 
 portion both of virtue and intelligence. 
 
 I am free to admit, that, in subjects of general 
 policy merely, the will of the people, when fully 
 and fairly ascertained, is always entitled to great 
 weight ; and, upon an occasion like the present, 
 if I were influenced by motives of expediency 
 only, I should be much disposed to yield my im- 
 pressions to that will. But, in constitutional 
 questions, the representative is, or ought to be, 
 governed by higher considerations ; and he 
 would be unworthy of his trust who could be 
 regardless of them. He is sworn to support the 
 constitution, and he takes his seat in this House, 
 to legislate for the nation, under the provisions 
 of that instrument. His own integrity, and the 
 safety of our common institutions, depend upon 
 his strict personal accountability ; his own 
 opinions, formed by the best lights of his own 
 impartial judgment, must be his guide ; and he 
 cannot adopt those of others, when conflicting 
 with his own, without a surrender of his con- 
 science. In such cases, popular feelings and 
 legislative recommendation can have no greater 
 influence than to weaken one's confidence in 
 his own impressions, and to dictate a reinvesti- 
 gation of the subject, to see if conclusions may 
 not have been drawn from false premises, or 
 views overlooked, which, if they had been ad- 
 verted to, would have led to a different result. 
 I have allowed the recommendation of the Legis- 
 lature of Delaware to have such an effect in this 
 instance. I have deliberately reviewed and re- 
 considered this important subject, divested, I am 
 sure, of any improper feelings, and prompted by 
 every allurement of popular favor, to reach a 
 conclusion in conformity with their views ; but, 
 I am bound to say, after this re-investigation, 
 pursued with great labor, and a full sense of my 
 responsibility, that I believe, in my conscience, 
 that Congress does not possess the power to 
 impose the contemplated restriction. In this 
 belief, then, Mr. Chairman, and resting upon 
 the principles of the constitution, and my duty 
 to a power higher than any legislature, I must 
 regret the difference of opinion, and be con- 
 tented with an upright discharge of my public 
 trust. I will take leave to say, sir, in the lan- 
 guage of an illustrious man on another occasion, 
 who I could desire to imitate in many other 
 respects, " I honor the people, and respect the 
 legislature ; but there are many things in the 
 favor of either, which are objects, in my account, 
 not worth ambition. I wish popularity, but it 
 
 is that popularity which follows, not that which 
 is run after. It is that popularity which, sooner 
 or later, never foils to do justice to the pursuit 
 of noble ends, by noble means. I shall not, 
 therefore, on this occasion, do what my con- 
 science tells me is wrong, to court the applause 
 of thousands ; nor shall I avoid doing what I 
 deem to be right, to avert the artillery of the 
 press." 
 
 I shall not, in this place, sir, imitate the ex- 
 ample of other gentlemen, by making profes- 
 sions of my love of liberty, and abhorrence of 
 slavery ; not because I do not entertain them, 
 but because I consider that the great principles 
 of neither are involved in this amendment. It 
 is a coloring, to be sure, of which the subject is 
 susceptible, and which has been used in great 
 profusion, but it serves much more to inflame 
 feelings and prejudices unfriendly to a dispas- 
 sionate deliberation, than to aid the free exer- 
 cise of an unbiased judgment. 
 
 This amendment does not propose, nor has it 
 for its object, to inhibit the introduction of slaves 
 from parts beyond the United States ; in such a 
 scheme there is no intelligent man in the Union 
 who would not cordially concur. Neither does 
 it propose to promote the emancipation of the 
 slaves now in the country ; this is admitted to 
 be impracticable ; the wildness of enthusiasm 
 itself acknowledges its incompetency for such 
 an undertaking. The truth is, sir, that this 
 species of unhappy beings are now among us ; 
 brought here, in part, by events beyond our 
 control, and, in part, under the authority of our 
 own constitution ; and it behooves us, by a wise 
 and prudent administration of our powers, to 
 meliorate their condition, and accommodate the 
 evil, as far as it may be practicable, to the peace 
 and happiness of our white population, and the 
 stability of our institutions. It is not pretended, 
 even that the condition of the unhappy slave 
 himself would be improved by the success of 
 this amendment ; on the contrary, it has been 
 insinuated, as boldly as the sentiment would 
 justify, that his confinement to a narrower com- 
 pass might lead to his extirpation, by the grad- 
 ual, but sure process of harder labor, and scar- 
 city of subsistence. I am free to say, that the 
 condition of the slave himself would be melio- 
 rated by his dispersion, nor do I attach the same 
 importance, as some gentlemen appear to do, to 
 the danger of encouraging an illicit importation 
 from abroad by permitting a market west of the 
 Mississippi. It is an argument founded on the 
 futility of legal restraint, the worst possible 
 species of argument by which a legislature could 
 be influenced. It would prove the inutility of 
 every act of legislation, or might be used to 
 justify every species of usurpation. It would 
 equally demonstrate the futility of the proposed 
 amendment itself; for, if gentlemen cannot 
 hope to exterminate the foreign slave trade, by 
 all the precautions legitimately in their power, 
 founded in a unanimity of legislation, strength- 
 ened by the powerful force of public sentiment, 
 and the abominable nature of the traffic itself,
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 509 
 
 FEBRUARY, 1820.] 
 
 The Missouri Eill Restriction on the State. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 what greater reliance can they place upon this 
 restriction, foisted into the constitution of a 
 free people against their consent, on which ac- 
 count, alone, it would be an object of hatred 
 and contempt, and the violation be winked at by 
 a great portion of the people, if not by their pub- 
 lic authorities? 
 
 Sir, this amendment does not even propose 
 to prevent the introduction of slavery into Mis- 
 souri for the first time ; it has already taken 
 root there ; we found it there when we acquired 
 the territory, and it has grown and extended 
 under the sanction of our own laws ; but the 
 whole force and effect of the amendment is, to 
 take from the people of Missouri the right to 
 decide, for themselves, whether they will permit 
 persons removing thither, from other States in 
 which slavery is tolerated, to take their slaves 
 with them. This object would not be unde- 
 sirable, if it could be accomplished by the legit- 
 imate powers of Congress ; but we have no 
 right to do it by an assumption of power in 
 ourselves, or by an unauthorized use of the 
 power of others. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, the great question involved in 
 this amendment is neither more nor less than 
 this : whether Congress can interfere with the 
 people of Missouri, in the formation of their 
 constitution, to compel them to introduce into 
 it any provision, touching their municipal rights, 
 against their consent, and to give up their right 
 to change it, whatever may be their future con- 
 dition, or that of their posterity ? Every thing 
 beyond this is merely the imposing garb in 
 which the power comes recommended to us. 
 It is certainly true, that an attempt to take 
 from this people the right of deciding whether 
 they will or will not tolerate slavery among 
 them, is less objectionable because of its end, 
 than it would be if it interfered with some 
 other local relation or right of property ; but 
 the power to do this implies a power of much 
 greater expansion. Congress has no greater 
 power over slavery, or the rights of the owner, 
 in any particular State, than it has over any 
 other local relation or domestic right; and, 
 therefore, a power to interfere with one must 
 be derived from a power to interfere with all. 
 Sir, it is manifest, from the avowal of the hon- 
 orable mover, that he contemplates a wider 
 scope of power, and the attainment of impor- 
 tant ends, other than those which lie upon the 
 surface of this amendment. The gentleman 
 seemed not to limit his view to the municipal 
 effect of this power ; in his eye it was to have 
 an indirect operation upon the Federal powers 
 of the General Government, since his chief ob- 
 jection appeared to be to the enumeration of 
 slaves in the ratio of Congressional represent- 
 ation. Sir, I think it will be in my power to 
 show that the gentleman's fears, on this score, 
 are groundless ; but they serve to prove, never- 
 theless, that this is neither wholly a question 
 of slavery, nor a power limited to this single 
 object, but that it is only one, selected from an 
 immense mass of power, authorizing Congress 
 
 to control the rights of a free people in the 
 formation of their State constitution ; and, in 
 this way, to enlarge the operation, if not the 
 nature, of the political power of the General 
 Government. 
 
 The people of Missouri come here with the 
 Treaty of 1803 in their hands ; they demand 
 admission into the Union as a matter of right 
 they do not solicit it as a favor. If their con- 
 stitution is republican, and consistent with the 
 provisions of that under which we are acting, 
 we have no alternative, unless it is to refuse to 
 execute our own contract to violate the plight- 
 ed faith of the nation. No one will undertake, 
 at this day, to deny that the United States had 
 the right to acquire the Territory of Louisiana. 
 They had the right also to acquire it by con- 
 tract ; the right of acquiring includes the right 
 of governing it ; and, in contracting for its ac- 
 quisition, it is competent to stipulate the terms 
 and the principles by which the right of govern- 
 ing it should be exercised. If the United 
 States were competent to make the treaty, the 
 treaty was competent to take away the discre- 
 tion of Congress, for it is declared to be the 
 " supreme law of the land." 
 
 It must also be conceded that the power to 
 admit new States, is one of the powers of the 
 General Government, and I shall not deny that, 
 in its ordinary exercise, it belongs to Congress, 
 but being a power in the General Government, 
 given up by the States, its exercise may be 
 regulated and controlled by the treaty-makinff 
 power; which is the extraordinary and SIK 
 preme power of the same Government. The 
 powers of the General Government are exec- 
 utive, legislative, and judicial ; and are, ordi- 
 narily, exercised by the respective departments 
 on which they naturally devolve ; they may 
 or may not be exerted, as circumstances make 
 it proper. But the treaty-making power is the 
 extraordinary power which may stipulate with 
 regard to the exercise of any of them, and its 
 stipulations are binding because they render 
 the exercise of the power necessary. No treaty 
 can be unconstitutional which stipulates for the 
 performance of any matter which it is within 
 the power of the General Government to per- 
 form; a distinction to which the honorable 
 gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. HEMPHILL) 
 did not advert, when he found it necessary to 
 elude the obligations of the Treaty of 1803, 
 by pronouncing it unconstitutional. A treaty 
 is only unconstitutional, when it stipulates for 
 the exercise of powers, or the surrender of 
 rights, which never have been given to the 
 General Government, but belong to the States, 
 and the people. This is the exposition which 
 has ever been given to the treaty-making 
 power, since the famous British treaty. It 
 would be difficult to imagine a treaty that did 
 not contain some stipulations in regard to the 
 powers either of the executive or legislative 
 departments of the Government. The power 
 to regulate commerce with foreign nations, to 
 appropriate money, and to raise armies, belongs
 
 510 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 The Missouri Bill Restriction on the State. 
 
 [FEBRDAKY, 1820. 
 
 to Congress. But the treaty-making power 
 may make stipulations in regard to either, and 
 for the exercise of either, and the Congress and 
 the nation would be bound by them. The in- 
 terference of Congress might, in some instan- 
 ces, be necessary to carry the stipulations into 
 effect ; and it would be their duty in good faith 
 to yield it. If they refused, the national faith 
 would be violated, but the treaty would not be 
 void. In the very instance of the Louisiana 
 treaty, it was stipulated, among other things, to 
 pay $15,000,000 as the price of the cession. 
 This amounted to a stipulation that Congress 
 should appropriate that sum of money. Con- 
 gress cannot have, and ought not to have, a 
 more unlimited discretion, in the exercise of 
 any power, than in that of appropriating 
 money; yet the treaty stipulated that they 
 should exercise the power, and the Congress 
 did exercise it ; could not the treaty then stipu- 
 late that they should admit a State into the 
 Union, and if it did so, are not Congress equally 
 bound to execute it? Shall it be said, that 
 their discretion is gone in the one case, but ex- 
 ists in the other ? Then, sir, has the Treaty of 
 1808 stipulated that Congress shall exercise 
 their power to admit this State, and have Con- 
 gress sanctioned the stipulation ? 
 
 The third article contains this provision: 
 " The inhabitants of the ceded territory shall 
 be incorporated in the union of the United 
 States, and admitted as soon as possible, accord- 
 jng to the principles of the Federal Consti- 
 tution, to the enjoyment of all the rights, ad- 
 vantages, and immunities of citizens of the 
 United States ; and in the mean time shall be 
 maintained and protected in the free enjoyment 
 of their liberty, property, and the religion 
 which they profess." 
 
 It must be conceded that this article was de- 
 signed to have some meaning, and to secure to 
 the inhabitants some rights and advantages to 
 which they could have no claim without it. It 
 will not do, in the interpretation of an impor- 
 tant instrument of this description, to say that 
 the only article which applies to the inhabitants 
 whose rights would be affected by the transfer, 
 is a mere matter of form, without substance or 
 design. Its own language clearly imports its 
 intention, to confer "rights, advantages, and 
 immunities," of a political character, and such 
 as they could not have claimed as a matter of 
 right without this stipulation. What would 
 have been the condition of these inhabitants in 
 relation to the Government of the United States, 
 if the treaty had not contained this provision ? 
 Sir, the power of the General Government over 
 them and the territory, would have been su- 
 preme ; it could have kept them in a state of 
 perpetual colonial dependence ; placed over 
 them any form of government whatever, and, 
 if it pleased, have sold them again to any for- 
 eign power. It would have been completely 
 discretionary to have "incorporated" them 
 into the Union or not, as it pleased, and to give 
 them such rights as it thought proper, and when 
 
 it pleased. Now, these are the very powers 
 this treaty meant to tie up ; and when we con- 
 sider the objections which the language and 
 foreign habits of these inhabitants might have 
 interposed to their incorporation into the Union, 
 and that the United States were bargaining 
 more for the free navigation of the Mississippi 
 River than an accession of territory or popula- 
 tion, it became an imperious duty on the French 
 Government to stipulate, that if the United 
 States obtained their object, they should be 
 compelled to extend the rights and advantages 
 of free government to the inhabitants. 
 
 They are to be incorporated into the Union 
 of the United States, and are to be admitted as 
 soon as possible to the enjoyment of the rights, 
 advantages, and immunities, &c., and "in the 
 mean time they are to be protected in the free 
 enjoyment of their property." This latter 
 clause shows that their incorporation into the 
 Union meant more than a Territorial form of 
 government ; they were to be under such a gov- 
 ernment until they could be incorporated into 
 the Union, and during that time their property 
 was not to be disturbed. It was only under 
 that form of government that the United States 
 could interfere with these rights. Their power 
 would cease when it became possible to incor- 
 porate them into the Union, and admit them 
 to the enjoyment of all the "rights, advantages, 
 and immunities, of citizens of the United States;" 
 in virtue of which, they would themselves be 
 authorized to regulate their own property. 
 
 Now, Mr. Chairman, the people of Missouri 
 cannot be incorporated into the Union but as 
 the people of a " State," exercising State gov- 
 ernment. It is a Union of States, not of peo- 
 ple, much less of Territories. A Territorial 
 government can form no integral part of a union 
 of State governments ; neither can the people 
 of a Territory enjoy any federal rights, until 
 they have formed a State government, and ob- 
 tained admission into the Union. The most 
 important of the federal advantages and immu- 
 nities consist in the right of being represented 
 in Congress as well in the Senate as in this 
 House the right of participating in the coun- 
 cils by which they are governed. These are 
 emphatically the "rights, advantages, and im- 
 munities, of citizens of the United States." The 
 inhabitant of a Territory merely has no such 
 rights he is not a citizen of the United States. 
 He is in a state of disability, as it respects his 
 political or civil rights. Can it be called a 
 "right" to acquire and hold property, and 
 have no voice by which its disposition is to be 
 regulated ? Can it be called an advantage or 
 immunity of a citizen of the United States to 
 be subjected to a Government in whose deliber- 
 ations he has no share or agency, beyond the 
 mere arbitrary pleasure of the governor to 
 be ruled by a power irresponsible (to him, at 
 least) for its conduct? Sir, the rights, advan- 
 tages, and immunities, of citizens of the United 
 States, and which are their proudest boast, are 
 the rights of self-government first,, in their
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 511 
 
 FEBEUART, 1820.] 
 
 The Missouri Sill Restriction on the State. 
 
 [H. OF B. 
 
 State constitutions ; and secondly, in the Gov- 
 ernment of the Union, in which they have an 
 equal participation. 
 
 One principal point of difference between the 
 two great parties, by which the people of this 
 country were originally divided, was in regard 
 to the force and effect of the treaty-making 
 power. . Mr. Jefferson, who was at the head of 
 the Administration when the treaty of 1803 
 was concluded, entertaining the opinion that it 
 was not binding upon Congress until it received 
 their approbation, submitted it to them, and re- 
 commended the passing of the necessary laws 
 to carry it into effect. The party at that day 
 opposed to Mr. Jefferson's Administration pro- 
 nounced the treaty unconstitutional, because it 
 stipulated to admit States into the Union, carved 
 out of a territory which formed no part of the 
 old Thirteen States. They did not deny the 
 force of a treaty containing engagements in 
 regard to the powers of Congress, but said that 
 no department of the General Government had 
 power to make new States out of new territory. 
 The third article of the treaty of which I have 
 been speaking was the objectionable clause, and 
 both parties concurred in ascribing to it the 
 same construction for which I now contend. 
 On that occasion, Mr. Griswold, of Connecticut, 
 and one of the ablest and most distinguished 
 statesmen of whom this country can boast, 
 when speaking of the just interpretation of 
 this third article, said : " It is perhaps some- 
 what difficult to ascertain the precise effect 
 whiQh it was intended to give the words which 
 have been used in this stipulation. It is how- 
 ever clear, that it was intended to incorporate 
 the inhabitants of the ceded territory into the 
 Union, by the treaty itself, or to pledge the 
 faith, of the nation that such an incorporation 
 should take place within a reasonable tune." 
 The honorable Mr. Tracy, of the Senate, upon 
 the same occasion, and in reference to the same 
 article, also expressed himself in the following 
 terms : " The obvious meaning of this article 
 is, that the inhabitants of Louisiana are incor- 
 porated by it into the Union upon the same 
 footing that the territorial governments are, 
 and the territory, when the population is suf- 
 ficiently numerous, must be admitted as a State, 
 with every right of any other State." Mr. 
 Pickering went even further, and said : " If in 
 respect to the Louisiana treaty, the United 
 States fail to execute, and within a reasonable 
 time, the engagement in the third article to in- 
 corporate the territory in the Union, the French 
 Government will have a right to declare the 
 whole treaty void." This construction was ac- 
 quiesced in by the opposite side, who contended 
 that the power to admit new States was not 
 confined to the old territory, and, that as the 
 treaty was now submitted for the approbation 
 of Congress, they had only to determine whether 
 it was expedient to adopt it with this provision. 
 After the utmost deliberation, and with a full 
 understanding of the clear import of this third 
 article, Congress determined to adopt the treaty. 
 
 They accepted the territory, and passed the 
 necessary laws for carrying it into full effect. 
 They made it their own act. They subsequently 
 divided it into two territorial governments, and 
 made no attempt to prevent the existence of 
 slavery in either ; they sold the land, and in- 
 vited emigrants to go thither from other parts 
 of the United States, and buy and settle, but 
 did not prohibit them from carrying their slaves 
 with them. They sold the land and put the 
 money in the public treasury. As soon as the 
 population of that part of the territory called, 
 under the division, Louisiana, became sufficient- 
 ly numerous, Congress admitted it into the 
 Union as a State upon the same footing with 
 the original States: no attempt was made to 
 insist upon a restriction similar to the present, 
 or to impose any other condition against their 
 consent which in any manner affected the rights 
 of the people in the exercise of their sovereign 
 power. The provisions to which Congress re- 
 quired the people of Louisiana then to submit, 
 will be found, with one exception, to be such 
 as were prescribed by the Constitution of the 
 United States, and to which they would have 
 been subjecte4 though they had not put them 
 into their constitution. Then* enumeration 
 in the law was wholly a matter of caution. 
 On that occasion, also, the people voluntarily 
 assented to the terms, and the right of Congress 
 to impose conditions against their will never 
 was asserted. It was particularly so in that 
 part of the law which stipulated that the lands 
 sold by the United States should not be taxed 
 for five years. It is, however, to be remarked, 
 that this was not a destruction of the power in 
 the people to tax the land ; it was an agree- 
 ment merely between the parties to suspend it 
 for a term of years ; but the restriction now 
 attempted to be imposed upon the people of 
 Missouri is a complete annihilation of their 
 power and right forever. In the case of Louis- 
 iana it was no part of their constitution ; it 
 was a mere agreement by separate contract 
 not to use a power admitted to be in them for 
 a limited time. In the case of Missouri it is 
 an attempt to make a constitution extinguish- 
 ing a power, and making that constitution irre- 
 vocable. 
 
 We have been referred, however, to the Dec- 
 laration of Independence, as declaratory of the 
 principles of the constitution in this respect I 
 should scarcely have deemed this topic worthy 
 of an answer, but for the confidence with which 
 it has been reiterated in this debate. If the 
 abstract principles contained in this memorable 
 paper could possibly be supposed to have any 
 reference to the condition of the black popu- 
 lation in the United States, yet, as it preceded 
 the adoption of the constitution, their practical 
 effect must depend altogether upon the positive 
 provisions of that charter. But the truth is, 
 sir, that the Declaration of Independence had no 
 reference to those persons who were at that 
 time held in slavery. It was pronounced by 
 the freemen of the country, and not by slaves.
 
 512 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 The Missouri Bill Restriction on the State. 
 
 [FEBRUABY, 1820. 
 
 No one pretended that they acquired any claim 
 to freedom on this account; on the contrary, 
 the Revolution found them in a state of ser- 
 vitude, the acknowledgment of our actual in- 
 dependence left them so, and the Constitution 
 of the United States perpetuated their condi- 
 tion. The Declaration of Independence was the 
 act of open resistance on the part of the white 
 freemen of the colonies, against the pretensions 
 of the mother country to govern them without 
 their consent ; to assert their inalienable right 
 of self-government, and to alter or abolish it 
 whenever it should be necessary to affect their 
 safety and happiness. It was the resistance of 
 freemen to the assumption of a power on the 
 part of Great Britain, precisely similar to that 
 which we are now endeavoring to impose upon 
 the people of Missouri. It expressly asserts the 
 principles that "all just powers of government 
 are derived from the consent of the governed ; 
 and the right of the people to alter or abolish, 
 and institute it anew, as to them shall seem 
 most likely to affect their safety and happiness." 
 I do not deny that the principles of the Decla- 
 ration of Independence are those of the consti- 
 tution ; on the contrary, I admit that they are 
 those upon which all our institutions repose ; 
 they are those upon which the people of Mis- 
 souri claim the right to make their own consti- 
 tution, and resist the imposition of any species 
 of government deriving its powers from any 
 other source. But I contend that it never de- 
 signed to assume or assert any principle what- 
 soever in regard to the slave population of the 
 United States, and therefore that it cannot be 
 used in this debate, either as declaratory of 
 their rights or explanatory of the principles of 
 the constitution and government in their behalf. 
 It is unreasonable to assert the contrary, when 
 every one knows that while the freemen of this 
 country were openly resisting the usurpations 
 of the British Crown, they did not relax in the 
 slightest degree their hold upon the negro 
 slave ; and to him it was a matter of entire un- 
 concern who should govern his master, as in all 
 conditions his master would continue to govern 
 him. I do not advocate the consistency of all 
 this : I take things as I find them under our 
 form of Government ; though when we throw 
 our eye towards St. Domingo, and reflect upon 
 the scenes which ensued the heedless enthu- 
 siasm which characterized the French Revolu- 
 tion, we cannot fail to admire the cautious wis- 
 dom of our ancestors in not hazarding the great 
 object of their struggle, by suddenly letting 
 loose their unfortunate, though degraded, slave 
 population. Besides, sir, the principles of the 
 Declaration of Independence would not be 
 satisfied by merely loosening the shackles of 
 the slaves; they would assert not only the 
 rights of a freeman, but an equality of those 
 rights, civil and political. And where is the 
 State in the Union in which the emancipated 
 negro has been admitted to the enjoyment of 
 equal rights with the white population? I 
 know of none. In some, to be sure, their 
 
 rights may be greater than in others ; but in 
 none, I believe, are they upon an equality. In 
 the State which I have the honor in part to 
 represent, it has been the settled uniform policy 
 to preserve a marked and wide discrimination, 
 and I am free to express a hope that the policy 
 will never be abandoned. I am an enemy to 
 slavery, but I should deprecate a policy assail- 
 ing that discrimination which reason and nature 
 have interposed between the white and black 
 population. I forbear to press this part of the 
 subject, sir; it presents many dark images, 
 which it would be unbecoming in ine here to 
 express. 
 
 No little reliance has also been placed, by 
 the honorable mover, upon the clause in the 
 constitution, vesting in Congress a power to 
 dispose of and make all needful rules and regu- 
 lations respecting the territory, or other prop- 
 erty belonging to the United States. 
 
 I do not propose to enter minutely into the 
 inquiry whether the power of Congress to es- 
 tablish a territorial government is derived from 
 this clause. I incline to the opinion that it is 
 not. The power here conferred is a power to 
 dispose of and make needful rules respecting 
 the property of the United States. It was de- 
 signed, I think, to authorize the sale of the land 
 for purposes of revenue, and all regulations 
 which might be deemed necessary for its proper 
 
 position; or to convert it to other public 
 objects disconnected with sale or revenue ; to 
 retain this power, even after the Territory had 
 assumed a State government, and perhaps to 
 divest from the State government the right of 
 taxing it, as it would do the property of indi- 
 viduals. It is silent as to the people, and their 
 slaves are the property of their owners, and not 
 of the Government. The right to govern a ter- 
 ritory is clearly incident to the right of acquir- 
 ing it* It would le absurd to say that any 
 
 * And such was the practical understanding at the time ; 
 for the acquisition of the Northwest Territory, and the or- 
 dinance for its government, were coincident acts, one grow- 
 ing out of the other, and as near together in their birth and 
 origin as two such acts could be as near together as the 
 delivery of a deed to a legislative body, and an act of legis- 
 lation founded upon that deed, could be. The deed of ces- 
 sion from Virginia was delivered in March, 1784 ; Mr. Jeffer- 
 eon, one of the signers of the deed on the part of Virginia, 
 and then a member of the Continental Congress, imme- 
 diately moved for a committee to report a plan for the gov- 
 ernment of the ceded Territory ; which plan was reported 
 in April, formed into an ordinance, and passed ; and re- 
 mained in force until repealed by the amended ordinance of 
 1787. Thus the acquisition of the territory, and the ordi- 
 nance for its government, were coincident acts, the second 
 growing out of the first not merely as an incidental right, 
 but as a duty imposed by the conditions of the acquisition. 
 These conditions were, to dispose of the soil, and to build 
 up political communities upon it /neither of which could 
 be done without a law to sell the land, and a government to 
 rule the people. The principal difference between the ordi- 
 nance of 1784 and 1787, was in the anti-slavery feature, that 
 clause being struck out of Mr. Jefferson's plan, because it 
 did not provide for the recovery of fugitives from service; 
 and restored in the ordinance of 1787 because it did.
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 513 
 
 FEBRUARY, 1820.] 
 
 The Missouri Bill Restriction on the State. 
 
 [H. OF B. 
 
 Government might purchase a territory with a 
 population, and not have the power to give them 
 laws; but, from whatever source the power is 
 derivable, I admit it to be plenary, so long as it 
 remains in a condition of territorial depend- 
 ence, but no longer, I am willing at any time 
 to exercise this power. I regret that it has not 
 been done sooner. But, though Congress can 
 give laws to a Territory, it cannot prescribe 
 them to a State. The condition of the people 
 of a Territory is to be governed by others ; of 
 a State to govern themselves. This is the great 
 favor we permit them to enjoy when we exalt 
 them to the character of a State. The instant 
 we authorize them to form their constitution, 
 the territorial disabilities, and the powers of 
 Congress over them, crumble together in the 
 dust. A new being, and a new relation spring 
 up ; the State authority, derived from the just 
 power of the people, takes its place ; every fea- 
 ture of the territorial authority becomes effaced, 
 and the federal powers of Congress, encircling 
 a State, commence their operation. There is 
 nothing of territorial disability on the one hand, 
 or territorial authority on the other, which 
 passes into the new order of things ; if they 
 did, the State would be incomplete. 
 
 It appears to me, then, Mr. Chairman, that 
 the right contended for cannot be derived from 
 the power to regulate commerce among the 
 several States ; and therefore that the power, 
 which was restrained until the year 1808, was 
 that of preventing the migration or importa- 
 tion of persons from foreign countries only. 
 It would be very immaterial, in the present ar- 
 gument, whether the word persons related to 
 slaves only, or to freemen as well as slaves ; I 
 believe, however, it relates to both. 
 
 In a just interpretation of this clause, we are 
 bound to assign to each word a distinct mean- 
 ing, to suppose that each had a definite object, 
 and that neither was used unnecessarily. If 
 both " migration" and " importation" be applied 
 to slaves, one would be wholly useless. The 
 word " importation" would embrace every pos- 
 sible means by which slaves could be introduced 
 into the country against their will, as it would 
 every means by which they could be removed 
 from one State into another. We see, more- 
 over, that, upon the importation only, the im- 
 position of a tax or duty is authorized, and, if 
 slaves can migrate at all, they do so as well 
 when coming hither from a foreign country, as 
 in going from State to State, and it is therefore 
 unreasonable to suppose that while it was the 
 evident policy and intention to prevent their 
 coming in at all, the " importation" only would 
 be obstructed, and their " migration" left free 
 and unrestricted. 
 
 But, sir, the word " migration" cannot apply 
 to the forcible or involuntary removal of a 
 slave from any State, foreign or domestic. It 
 is the voluntary act of a free agent ; and a slave 
 has no such will, and is no such agent ; he is 
 subject to the will of a master, by whom all 
 his actions are controlled. It is, moreover, a 
 VOL. VI. 33 
 
 right, so defined by all the best writers on the 
 subject ; it is the right of quitting one's country, 
 and of going into another in the pursuit of 
 wealth and happiness, and, according to the' 
 principles of our republican form of govern- 
 ment, it is inalienable. But, will it be pretend- 
 ed that the slave has any such right, when we 
 have seen that, in the only instance in which 
 he voluntarily leaves his master's service, he is 
 compelled, in defiance of all the municipal reg- 
 ulations of other States, to be reclaimed ? No, 
 sir, he has no such right ; he never changes his 
 residence, but under the compulsion of a power 
 he dare not resist. It is no exercise of a right, 
 when the unhappy slave is taken by his owner 
 from place to place he obeys a hard fate which 
 he cannot control, and he can, with no more 
 propriety, be said to migrate, than the exile 
 who is driven from his family and home, into 
 involuntary banishment. 
 
 The term "migration," as here used, is also a 
 general one, and has relation to the government 
 by which it is to be controlled. Its true mean- 
 ing is that of quitting their own country, and of 
 removing beyond the jurisdiction of the Govern- 
 ment; its meaning is precise and technical. 
 Therefore, though a man may change his resi- 
 dence, so long as he remains under the Govern- 
 ment of the United States, he does not migrate, 
 in the sense of the constitution. When a man 
 removes from one county to another of the 
 same State, he cannot be said to have migrated 
 in relation to that State, nor can he be said to 
 migrate in relation to the United States, when 
 he removes from one State to another in the 
 Union. He is still in the same country, still 
 under the same jurisdiction and laws ; enjoying 
 equal rights, and liable to the same obligations ; 
 he is still a citizen, nay, an inhabitant of the 
 United States, and the protecting arm of the 
 constitution shields and conducts him wherever 
 he goes ; he is not an emigrant, until he has 
 turned his back upon his country, and quitted 
 its jurisdiction. 
 
 But, Mr. Chairman, if the words, as used, be 
 in any degree ambiguous, we are bound to con- 
 sider the circumstances under which the consti- 
 tution was adopted, and the object which was 
 to be effected by the restrictive clause. It is 
 clear that the General Government possessed 
 the power, under the constitution, to restrict 
 the " importation" of slaves from abroad, either 
 as incident to their general powers, or to the 
 particular power to regulate commerce with 
 foreign nations. It is, in my opinion, equally 
 clear that they also possessed the power of pro- 
 hibiting the migration of foreign freemen, under 
 particular circumstances. It has been already 
 shown that all our intercourse with foreign na- 
 tions is peculiarly under the control of the 
 General Government, to which the right of reg- 
 ulating or preventing foreign emigration is ne- 
 cessarily incident; if it were otherwise, any 
 single State, by opening its ports to foreign emi- 
 gration, might let in a population to any extent, 
 and against the evident policy and interests of
 
 514 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 The, Missouri Bill Restriction on the State, 
 
 [FEBUUARY, 1820. 
 
 all the others. At the adoption of the consti- 
 tution, however, the States being in their in- 
 fancy, it was their policy to encourage emigra- 
 tion from ahroad ; and, as its interruption has 
 been one of the causes of complaint against 
 the British Government, it was natural that the 
 powers of the Federal Government should be 
 placed under some restraint in this respect. 
 
 The year 1808 was, I imagine, agreed upon, 
 in consequence of the compromise upon the 
 other point. A consideration of the object of 
 the compromise* will leave no room for doubt. 
 It related to the increase of population, either 
 of freemen or slaves, from abroad. The consti- 
 tution had provided, that three-fifths of the 
 slave population should be enumerated in the 
 ratio of representation, which would have been 
 constantly augmenting, by the importation from 
 abroad, beyond the natural increase of this 
 species of population, arid it became, therefore, 
 a matter of compromise, upon the mere point 
 of time for which the importation should be 
 tolerated. But this concession could not have 
 been made without a similar license to the emi- 
 gration of free persons in favor of the northern 
 and non-slaveholding States, and thus the affair 
 was adjusted by allowing the same period to 
 each. The essence of this compromise being 
 entirely an affair of time, leaves no doubt as to 
 its meaning. It was to prevent the premature 
 ascendency in the South, by an undue increase 
 of this population, an object which would have 
 been as effectually promoted by the dispersion 
 of the slaves among the other States, as by in- 
 hibiting their introduction from abroad, for, in 
 case of their diffusion, the North would acquire 
 their share of the numbers, and so the represent- 
 ation would be equalized. 
 
 That this clause had no sort of reference to a 
 power to prevent the removal of slaves from 
 State to State is further evident, from the im- 
 portant consideration that, previous to the 
 adoption of the constitution, each State itself 
 possessed the undoubted authority to prohibit 
 the bringing of slaves from any other State. It 
 is, therefore, extremely improbable that, with 
 all the jealousy and hostility of the Northern 
 States upon this subject, they should have called 
 in the aid of the General Government to ac- 
 complish what they could do without it, and 
 thus weaken their own power, by confiding it 
 to councils who had an interest in encouraging 
 what they desired to abolish. It is impossible, 
 sir, to resist this construction, when in aid of 
 it are arrayed the acts and practice of all the 
 States, from the establishment of the General 
 Government up to the present day. Sir, it is a 
 power which can be safely exerted only by the 
 individual States themselves ; they never will, 
 and never ought to submit to its exercise by the 
 General Government. 
 
 Sir, I invite gentlemen to look at the present 
 state of the public councils, and consider 
 whether they do not hazard their whole object 
 by persisting in a measure so repugnant to the 
 ardent feelings of at least one moiety of this 
 
 Empire, and so much opposed to the constitu- 
 tional views of many of the friends of the 
 avowed policy. It is a consideration to which 
 a statesman is bound to look. If actuated by 
 motives of humanity and the public peace, he 
 would be criminal to disregard it. We see it 
 ascertained, beyond doubt, that the Senate will 
 not consent to this restriction; and that, if wo 
 persist in it, they will not unite, even in any 
 territorial regulation. The introduction of 
 slaves into the "Western country will remain 
 free. Those who desire to send this property 
 there for sale will be stimulated to do so with- 
 out delay ; the market there will rise in appre- 
 hension of the future acts of Congress ; dealers 
 and settlers will take advantage of it ; and thus 
 slavery will become too deeply rooted to yield 
 to any means of extirpation which future coun- 
 cils may employ. In the mean time, too, public 
 excitement increases ; evil men seize upon the 
 occasion to promote their designs ; local preju- 
 dices spring up ; and the spirit of jealousy and 
 discord is raised in all parts of the country, 
 which they who engender will be wholly unable 
 to allay or direct. But if, consulting the pres- 
 ent state of things, gentlemen will yield some- 
 thing to a spirit of harmony and mutual inter- 
 ests, we may now put this unpleasant subject 
 to sleep forever. The people of Missouri will 
 enter the Union with their rights unimpaired, 
 and their feeling undisturbed ; devoted to your 
 institutions, and inspired with full confidence 
 in your justice and generosity. The territorial 
 soil will then be unpolluted with slavery. Its 
 introduction in regard to that being prohibited, 
 much the largest portion of the Western world 
 will be peopled by a population unfriendly to 
 slavery ; and when they come to frame their 
 State constitutions, preparatory to their future 
 admission into the Union, they will voluntarily 
 form them in conformity with their habits and 
 principles. For, I desire to be understood as 
 denying the authority of Congress to make any 
 regulation for a territory, which can be binding 
 upon the people against their consent, when 
 they come to make their constitution, and after 
 their admission into the Union. I sanctify no 
 irrevocable ordinances ; but their territorial reg- 
 ulations will accomplish the object, by creating 
 a population whose interests it will be volun- 
 tarily to adopt the restriction. In this way, too, 
 Missouri will be seated in the midst of non- 
 slaveholding States, and the force of public sen- 
 timent will soon lead to the emancipation of 
 her present slave population. For the accom- 
 plishment of all these objects, gentlemen are 
 called upon merely to abstain from the assump- 
 tion of a doubtful power over a resisting peo- 
 ple. 
 
 When Mr. McLANE had concluded 
 Mr. CLAY (Speaker) rose and expressed a wish 
 to address the committee on the highly impor- 
 tant question before it ; but the lateness of the 
 hour prevented his asking its attention this 
 afternoon; and he therefore moved that the 
 committee rise.
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 515 
 
 FEBRUARY, 1820.] 
 
 The Missouri Bill Restriction on the Slate. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 The committee then rose, and obtained leave 
 to sit again. 
 
 TUESDAY, February 8. 
 Missouri Bill. 
 
 The House then went into a Committee of 
 the Whole, on this bill the restrictive amend- 
 ment being still under consideration. 
 
 Mr. CLAY (Speaker) rose, and addressed the 
 committee nearly four hours against the right 
 and expediency of the proposed restriction.* 
 
 The committee then rose, on the motion of 
 Mr. SERGEANT (who, according to the usage, 
 has priority of claim to the floor to-inorrow,) 
 and the House adjourned. 
 
 WEDNESDAY, February 9. 
 Slavery in the Territories. 
 
 Mr. FOOT submitted the following resolutions, 
 viz: 
 
 Resohed, by the Senate and House of Representatives 
 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
 That there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary 
 servitude in any of the territories of the United 
 States, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes 
 whereof the party shall have been duly convicted : 
 Prm-ided, That this shall not be construed to alter 
 the condition or civil rights of any person now held 
 to service or labor in the said territories. 
 
 Resolved, That it be, and it is hereby, recommend- 
 ed to the inhabitants of the several territories of the 
 United States, that, for the purpose of effectually 
 preventing the further extension of slavery, each ter- 
 ritory, when authorized by Congress to form a con- 
 stitution and State government, shall, by express 
 provision in their constitution, prohibit involuntary 
 servitude or slavery, otherwise than in the punish- 
 ment of crimes. 
 
 Mr. XELSOX, of Virginia, moved that the res- 
 olution be committed to the Committee of the 
 Whole, which was now considering the Missouri 
 bill. It was entitled to serious consideration, 
 as it affected the important question now under 
 discussion. He conceived this not the proper 
 mode of bringing up the question ; it should be 
 in the usual form of an act, which should go 
 through the several forms, while, as a resolu- 
 tion, introduced to-day to be decided to-morrow, 
 it would not afford an opportunity for discussing 
 its merits. 
 
 Mr. FOOT observed, in support of his resolu- 
 tions, that it was well known to the House that 
 the Senate had decided, (on the 2d day of Feb- 
 ruary,) by a majority of almost two-thirds of 
 that body, that the proposed restriction should 
 not be inserted in the " bill to provide for the 
 admission of Missouri into the Union ;" that the 
 House of Representatives have already con- 
 sumed two weeks in discussing the same ques- 
 tion ; that further discussion would be a useless 
 waste of time and money, as the expenses of 
 Congress exceeded $2,000 per day; that no 
 
 * This speech was not reported. 
 
 possible good could result from the discussion ; 
 that constitutional doubts on the subject were 
 insuperable. He further remarked, that his 
 object in proposing the resolutions was to pre-, 
 vent a further discussion, to relieve the subject 
 from constitutional doubts, and to afford the 
 friends of restriction an opportunity to prevent 
 the further extension of slavery in all the terri- 
 tories over which Congress had an undoubted 
 right to legislate, and which, in his opinion, 
 would more effectually prevent the extension 
 of slavery than the restriction proposed in the 
 bill, because, if slaves were excluded during the 
 settlement of a territory, it would never be per- 
 mitted when the territory should become a 
 State, and instanced particularly Ohio, Indiana, 
 and Illinois ; and closed his remarks by observ- 
 ing, no man detests slavery more than I do ; 
 few of the members of this House, and perhaps 
 not one, have seen slavery in its most hideous 
 forms. I, sir, have seen the miserable Africans 
 on board the slave ship, and landed, and sold in 
 market like beasts, and cruelly lacerated by 
 their inhuman negro drivers, in the West In- 
 dies ; and, sir, no gentleman would go further 
 to prevent the inhuman traffic, or the extension 
 of the evil, if I could believe Congress possess- 
 ed the power ; but, sir, we should remember 
 our power is delegated power ; and if the con- 
 stitution does not give us this power, we do not 
 
 Mr. RHEA hoped the resolutions would be laid 
 on the table until the great question now before 
 the committee should be decided. Gentlemen 
 were determined to discuss it, and decide upon 
 it ; and he hoped no proposition would be re- 
 ceived to interfere with that discussion. Mr. 
 R.'s motion to lay the resolutions on the table 
 prevailed ; and they were laid on the table ac- 
 cordingly. 
 
 The Missouri Bill. 
 
 The House then resumed, in Committee of 
 the Whole, the consideration of this bill, and 
 the restrictive amendment proposed thereto. 
 
 Mr. SEKGEANT, of Pennsylvania, addressed 
 the Chair as follows : The important question 
 now before the committee has already engaged 
 the best talents and commanded the deepest at- 
 tention of the nation. What the people strongly 
 feel, it is natural that they should freely express ; 
 and whether this is done by pamphlets and 
 essays, by the resolutions of meetings of citi- 
 zens, or by the votes of State Legislatures, it is 
 equally legitimate, and entitled to respect as the 
 voice of the public upon a great and interesting 
 public measure. The free expression of opinion 
 is one of the rights guaranteed by the constitu- 
 tion, and, in a government like ours, it is an in- 
 valuable right. It has not, therefore, been with- 
 out some surprise and concern that I have heard 
 it complained of, and even censured, in this de- 
 bate. One member suggests to us that, in the 
 excitement which prevails, he discerns the 
 efforts of what he has termed an " expiring 
 party," aiming to re-establish itself in the pos-
 
 510 
 
 ABKIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 The Missouri Bill Restriction on the Slate. 
 
 [FEBRtJART, 1820. 
 
 session of power, and has spoken of a "juggler 
 behind the scene." He surely has not reflected 
 upon the magnitude of the principle contended 
 for, or he would have perceived at once the 
 utter insignificance of all objects of factions and 
 party contest when compared with the mighty 
 interests it involves. It concerns ages to come, 
 and millions to be born. We, who are here, 
 onr dissensions and conflicts, are nothing, abso- 
 lutely nothing, in the comparison ; and I can- 
 not well conceive that any man who is capable 
 of raising his view to the elevation of this great 
 question, could suddenly bring it down to the 
 low and paltry consideration of party interests 
 and party motives. 
 
 Another member, (Mr. McLANE,) taking in- 
 deed a more liberal ground, has warned us 
 against ambitious and designing men, who, he 
 thinks, will always be ready to avail themselves 
 of occasions of popular excitement, to mount 
 into power upon the ruin of our Government, 
 and the destruction of our liberties. Sir, I am 
 not afraid of what is called popular, excitement 
 all history teaches us that revolutions are not 
 the work of men, but of time and circumstan- 
 ces, and a long train of preparation. Men do 
 not produce them ; they are brought on by cor- 
 ruption ; they are generated in the quiet and 
 stillness of apathy, and to my mind nothing 
 could present a more frightful indication than 
 public indifference to such a question as this. 
 It is not by vigorously maintaining great moral 
 and political principles, in their purity, that we 
 incur the danger. If gentlemen are sincerely 
 desirous to perpetuate the blessings of that free 
 constitution under which we live, I would ad- 
 vise them to apply their exertions to the pres- 
 ervation of public and private virtue, upon 
 which its existence, I had almost said, entirely 
 depends. As long as this is preserved we have 
 nothing to fear. When this shall be lost ; when 
 luxury, and vice, and corruption, shall have 
 usurped its place, then, indeed, a Government 
 resting upon the people for its support must 
 totter and decay, or yield to the designs of am- 
 bitious and aspiring men. 
 
 Another member, the gentleman to whom the 
 committee lately listened with so much attention, 
 (Mr. CLAY,) after depicting forcibly and elo- 
 quently what he deemed the probable conse- 
 quences of the proposed amendment, appealed, 
 emphatically, to Pennsylvania, " the unambitious 
 Pennsylvania the keystone of the federal arch" 
 whether she would concur in a measure calcu- 
 lated to disturb the peace of the Union. Sir, 
 this was a single arch ; it is rapidly becoming a 
 combination of arches, and where the centre 
 now is, whether in Kentucky or Pennsylvania, 
 or where, at any given time it will be, might be 
 very difficult to tell. Pennsylvania may indeed 
 be styled u unambitious," for she has not been 
 anxious for what are commonly deemed honors 
 and distinctions, nor eager to display her weight 
 and importance in the affairs of the nation. 
 She has, nevertheless, felt, and still does feel, 
 her responsibility to the Union, and under a 
 
 just sense of her duty has always been faithful 
 to its interest, under every vicissitude and in 
 every exigency. But, Pennsylvania feels also 
 a high responsibility to a great moral principle, 
 which she has long ago adopted, with the most 
 impressive solemnity, for the rule of her own 
 conduct, and which she stands bound to assert 
 and maintain, wherever her influence and power 
 can be applied, without injury to the just rights 
 of her sister States. 
 
 1. We are about to lay the foundation of a 
 new State, beyond the Mississippi, and to ad- 
 mit that State into the Union. The proposition 
 contained in the amendment is, in substance, to 
 enter into a compact with the new State, at her 
 formation, which shall establish a fundamental 
 principle of her government, not to be changed 
 without the consent of both parties. And this 
 principle is, That every human ~being lorn or 
 hereafter brought within the State shall be free. 
 
 In this view, the ordinance of 1787, respect- 
 ing the Northwest Territory, and the history of 
 the States formed under it, are eminently de- 
 serving of consideration and respect. This or- 
 dinance was framed upon great deliberation. 
 It was intended to regulate the government 
 of the Territory ; to provide for its division 
 into States, and for their admission into the 
 Union; and to establish certain great prin- 
 ciples, which should become the fundamental 
 law of the States, so to be formed. In its ter- 
 ritorial condition, it was subject to the exclu- 
 sive jurisdiction of Congress, to be exercised by 
 the ordinary process of legislation. But it was 
 one of the terms of the cession by Virginia to 
 the United States, that this Territory, as it be- 
 came peopled, should be divided into States, 
 and that these States should be admitted into 
 the Union, " upon an equal footing, in all re- 
 spects, with the original States." We shall now 
 see how the fulfilment of this engagement was 
 effected. After providing for the territorial 
 government, the ordinance proceeds as follows : 
 " And for extending the fundamental principles 
 of civil and religious liberty, which form the 
 basis whereon these republics, their laws, and 
 constitutions are erected ; to fix and establish 
 those principles as the basis of all laws, consti- 
 tutions, and governments, which forever here- 
 after shall be formed in the said Territory ; to 
 provide, also, for the establishment of States 
 and permanent government therein, and for 
 their admission to a share in the federal coun- 
 cils, on an equal footing with the original States, 
 at as early periods as may be consistent with 
 the general interests: It is hereby ordained and 
 declared, that the following articles 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." Then follow the 
 several articles, of which the sixth declares, 
 " that there shall be neither slavery nor invol- 
 untary servitude," &c. The fifth article pro- 
 vides, expressly, that "the constitution and 
 governments (of the States) so to be formed
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 517 
 
 FEBRCART, 1820.] 
 
 The Missouri BillRatriction on the State. 
 
 [H. OP R. 
 
 shall be republican, and in conformity to the 
 principles contained in these articles." When 
 the States of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, re- 
 spectively, applied for admission, they were ad- 
 mitted upon the express condition that their 
 constitutions should be republican, and in con- 
 formity to the ordinance of 1787. They as- 
 sented to the condition, and were admitted 
 " upon an equal footing with the original 
 States." 
 
 I am aware that all this has been pronounced, 
 rashly I think, to be a usurpation. The term 
 does not well apply, at this time of day, after 
 the repeated sanction of every kind which the 
 ordinance has received. In truth, if there be 
 any thing in our legislative history, which is en- 
 titled to our affection for the motives in which 
 it originated ; to our veneration for the author- 
 ity by which it is supported ; to our respect for 
 the principles embodied in it; it is the ordi- 
 nance of 1787. But the charge of usurpation is 
 in every sense inapplicable,, for the efficacy of 
 the contract arises from the assent of the State 
 to the condition proposed as the terms of her 
 admission. 
 
 But this ordinance is entitled to still higher 
 consideration. It was a solemn compact be- 
 tween the existing States; and it cannot be 
 doubted that its adoption had a great influence 
 in bringing about the good understanding that 
 finally prevailed in the Convention upon several 
 points which had been attended with the great- 
 est difficulty. It passed on the 13th of July, 
 1787, while the Convention that framed the 
 constitution was in session. From the minutes 
 of that body, lately published, it will be seen 
 that the two most important and difficult points 
 to adjust, were those of the admission of States 
 and the slave representation. This ordinance 
 finally adjusted both these matters, as far as con- 
 cerned all the Territories then belonging to the 
 United States, and was therefore eminently cal- 
 culated to quiet the minds of the advocates of 
 freedom; to remove their objections to the 
 principle of slave representation, and to secure 
 their assent to the instrument which contained 
 that principle, by limiting its operation to the 
 existing States. It is not to be questioned that 
 this ordinance, unanimously adopted, and, as it 
 were, fixing au unchangeable basis, by common 
 consent, had a most powerful influence in bring- 
 ing about the adoption of the constitution. It 
 is a part of the groundwork of the constitution 
 itself; one of the preliminary measures upon 
 which it was founded. Hence the unusual 
 solemnity of the terms in which it is conceived, 
 so different from the ordinary forms of legisla- 
 tion, and which give to it the character of a 
 binding and irrevocable covenant. 
 
 I will now. with the leave of the committee, 
 proceed to the remaining branch of this very 
 interesting subject, or what is called the ques- 
 tion of expediency. 
 
 It is decreed that slavery shall be a very 
 great evil, and, as has been already remarked, 
 one of its incidents is, that where it exists, it 
 
 can never be fairly or freely discussed. It must 
 be taken up at a certain point, which admits 
 every thing that goes before, and among the 
 rest (in the qualified sense) the lawfulness of 
 its origin and existence. I will not disturb 
 this arrangement, but I must be permitted to 
 say that slavery is a great moral and politi- 
 cal evil. If it be not, let it take its course ; if 
 it be good, let it be encouraged ; if it be an evil, 
 I am opposed to its further extension. This is 
 a plain, simple, clear, intelligible ground. Most 
 of those who have opposed the amendment, 
 have agreed with us in characterizing slavery 
 as an evil and a curse, in language stronger 
 than we should perhaps be at liberty to use. 
 One of them only, the member from Kentucky, 
 who last addressed the committee, (Mr. CLAY,) 
 rather reproves his friends for this unqualified 
 admission. He says it is a very great evil in- 
 deed to the slave ; but it is not an evil to the 
 master; and he challenges us to deny that our 
 fellow-citizens of the South are as hospitable, as 
 generous, as patriotic, as public spirited, as their 
 brethren of the North or East. Sir, they are 
 all this, and even more. For some of the vir- 
 tues enumerated they are eminently and pecu- 
 liarly distinguished ; and I believe they are de- 
 ficient in none of them. It has long ago been 
 remarked that the masters of slaves have the 
 keenest relish for their own liberty, and the 
 proudest sense of their own independence. It 
 is natural that it should be so ; the feeling is 
 quickened by the degrading contrast continually 
 before them. But it seems to me that the con- 
 cession with respect to slavery, modified as it 
 is in appearance, is quite as broad as the un- 
 limited admission of every one else who has 
 spoken. It is an evil to the slave ; it is an evil 
 founded in wrong, and its injustice is not the 
 less because it is advantageous to some one else. 
 Every injury, from the least to the greatest, 
 might find the same sort of mitigation. It is a 
 very great evil to him who suffers, but it is no 
 evil to him who inflicts it. The same gentle- 
 man, however, has himself made the most un- 
 qualified concession ; for he said he would re- 
 commend to the people of Missouri to abolish 
 slavery, and that, in his own State, he would 
 favor a general emancipation, as soon as it 
 should be practicable, which he would not do 
 if it were not an evil. 
 
 We are told, however, that it is no extension, 
 it is only diffusion, that is to be the effect. 
 
 I confess I do not well understand the distinc- 
 tion. The diffusion of slaves is an extension of 
 the system of slavery, with all its odious fea- 
 tures ; and if it were true, as it certainly is not, 
 that their numbers would not be increased by 
 it, still it would be at least impolitic. But, for 
 what purpose is this diffusion to be encouraged? 
 To disperse and weaken and dilute the morbid 
 and dangerous matter, says one. To better the 
 condition of the slaves by spreading them over 
 a large surface, says another. A third tells us, 
 that wo cannot justly refuse to permit a man to 
 remove with his family. A fourth comes di-
 
 518 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R] 
 
 The Missouri Bill Restriction on the State. 
 
 [FEBRUARY, 1820. 
 
 rectly to the question of interest, and his reason 
 is, that land in the State of Missouri has been 
 bought by individuals upon the faith of its being 
 a slave State, and if we prohibit slavery there, 
 these lands will fall in value. And in the rear 
 of all these, comes an appeal to the public in- 
 terest, in the shape of a suggestion, that slavery 
 must be permitted in order to maintain the price 
 of the public lands. 
 
 But it is only diffusion that is desired. Is 
 this a reasonable desire ? But little more than 
 thirty years have elapsed since the constitution 
 was adopted. Two States of this Union (South 
 Carolina and Georgia) then insisted upon reserv- 
 ing, for twenty p years, the privilege of supplying 
 themselves with slaves from abroad, and re- 
 fused to come into the Union unless Congress 
 were prohibited during that time, from pre- 
 venting importation. Congress were accord- 
 ingly prohibited, and scarcely ten years have 
 elapsed since the prohibition ceased. Can they 
 reasonably ask already to be permitted to dif- 
 fuse what they were then so anxious to possess ? 
 Are they so soon overburdened? It cannot be, 
 for the illicit trade is still carried on, and that 
 would end at once, if there were not a demand 
 and a market. 
 
 I may be told, and told with truth, that the 
 other slaveholding States are not exposed to the 
 same remark. Of Virginia, especially, it gives 
 me pleasure to speak on this subject, with sin- 
 cere respect. While yet a colony, she remon- 
 strated against the introduction of slaves. One 
 of the earliest acts of her government, after her 
 independence, put an end to the trade ; and it 
 has always been understood, to her honor, that, 
 in convention, her voice and her most strenu- 
 ous exertions were employed in favor of the 
 immediate abolition of the traffic. Still, sir, 
 with respect to any or all the slaveholding 
 States, I may be allowed to ask, is diffusion 
 now necessary? I think it is not. Look at 
 the present price of slaves. Does that indicate 
 an actual increase of their numbers to such an 
 amount as to require diffusion ? I am informed 
 by a gentleman, upon whose accuracy I place 
 great reliance, that, from the adoption of the 
 constitution to the present time, the price has 
 been regularly advancing. I do not mean to 
 say that it is as high now as it was a year ago. 
 It was then, like every thing else, affected by 
 speculation. But taking average periods, say 
 of five or six years, there has been a regular 
 and constant advance, manifesting a demand at 
 least equal to the supply. 
 
 I am fully convinced, however, that this idea 
 of diffusion (as distinguished from extension, 
 which is at present so great a favorite) is alto- 
 gether founded in error. If the amount of the 
 slave population were fixed, and it could not be 
 increased, it would no doubt be correct to say, 
 that in spreading it over a larger surface, you 
 only diffused it. But this is certainly not the 
 case. We need not recur for proof or illustra- 
 tion to the laws that govern population. Our 
 own experience unhappily shows that this evil 
 
 has a great capacity to increase ; and its present 
 magnitude is such as to occasion the most seri- 
 ous anxiety. In 1790, there were in the United 
 States 694,280 slaves; in 1800, there were 
 889,881; and in 1810, 1,165,441. This is a 
 gloomy picture. The arguments of gentlemen 
 on the opposite side admit that an increase will 
 take place ; for they are founded upon the be- 
 lief that the time must arrive when the slaves 
 will be so multiplied as to become dangerous to 
 their possessors. There are indeed no limits to 
 the increase of population, black or white, slave 
 or free, but those which depend upon the means 
 of subsistence. By enlarging the space, gener- 
 ally speaking, you increase the quantity of food, 
 and of course you increase the numbers of the 
 people. Our own illustrious Franklin, with his 
 usual sagacity, long ago discovered this impor- 
 tant truth. " Was the face of the earth (he 
 says) vacant of other plants, it might be gradu- 
 ally sowed and overspread with one kind only ; 
 as for instance with fennel ; and were it empty 
 of other inhabitants, it might in a few ages bo 
 replenished from one nation only ; as for in- 
 stance with Englishmen." If this does not ex- 
 actly happen, it is only because in their inarch 
 they are met and resisted by other plants and 
 by other people, struggling like themselves for 
 the means of subsistence. 
 
 By enlarging the limits of slavery, you are 
 thus preparing the means for its indefinite in- 
 crease and extension ; and the result will be to 
 keep the present slaveholding States supplied 
 to their wishes with this description of popula- 
 tion, and to enable them to throw off the sur- 
 >lus, with all its productive power, on the 
 Vest, as long as the country shall be able and 
 willing to receive them. To what extent you 
 will in this way increase the slave population, 
 it is impossible to calculate ; but that you will 
 increase it there can be no doubt, and it ia 
 equally certain that the increase will be at the 
 expense of the free population. 
 
 And now, let me ask gentlemen where this 
 diffusion is to end ? If circumstances require it 
 at present, will not the same circumstances de- 
 mand it hereafter ? Will they not, at some fu- 
 ture time, become straitened in their new limits, 
 however large ? And what will you do then ? 
 Diffuse again and what then? Even this dif- 
 fusion will have its limits, and when they are 
 reached, the case is without remedy and with- 
 out hope. For a present ease to ourselves, we 
 doom our posterity to an interminable curse. 
 But, we seem to forget altogether, that while 
 the slaves are spreading, the free population is 
 also increasing, and, sooner or later, must feel 
 the pressure which it is supposed may at some 
 time be felt by the slaves. Where you place a 
 slave, he occupies the ground that would main- 
 tain a freeman. And who, in this code of 
 speculative humanity, making provision for 
 times afar off, is to have the preference the 
 freeman or the slave ? 
 
 In the variety of claims that have been pressed 
 upon us, there is but a single one which deserves
 
 DEBATES OF CONGKESS. 
 
 519 
 
 FEBRUARY, 1820.] 
 
 The Missouri Bill Restriction on the State. 
 
 [H. OF R 
 
 a moment's attention. It is that which arises 
 out of the inquiry, so often repeated, "Will you 
 not suffer a man to migrate with his family ? 
 Those who have been accustomed to the labor 
 and service of slaves, it is not to be denied, 
 cannot at once change their habits, without 
 feeling, at least, a great deal of inconvenience. 
 It is also true, that the associations which have 
 been formed in families cannot be broken up 
 without violence and injury to both the parties ; 
 and in proportion as the authority has been 
 mild in its exercise, will the transfer of it to 
 other hands be advantageous, especially to the 
 servant. But, it is impossible to make a dis- 
 crimination, or to permit the introduction of 
 slaves at all, without giving up the whole mat- 
 ter. If you allow slavery to exist, you must al- 
 low it without limits. The consequence is, that 
 the State becomes a slave State. Free labor 
 and slave labor cannot be employed together. 
 Those who go there must become slaveholders, 
 and your whole system is overturned. Besides, if 
 the limited permission did not, of itself, produce 
 the evil, to an unlimited extent, (as it certainly 
 would,) it is liable to abuses, beyond all possi- 
 bility of control, which would inevitably have 
 that effect. The numbers of a family are not 
 defined; the number of families of this sort, 
 which a single individual may have, cannot be 
 fixed. It is easy to see how, under color of 
 such permission, a regular trade might be estab- 
 lished, and carried on, as long as there was any 
 temptation of profit or interest. This argument, 
 however, has been pressed, as if a prohibition 
 to go with slaves was, in effect, a prohibition to 
 the inhabitants of a slaveholding State to go at 
 all. I cannot believe this to be the case. They 
 may go without slaves ; for, though slaves are a 
 convenience and a luxury to those who are ac- 
 customed to them, yet the inhabitants of the 
 slaveholding States would hardly admit that 
 they are indispensably necessary. Besides, they 
 may take their slaves with them as free ser- 
 vants. But, look at the converse. The intro- 
 duction of slavery banishes free labor, or places 
 it under such discouragement and opprobrium 
 as are equivalent in effect. You shut the coun- 
 try then against the free emigrant, who carries 
 with him nothing but his industry. There are 
 large and valuable classes of people who are op- 
 posed to slavery, and cannot live where it is 
 permitted. These, too, you exclude. The 
 laws and the policy of a slave State will, and 
 must be, adapted to the condition of slavery, 
 and, without going into any particulars, it will be 
 allowed that they are in the highest degree of- 
 fensive to those who are opposed to slavery. It 
 seems to me, sir, I may be pardoned for so far 
 expressing an opinion upon the concerns of the 
 slaveholding States ; it seems to me that the 
 people of the South have a common interest 
 with us in this question not for themselves, 
 perhaps, but for those who are equally dear to 
 them. The cultivation by slaves requires large 
 estates. They cannot be parcelled out or di- 
 vided. In the course of time, and before very 
 
 long, it will happen that the younger children 
 of Southern families must look elsewhere to 
 find employment for their talents, and scope 
 for their exertion. What better provision can 
 they have than free States, where they may 
 fairly enter into competition with freemen, and 
 every one find the level which his proper abili- 
 ties entitles him to expect ? The hint is suffi- 
 cient. I venture to throw it out for the con- 
 sideration of those whom it concerns. 
 
 But, independently of the objections to the 
 extension, arising from the views thus presented 
 by the opponents of the amendment, and inde- 
 pendently of many much more deeply-founded 
 objections, which I forbear now to press, there 
 are enough, of a very obvious kind, to settle 
 the question conclusively. With the indulgence 
 of the committee, I will touch upon some of 
 them. 
 
 It will be remembered that this is the first 
 step beyond the Mississippi the State of Louis- 
 iana is no exception, for there slavery existed 
 to an extent which left no alternative it is the 
 last step, too, for this is the last stand that can 
 be made. Compromise is forbidden by the 
 principles contended for on both sides. Any 
 compromise that would give slavery to Missouri 
 is out of the question. It is, therefore, the final, 
 irretrievable step, which can never be recalled, 
 and must lead to an immeasurable spread of 
 slavery over the country beyond the Mississippi. 
 If any one falter ; if he be tempted by insinua- 
 tions, or terrified by the apprehension of losing 
 something desirable ; if he find himself drawn 
 aside by views to the little interests that are 
 immediately about him, let him reflect upon the 
 magnitude of the question, and he will be ele- 
 vated above all such considerations. The eyes 
 of the country are upon him ; the interests of 
 posterity are committed to his care ; let him 
 beware how he barters, not his own, but his 
 children's birthright, for a mess of pottage. The 
 consciousness that we have done our duty is a sure 
 and never-failing dependence. It will stand by 
 us and support us through life, under every 
 vicissitude of fortune, and in every change of 
 circumstances. It sheds a steady and a cheering 
 light upon the future as well as the present, 
 and is at once a grateful and a lasting reward. 
 
 Again, sir, by increasing the market for slaves, 
 you postpone and destroy the hope of extin- 
 guishing slavery by emancipation. It seems to 
 me that the reduction in the value of slaves, 
 however accomplished, is the only inducement 
 that will ever effect an abolition of slavery. The 
 multiplication of free States will, at the same 
 time, give room for emancipation, or, to speak 
 more accurately, for those who are emancipated. 
 This, I would respectfully suggest, is the only 
 effectual plan of colonization ; but it can never 
 take effect while it is the interest of owners to 
 pursue their slaves with so much avidity, or to 
 pay such prices for them. Increase the market, 
 and you keep up the value ; increase the num- 
 ber of slaveholding States, and you destroy the 
 possibility of emancipation, even if every part
 
 520 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 The Missouri Bill Restriction on the State. 
 
 [FEBRUARY, 1820. 
 
 ig us continually endangers the peace and 
 being of the Union by the irritation and 
 
 of the Union should desire it. You extend, in- 
 definitely, the formidable difficulties which al- 
 ready exist. 
 
 The political aspect of the subject is not less 
 alarming. The existence of this condition 
 amon 
 
 well being 
 
 animosity it creates between neighboring States. 
 It weakens the nation while it is entire : and, 
 if ever a division should happen, can any one 
 reflect without horror upon the consequences 
 that may be worked out of an extensively pre- 
 vailing system of slavery ? We are told, indeed, 
 both in the House and out of it, to leave the 
 matter to Providence. Those who tell us so 
 are, nevertheless, active and eager in the small- 
 est of their own concerns, omitting nothing to 
 secure success. Sir, we are endowed with fac- 
 ulties that enable us to judge and to choose ; to 
 look before and after, however imperfectly. 
 When these have been fairly and conscientiously 
 exerted, we may then humbly submit the con- 
 sequences, with a hope and belief, that, what- 
 ever they may be, they will not be imputed to us. 
 The issue of our counsels, however well meant, 
 is not in our hands. But if, for our own grati- 
 fication, regardless of all considerations of right 
 or wrong, of good or evil, we hug a vicious in- 
 dulgence to our bosom until we find it turning 
 to a venomous serpent, and threatening to sting 
 us to the heart, with what rational or consoling 
 expectation can we call upon Providence to tear 
 it away and save us from destruction ? 
 
 It is time to come to a conclusion ; I fear I 
 have already trespassed too long. In the effort 
 I have made to submit to the committee my 
 views of this question, it has been impossible to 
 escape entirely the influence of the sensation 
 that pervades this House. Yet, I have no such 
 apprehensions as have been expressed. The 
 question is, indeed, an important one; but its 
 importance is derived altogether from its con- 
 nection with the extension, indefinitely, of negro 
 slavery, over a land which I trust Providence 
 has destined for the labor and the support of 
 freemen. I have no fear that this question, 
 much as it has agitated the country, is to pro- 
 duce any fatal division, or even to generate a 
 new organization of parties. It is not a ques- 
 tion upon which we ought to indulge unreason- 
 able apprehensions, or yield to the counsels of 
 fear. It concerns ages to come and millions to 
 be born. It is, as it were, a question of a new 
 political creation, and it is for us, under Heaven, 
 to say what shall be its condition. If we im- 
 pose the restriction, it will, I hope, be finally 
 imposed. But if hereafter it should be found 
 right to remove it, and the State consent, we 
 can remove it. Admit the State, without the 
 restriction, the power is gone forever, and with 
 it are forever gone all the efforts that have been 
 made by the non-slaveholding States to repress 
 and limit the sphere of slavery, and enlarge and 
 extend the blessings of freedom. With it, per- 
 haps, is gone forever, the power of preventing 
 the traffic in slaves, that inhuman and detest- 
 
 able traffic, so long a disgrace to Christendom. 
 In future, and no very distant times, conveni- 
 ence, and profit, and necessity, may be found 
 as available pleas as they formerly were, and 
 for the luxury of slaves, we shall again involve 
 ourselves in the sin of the trade. We must not 
 presume too much upon the strength of our res- 
 olutions. Let every man who has been accus- 
 tomed to the indulgence, ask himself if it is not 
 a luxury, a tempting luxury, which solicits him 
 strongly and at every moment. The prompt 
 obedience, the ready attention, the submissive 
 and humble, but eager effort to anticipate com- 
 mand how flattering to our pride, how sooth- 
 ing to our indolence ! To the members from 
 the South, I appeal to know whether they will 
 suffer any temporary inconvenience, or any 
 speculative advantage to expose us to the dan- 
 ger. To those of the North, no appeal can be 
 necessary. To both, I can most sincerely say, 
 that, as I know my own views on this subject 
 to be free from any unworthy motive, so will I 
 believe that they likewise have no object but 
 the common good of our common country, and 
 that nothing would have given me more heart- 
 felt satisfaction than that the present proposition 
 should have originated in the same quarter to 
 which we are said to be indebted for the ordi- 
 nance of 1787. Then, indeed, would Virginia 
 have appeared in even more than her wonted 
 splendor ; and, spreading out the scroll of her 
 services, would have beheld none of them 
 with greater pleasure than that series which 
 began by pleading the cause of humanity in re- 
 monstrances against the slave trade, while she 
 was yet a colony, and, embracing her own act 
 of abolition and the ordinance of 1787, termi- 
 nated in the restriction on Missouri. Consider 
 what a foundation our predecessors have laid, 
 and behold, with the blessing of Providence, 
 how the work has prospered ! What is there, 
 in ancient or in modern times, that can be com- 
 pared with the growth and prosperity of the 
 States formed out of the Northwest Terri- 
 tory ? When Europeans reproach us with our 
 negro slavery ; when they contrast our repub- 
 lican bo.ist and pretensions with the existence 
 of this condition among us, we have our answer 
 ready it is to you we owe this evil; you 
 planted it here, and it has taken such root in 
 the soil that we have not the power to eradicate 
 it. Then, turning to the West, and directing 
 their attention to Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, 
 we can proudly tell them these are the offspring 
 of our policy and our laws, these are the free 
 productions of the Constitution of the United 
 States. But if, beyond this smiling region, they 
 should descry another dark spot upon the face 
 of the new creation another scene of negro 
 slavery, established by ourselves, and spreading 
 continually towards the further ocean, what 
 shall we say then ? No, sir, let us follow up the 
 work our ancestors have begun. Let us give to 
 the world a new pledge of our sincerity. Let the 
 standard of freedom be planted in Missouri, by 
 the hands of the constitution, and let its banner 

 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 521 
 
 FEBBUARY, 1820.] 
 
 The Missouri Bill Restriction on the State. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 wave over the heads of none but freemen men 
 retaining the image impressed upon them by 
 their Creator, and dependent upon none but 
 God and the laws. Then, as our republican 
 States extend, republican principles will go hand 
 in hand with republican practice the love of 
 liberty with the sense of justice. 
 
 Then y sir, the dawn beaming from the consti- 
 tution, which now illuminates Ohio, Indiana, and 
 Illinois, -will spread with increasing brightness 
 to the further West, till, in its brilliant lustre, the 
 dark spot which now rests upon our country shall 
 be forever hid from sight. Industry, arts, com- 
 merce, knowledge, will flourish, with plenty and 
 contentment for ages to come, and the loud 
 chorus of universal freedom re-echo, from the 
 Pacific to the Atlantic, the great truths of the 
 Declaration of Independence. Then, too, our 
 brethren of the South, if they sincerely wish it, 
 may scatter their emancipated slaves through 
 this boundless region, and our country, at length, 
 be happily freed forever from the foul stain and 
 curse of slavery. And if (may it be far, very 
 far distant) intestine commotion, civil dissension, 
 division, should happen, we shall not leave our 
 posterity exposed to the combined horrors of a 
 civil and servile war. If any man still hesitate, 
 influenced by some temporary motive of con- 
 venience, or ease, or profit, I charge him to 
 think what our fathers have suffered for us, and 
 then to ask his heart if he can be faithless to the 
 obligation he owes to posterity. 
 
 THURSDAY, February 10. 
 The Missouri Bill. 
 
 The House went into Committee of the Whole 
 on the Missouri bill. 
 
 Mr. SERGEAXT occupied nearly three hours in 
 continuation of the argument which he com- 
 menced yesterday in support of the Missouri 
 restriction the whole of which is given in pre- 
 ceding pages. When Mr. S. had concluded 
 
 Mr. P. P. BAKBOUR, of Virginia, addressed 
 the committee as follows : 
 
 Mr. Chairman : In rising to address you at 
 this time,. I feel that I labor under great disad- 
 vantages. I am about to embark in the discus- 
 sion of a subject which has already been greatly 
 exhausted. I am about to do this too at a period 
 of the day when talents of a higher order than 
 I can pretend to would scarcely command at- 
 tention. These circumstances are of themselves 
 sufficiently discouraging ; but the greatest diffi- 
 culty of my situation consists in the frame of mind 
 in which I fear the committee have been left by 
 the closing remarks of the member from Pennsyl- 
 vania, (Mr. SERGEANT,) who has just resumed 
 his seat. He made such persuasive appeals to 
 their feelings ; he painted in such glowing colors 
 of pathetic eloquence the horrors of slavery in 
 general, and particularly the agonizing scenes 
 of husbands separated from wives, and parents 
 torn from children, that I fear the agitations of 
 an excited sensibility will be unfriendly to the 
 
 dispassionate investigation and correct decision 
 of this great question. 
 
 If, sir, the cause which I have risen to defend, 
 required talents like those which I have just de- 
 scribed ; talents which, by exciting the sym- 
 pathies of the heart, cause the hearers to forget 
 the allegiance due to the judgment, then, in- 
 deed, I shonld abandon the unequal, the hope- 
 less contest, in which I should find myself 
 engaged. But the duty which devolves on me 
 is of a different kind : it is to endeavor, as far 
 as I can, to allay the tumult of feeling which 
 has just been excited, and then, in the language 
 of plain truth, to attempt to convince your 
 minds of the error of the gentleman's reasoning. 
 
 Let me, then, tell the gentleman that the pic- 
 ture which he has drawn of the suffering inci- 
 dent to domestic slavery in the South, is too 
 strong : that he has shaded it too deeply with 
 the coloring of his own imagination ; that, 
 though we do keep the yoke of servitude on the 
 necks of our fellow men, yet our humanity has 
 lightened its pressure ; that, though slavery, 
 disguise it as you will, is still a bitter draught, 
 yet the same humanity has lessened the bitter- 
 ness of this draught, by the infusion into it of 
 many drops of consolation ; that, in fine, such 
 has been the continually increasing melioration 
 in the condition of that people amongst us, that 
 they now in general experience the utmost de- 
 gree of indulgence which is compatible with the 
 relation of master and slave. 
 
 These remarks have been called forth by 
 those which were made by the member who 
 preceded me. I now beg leave to call your at- 
 tention to the very question before us, and I 
 Avill endeavor to subject it to the severest 
 scrutiny of which I am capable. The bill be- 
 fore us proposes to authorize the people of Mis- 
 souri to form a constitution and State govern- 
 ment. An amendment is offered to the bill, 
 which requires of the proposed State, as a tine 
 qua non to its admission into the Union, that it 
 should by a compact, irrevocable without the 
 consent of Congress, make a provision, the effect 
 of which would be to prevent the further intro- 
 duction of slaves into that State, and to eman- 
 cipate the children of all those now there. And 
 the question is, whether we have power to im- 
 pose this condition, which the amendment pro- 
 poses ? The advocates of the amendment con- 
 tend that we have the power ; on our part it is 
 contended that we have not 
 
 The question being thus precisely stated, I 
 will remind gentlemen, at the threshold of the 
 discussion, that they hold the affirmative ; that 
 therefore the burden of proof devolves on them. 
 I do not mention this from any apprehension of 
 the weakness of my position ; on the contrary, 
 such is my confidence in its strength, that I feel 
 I can with safety assume upon myself the bur- 
 den of proof, when it belongs to my opponents ; 
 but I wish it to be distinctly understood, that I 
 shall consider this as a gratuity on my part, and 
 not an act of duty. 
 
 Both the members from Pennsylvania (Mr.
 
 522 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OP THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 The Missouri Bill Restriction on the State. 
 
 [FEBRUARY, 1820. 
 
 HEMPIIILL and Mr. SERGEANT) have relied much 
 upon the ordinance of 1787, the sixth article of 
 which forbids slavery in the Northwestern Ter- 
 ritory, as showing the power of the Old Con- 
 gress" in relation to this subject. As this is an- 
 terior to the constitution, and as it may some- 
 what conduce to system to observe a chrono- 
 logical order, I beg leave first to examine the 
 character of that act, and what influence it ought 
 to have upon this question. This celebrated act 
 of the Old Congress has been called a usurpa- 
 tion. Gentlemen have expressed their astonish- 
 ment at this epithet. I am prepared, from the 
 most unquestionable authority, to prove the 
 charge; and for that purpose I beg leave to 
 read from the thirty-eighth number of the Fed- 
 eralist the following extract : " Congress (that 
 is, the Old Congress) have undertaken to do 
 more : they have proceeded to form new States ; 
 to erect temporary governments ; to appoint 
 officers for them ; and to prescribe the condi- 
 tions on which such States shall be admitted 
 into the Confederacy. All this has been done, 
 and without the least color of constitutional 
 authority."* These, sir, are the words of a 
 member (and, let me add, a distinguished mem- 
 ber) of the Federal Convention ; one who, after 
 he had contributed to the formation of the con- 
 stitution, devoted eight years of his life to its 
 
 * The phrase, " constitutional authority," as here used by 
 Mr. Madison, (who was the author of this number,) could 
 not apply to the Constitution of the United States, as the 
 ordinance was made before that Instrument It could only 
 refer to the Articles of Confederation, which gave the funda- 
 mental law to the Old Congress, and was, in fact, its consti- 
 tution ; and which, certainly, gave to the Congress none of 
 the powers exercised in the enactment of the ordinance ; 
 nor was it supposed to grant such powers at the time. The 
 power to acquire and to hold property, and the engagement 
 with the ceding States to dispose of the soil, and to build up 
 political communities upon it, was held to be the authority 
 for the ordinance ; nor is there any thing in the Federalist 
 incompatible with that idea. The paragraph, more fully 
 quoted than in the speech of Mr. BAKBOUK, is in these 
 words: "A very large proportion of this fund (western 
 land) has already been surrendered by individual States ; 
 and it may with reason be expected, that the remaining 
 Btates will not persist in withholding similar proofs of their 
 equity and generosity. We may calculate, therefore, that a 
 rich and fertile country, of an area equal to the inhabited 
 extent of the United States, will soon become a national 
 stock. Congress have assumed the administration of this 
 stock. They have begun to render it productive. Congress 
 have undertaken to do more : they have proceeded to form 
 new States to erect temporary governments to appoint 
 officers for them and to prescribe the conditions on which 
 such States shall bo admitted into the Confederacy. All this 
 has been done and done without the least color of consti- 
 tutional authority, yet no blame has been whispered no 
 alarm has been sounded."" I mean not, by any thing here 
 said, to throw censure on the measures which have been 
 pursued by Congress. I am sensible they could not have 
 done otherwise. 11 Now, this is very far from charging usur- 
 pation; it is justification, and approbation; and corresponds 
 with Mr. Madison's uniform conduct with respect to that 
 ordinance, for which he afterwards voted, as a law of Con- 
 gress, when it was adopted in 17S9. 
 
 actual administration. If then the Old Con- 
 gress, in the enactment of that ordinance, acted 
 without the least color of constitutional author- 
 ity, it is obvious that the act must be utterly 
 void, as an act of legislation. Has it force in 
 any other way ? Gentlemen, conscious of this 
 vital defect, have in effect conceded it, by rest- 
 ing its authority upon the footing of contract. 
 They say that, after the cession of Virginia, and 
 the enactment of that ordinance, it was sub- 
 mitted to Virginia for her ratification, and that 
 it was ratified. It has already been shown by 
 the Speaker, both from the resolution of Con- 
 gress and the act of the Virginia Legislature, 
 that it was an alteration in the number and di- 
 mensions of the States to be carved out of that 
 territory which was alone submitted, and which 
 therefore was alone intended to be decided. 
 But there are other insuperable objections to 
 this ordinance, considered upon the footing of a 
 contract, having any influence upon the present 
 question. 
 
 It has been correctly said, that, to make a 
 valid contract, there must be two parties. Now, 
 though Virginia should be considered as having 
 been competent, yet the Old Congress was not. 
 I have shown you that they had not the least 
 color of constitutional authority over the sub- 
 ject. It follows, then, that they were as little 
 competent to contract as to legislate in relation 
 to it. But, again, sir ; supposing the Old Con- 
 gress to have been a competent contracting 
 party, it is conceded on the other side that, con- 
 sidering the ordinance in the light of a contract, 
 the assent of Virginia was indispensable to its 
 validity. Now, sir, to make that at all analo- 
 gous to the present case, it is necessaiy that 
 France should give its assent to the proposed 
 restriction of slavery; because France, having 
 been the power which ceded Louisiana, stands 
 in the same relation to that country as Virginia 
 did to the Northwestern Territory. Surely, 
 then, there can be no weight due to this ordi- 
 nance as a precedent, when we reflect that it 
 emanated from men having no jurisdiction over 
 the subject-matter to which it relates ; and that 
 too at a time anterior to the formation of our 
 constitution, which is the only source of our 
 power, and which, I shall attempt to prove, 
 clearly gives us none such as is contended for. 
 
 I will now endeavor to show, beyond all 
 question, that the effect of the proposed amend- 
 ment is to diminish the rights and powers of 
 the citizens and State of Missouri. When this 
 amendment shall be passed, a citizen of Missouri 
 cannot carry into that State slaves from any 
 portion of the United States ; a citizen of Vir- 
 ginia will have the right to carry them into his 
 State. I ask you, sir, if these two citizens bo 
 equal ? And yec one of the clauses of the con- 
 stitution which I have referred to, and which, I 
 have shown, applies to the new States, declares 
 that " the citizens of each State shall enjoy all 
 the privileges and immunities of citizens in the 
 several States." It is said, however, that a 
 citizen of Pennsylvania cannot carry a slave
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 FEBRUARY, 1820.] 
 
 The Missouri Bill Restriction on the State. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 into that State, and that therefore the citizen 
 of Missouri stands on an equal footing with him. 
 I utterly deny the position. Gentlemen here 
 reason from fact to principle. Although such 
 .s the law of Pennsylvania, it is an act of their 
 own Legislature, which they were free to enact 
 or not, and to repeal at their will ; not so with 
 Missouri; for, in the first place, we in effect 
 decree it for them, and then declare it to be ir- 
 repealable without our consent. Let us leave 
 all the citizens of the United States at liberty, 
 by their own legislation, either to retain or 
 abolish slavery, and then they are all upon an 
 equal footing in point of right, as by the con- 
 stitution they are declared to be ; and if they 
 shall exercise that right in different ways, in 
 the several States, and thus put themselves in 
 different situations in point of fact, it is an act 
 of their own will, with which we have nothing 
 to do. 
 
 It is said, however, in a memorial presented 
 to us, that this principle would lead to mon- 
 strous consequences ; that if there were but a 
 single State in the Union which tolerated sla- 
 very, this principle would not only enable the 
 citizens of that State to carry slaves to a State 
 whose laws forbade it, but would even enable 
 citizens of the latter State to hold them con- 
 trary to their own laws. These consequences, 
 if they could follow, would indeed be monstrous, 
 but I think I shall be able to show that the fal- 
 lacy of reasoning which leads to them is still 
 more so. Our principle does not claim for the 
 citizens of one State greater privileges than cit- 
 izens of the other States enjoy, but the same 
 only. Now it is obvious, that, if a citizen of 
 Virginia could hold slaves in Pennsylvania, he 
 would enjoy greater privileges than a citizen of 
 that State. This obviates the first part of the 
 objection ; the second part is as easily obviated. 
 I have already shown you that the citizens of 
 two States are perfectly equal in point of right, 
 when they are left at liberty to retain or abolish 
 slavery. If the one retain and the other abolish 
 it, it is the exercise of their own will, expressed 
 by their own representatives, which produces 
 the difference in their situations. The true 
 principle is this: As in Virginia slavery is tol- 
 erated, a Pennsylvanian is equally with a Vir- 
 ginian entitled to hold a slave there ; as in 
 Pennsylvania slavery is not tolerated, the citi- 
 zens of neither State can hold a slave there ; 
 but it is competent for either State to vary its 
 legislative provisions in this respect at its own 
 will. 
 
 Let ns now see whether the proposed amend- 
 ment does not diminish the powers of Missouri 
 as a State. The standard by which to ascertain 
 the powers of a State is furnished, first, by the 
 grant of legislative power to Congress ; second- 
 ly, by the prohibitions upon the powers of the 
 States. All other powers not included in this 
 grant, or in these prohibitions, remain with the 
 States. Such is the explicit declaration of the 
 10th article of the amendments already quoted. 
 Now, sir, no man has protended that the power 
 
 is granted to the Federal Government to abolish 
 slavery, or that it is prohibited, to' the States to 
 retain it. According to the positive provision 
 of the 10th amendment, therefore, it is retained ; 
 and yet gentlemen are now about to exercise 
 this power as if it were granted to us. Gentle- 
 men will at once acknowledge that they would 
 not attempt this in relation to the old States ; 
 and why, sir? Do you answer that all powers 
 not delegated nor prohibited are reserved to 
 them? Then say I, you yourselves admit that 
 the same article which makes the reservation 
 of powers in favor of the old States applies to 
 the new, and consequently it cannot be so con- 
 strued as to justify, in relation to the new States, 
 what it forbids towards the old. If, then, the 
 prohibitions and the reservations of power 
 equally apply to the new States ; if, as I have 
 shown, it is not competent for us to enlarge the 
 powers of the States, either by surrendering 
 any of our legislative powers, or by removing 
 any of the prohibitions, it follows, necessarily, 
 that we cannot diminish them by breaking in 
 upon the fund which they have reserved. The 
 same constitution which contains the grant to 
 us, and the prohibition upon the States, secures 
 to them the enjoyment of the remainder. 
 
 An attempt has been made, however, to dis- 
 tinguish this subject from the general rule, aris- 
 ing out of the constitution, upon this ground : 
 that slavery was a question adjusted by com- 
 promise, and that therefore no States but those 
 which were the original parties to the constitu- 
 tion can claim the benefit of that compromise. 
 I think it will be found, sir, that this position is 
 just as untenable as the various others from 
 which gentlemen have, I trust, been driven. 
 There were other subjects besides slavery ad- 
 justed by compromise ; I will mention the most 
 prominent one that of an equal representation 
 in the Senate. This is incontestably proven by 
 the circumstance that, in the clause providing 
 for amendments, it is declared that the consti- 
 tution shall not even be so amended as to de- 
 prive any State of its equal suffrage in the Sen- 
 ate without its own consent ; this is the only 
 provision which is forever put beyond the reach 
 of amendment, in the ordinary mode. Now, 
 sir, this was emphatically the work of a com- 
 promise in a vital part of the constitution ; the 
 principle of gentlemen, if true, would lead to 
 the conclusion that the new States were not 
 entitled to the benefit of this provision, because 
 they were not parties to the compromise ; yet 
 no gentleman will maintain this position ; and 
 if he will not, he must give up the other upon 
 the subject of slavery. Gentlemen complain of 
 what they consider injustice, in the Southern 
 representation being increased by their slaves ; 
 if they could even show this, yet they could 
 not in this way attempt to alter it. But, upon 
 their own grounds, I am prepared to show that 
 the hardship is on our side ; for this purpose I 
 beg leave to introduce to your attention Vir- 
 ginia and Indiana ; the whole representation of 
 Virginia in this llouse is twenty-three, of which
 
 524 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OP E.] 
 
 The Missouri Bill Restriction on the State. 
 
 [FEBKUARY, 1820. 
 
 number she is entitled to sixteen from her free 
 population, artd Jo seven from her slaves ; Indi- 
 ana, in this House, is entitled to one member ; 
 Virginia, then, has a right to sixteen times as 
 many members here as Indiana, even from her 
 free population ; but in the Senate, Indiana, by 
 a provision of the constitution, irrevocable 
 without her own consent, is equal to Virginia. 
 It thus appears that, whilst in one House, Vir- 
 ginia, by her slaves, receives an increase of less 
 than one-half her representation, Indiana, in the 
 other, has her relative weight multiplied fifteen 
 times, and that, too, as I have shown, by an ir- 
 repealable provision of the constitution, without 
 her own consent. "Whilst Virginia is liable, by 
 an amendment of the constitution even against 
 her consent, to be deprived of that part of her 
 representation which she derives from her 
 slaves. I will say nothing about our being 
 taxed on account of our slaves, in the same pro- 
 portion in which they increase our representa- 
 tion, as that has been already presented to 
 you. 
 
 But, say gentlemen, the powers which the 
 constitution does not give us, we can get from 
 the several States by compact. They say that 
 both the United States and the State of Missouri 
 are competent to make a contract ; and that if 
 the one party make a proposition, and the other 
 accept it, this is obligatory on them both. 
 Even if this principle were true, an abundant 
 answer is furnished by an argument which I 
 believe has been already urged, and which I 
 shall therefore only state, without pursuing it ; 
 it is that, by the treaty, which was a compact 
 prior in point of time, and paramount in point 
 of obligation, the people of Missouri have ac- 
 quired certain rights, that therefore it is not 
 competent for you merely because you are the 
 stronger, to say that you will not comply with 
 its stipulations unless they will agree to another 
 compact, the effect of which will be to deprive 
 them of one of the rights which I shall attempt 
 hereafter to show, when I come to speak of the 
 treaty more at large, it gave them. 
 
 I ask, then, if this amendment prevail, will 
 Missouri govern herself by her own authority 
 and laws, in relation to the subject of slavery ? 
 On the contrary, do we not, by the amendment, 
 say to her, that she shall in the first instance 
 submit to our will, contrary to her own, and 
 that not by an act of ordinary legislation, but 
 by one which we require to be made irrevocable 
 without our consent ? If it be said that ours is 
 not a foreign interference, I answer in the lan- 
 guage which I have formerly used, that, as to 
 any subject over which a power is not given to 
 the General Government and I trust I have 
 proven this is one of that kind that Govern- 
 ment is a foreign one to the States, as much as 
 any Government in Europe. But it is asked, 
 whether it is essential to sovereignty that a 
 State should have slavery in its bosom ? I an- 
 swer no, sir ; but it is of the very essence of 
 sovereignty that a State should have the power 
 of deciding for itself whether it will or will not 
 
 tolerate slavery. Gentlemen pressed by this 
 reasoning retreat to another ground ; they say 
 that slavery is a moral wrong, and as such can- 
 not be the subject of sovereignty; I answer 
 that it is essential to sovereignty, and the high- 
 est act of its exercise, to decide what is em- 
 braced within its limits, and that the very act 
 of one Government attempting to decide this 
 question for another is a glaring violation of the 
 sovereignty of that other; I answer further, 
 that sovereignty, in relation to the internal 
 concerns of a State, has no limits but the discre- 
 tion and moral sense of the State itself, unless 
 it relate to a subject the power over which has 
 been specially delegated, and it has been the 
 purpose of my whole argument to prove that 
 this has not been so delegated. Suppose that a 
 State, like ancient Sparta, should by its laws 
 even sanction the barbarous practice of putting 
 their Helots to death ; suppose that it was so 
 lost to the moral sense as to permit the most 
 enormous crimes against the laws of morality 
 or religion to escape with impunity ; have we 
 the power to interfere in these matters of mu- 
 nicipal legislation, unless it be in relation to a 
 subject over which the constitution gives us 
 power ? I must be pardoned for repeating, that 
 we have no more than one of the Governments 
 of Europe. 
 
 But in whatever light we look upon the sub- 
 ject of slavery, whether as a moral wrong or 
 not, whether as a rightful subject-matter of sov- 
 ereign power or not, we know that it existed in 
 many of the old States av the formation of the 
 constitution; that it has continued to exist; 
 that there are several clauses in the constitution 
 which have direct reference to it, giving pro- 
 tection to the master in reclaiming the services 
 of his slave, and conferring political power, and 
 creating a liability to taxation, with an acknowl- 
 edged view to this kind of population ; this is 
 admitted by all to be the case, as it respects the 
 old States ; I have shown, again and again, that 
 the new States and their citizens have all the 
 rights, privileges, immunities, and powers of the 
 old States. If, then, it be a right, or, if you 
 please, a wrong, in the old States and their 
 citizens, to hold slaves beyond our control, then 
 the new States and their citizens claim the same 
 right, or the same wrong, call it by what name 
 you please. 
 
 It has been said by the two gentlemen from 
 Pennsylvania, (Messrs. HEMPHILL and SER- 
 GEANT,) that the States had the right to admit 
 new States upon conditions to be prescribed by 
 themselves; and it has been asked, what has 
 become of that power? If they have given to 
 Congress the simple power of admission, is the 
 other part of the power annihilated, or does it 
 yet remain with the States? To these ques- 
 tions I answer, without difficulty, that the 
 States did possess the power of admitting upon 
 condition ; that this part of their power is 
 neither annihilated, nor does it remain with 
 them ; that they have given to Congress the 
 power to admit, and that they have declared
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 525 
 
 FEBRUARY, 1820.] 
 
 The Missouri Bill Restriction on the State. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 the terms and conditions of that admission in 
 the various provisions of the constitution. 
 
 Sir, the conclusion of the whole matter is 
 this : The States which were the original par- 
 ties to the constitution, have given to Congress 
 the power of extending indefinitely the terri- 
 tory over which their dominion is to be exer- 
 cised, by the admission of new States; but they 
 have not given to Congress the right to increase 
 their capital stock of power, either by taking, 
 by their own will or by the joint will of them- 
 selves and any State or States, any attribute of 
 their sovereignty ; the first would be an injury 
 to the individual State from which it was taken, 
 the second would be an injury to all the States 
 which compose the Confederacy. No, sir, the 
 sum of the power of Congress is fixed by the 
 terms of the constitution in a manner irrevoca- 
 ble, except in the mode prescribed for amend- 
 ment ; the States have not intrusted to any body 
 of men on earth a power which might enable 
 them to disturb the political balance, which is 
 adjusted with so much care in the constitution ; 
 they have not left it to Congress to make the 
 new States either greater or smaller than them- 
 selves, but have made their own political di- 
 mensions, as marked out in the constitution, 
 the precise standard for the formation of those 
 States which should come into their family by 
 adoption. 
 
 The next clause from which the right to im- 
 pose this restriction is derived, is that which 
 gives us power to make all needful rules and 
 regulations respecting the territory of the United 
 States. I do not propose to go into the general 
 question, how far our power extends over the 
 territories, as such : that question will hereafter 
 be distinctly presented to our consideration. 
 Deferring, therefore, the general inquiry till 
 that occasion, I beg leave to remind the com- 
 mittee that, as it respects the now Territory of 
 Missouri, we have, by one of our own regula- 
 tions, given it a legislative body ; that we have 
 extended to that body the whole power of legis- 
 lation, subject only to the limitation that their 
 laws shall not be inconsistent with the consti- 
 tution and laws of the United States ; a limita- 
 tion to which every State in the Union is equally 
 subject : the question of slavery is one of a 
 legislative character; it therefore already be- 
 longs to them to decide it by our own grant. 
 Let me ask gentlemen, can a grant of political 
 power be revoked at the will of those who 
 grant it ? Would it not excite some surprise in 
 this hall, to talk of revoking a common charter 
 of incorporation, such as that of the Bank of 
 the United States, unless for some cause of for- 
 feiture of that charter? I do not mean now to 
 say what the extent of the legislative power is, 
 in relation to that subject ; some modern writers 
 of merit seem to countenance the idea that 
 there are strong cases, in which it would be a 
 legitimate exercise of power ; but of this I am 
 sure, that this House would not undertake to 
 revoke the most common charter which they 
 had granted, unless for some act of forfeiture ; 
 
 and yet it seems to be thought by many an act 
 quite of ordinary legislation, to revoke the most 
 exalted charter which can be created that of 
 the grant of legislative power. If you can take 
 from a Territory a power of this kind, when 
 once granted, what would hinder you from re- 
 pealing the very act by which you would admit 
 the same Territory into the Union ? They are 
 both grants of political power, differing only in 
 degree. But, sir, let this question be as it may 
 concerning the Territories, all further inquiry 
 into which I shall defer till that subject comes 
 up, it has no application to the present case, 
 which is the admission of a State. Whatever 
 is our power over the Territories, it is acknowl- 
 edged that it co-exists with the Territorial 
 condition, and that when that ceases the power 
 over them, as such, ceases also. It is acknowl- 
 edged that we could not impose this condition 
 after the State is admitted ; and yet it is con- 
 tended, that it may be done just before its ad- 
 mission, by virtue of a Territorial power, which 
 must necessarily exist at the moment when the 
 admission takes place ; in a word, it is argued 
 that, by virtue of a power confessedly tempo- 
 rary, we can impose a condition, in its character 
 perpetual, if we so will. I cannot show the 
 glaring impropriety of this position in so palpa- 
 ble a mode as by likening it to a case of munici- 
 pal law. Let us put the case of guardian and 
 ward. A guardian has power to make leases of 
 his ward's land, during his minority, and to ex- 
 pire with it ; the moment after his ward reaches 
 majority he has no power over the estate ; and 
 yet, sir, upon the principle now contended for, 
 he might enter into a contract the day before 
 the minority ceased, which would bind the 
 ward and his heirs forever. If such a proposi- 
 tion as this were stated in the judicial hall, in 
 another part of this Capitol, the gentleman 
 would be told that it could not even be received 
 for discussion. 
 
 The next clause in the constitution, from 
 which the power to impose this restriction is 
 attempted to be derived, is that by which it is 
 declared "that migration or importation of 
 such persons as any of the States now existing 
 shall think proper to admit, shall not be pro- 
 hibited prior to the year 1808." Under this it 
 is contended that slaves may be prevented from 
 passing from one State to another. It has al- 
 ready been properly said, that if that were the 
 correct construction, it ought, being legislative 
 power, to be executed by an act of Congress, 
 having equal effect upon all the States, and not 
 by an irrevocable compact, operating on one 
 only. But, sir, independently of this objection, 
 there are two other answers to the argument 
 attempted to be derived from this clause, which 
 I consider conclusive. The first is, that the 
 word migration implies to freemen, not dares. 
 The origin and received acceptation of the term 
 prove tliis. I think I cau show it, too, by re- 
 ference to the probable -object of the clause, 
 and the conflicting interests of different sections 
 of the country which it attempted to reconcile.
 
 526 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 The Missouri Bill Restriction on the State. 
 
 UEBHCAKY, 1820. 
 
 Let it be recollected that the constitution en- 
 titled the slaveholding States to a representa- 
 tion founded, in a certain proportion, upon 
 their slave population. Now, sir, I think it 
 fair to conclude, as it was agreed that Congress 
 should not have the power to prohibit the im- 
 portation of slaves prior to 1808, by which im- 
 portation the representation of the slaveholding 
 States would be increased, that the jealousy of 
 the non-slaveholding States required as an off- 
 set to this, that the migration of free persons, 
 by which their representation would be in- 
 creased, should not be prohibited till the same 
 period. But, sir, there is an answer, arising 
 from the phraseology of the clause, which seems 
 to me to put an end to the question ; the words 
 are, "The migration or importation of such 
 persons as any of the States now existing shall 
 think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited." 
 Now, this word " admit" proves incontestably 
 that the word migration, whether it relates to 
 free persons or slaves, looks to persons coming 
 from abroad ; for, if they were already in the 
 States, they could not be admitted. Sir, it 
 would be a solecism in language to talk of ad- 
 mitting a man into a house who was already 
 in it. 
 
 But, sir, the strongest objection lies yet be- 
 hind. The law which I have supposed, upon 
 the model of this amendment, emancipates the 
 children of all the slaves now in Maryland. Is 
 this, too, a regulation of commerce? It is a 
 contradiction in terms, to give it such a name. 
 This last part of the bill, sir, is most alarming 
 in its consequences, for it goes directly to the 
 emancipation of slavery throughout the whole 
 United States, after the present generation shall 
 become extinct ; that is, in the life of one man 
 for, whilst the candles are all burning though 
 millions may be embraced, yet the life of the 
 longest liver terminates the period. And have 
 you the power to emancipate the children of 
 acknowledged slaves? Yes, says one gentle- 
 man from Pennsylvania, (Mr. HEMPHILL,) for he 
 asked, can a man have a vested interest in an 
 unborn human being? And he answered, no. 
 If this be the doctrine, sir, though that gentle- 
 man did not apply it, and I believe did not in- 
 tend to apply it to the old States, I repeat 
 again, that it proclaims universal emancipation, 
 after failure of the present generation of slaves. 
 Sir, it is of no importance that the present Con- 
 gress do not apply it ; we are but actors who 
 fret our busy hour upon the stage, and then pass 
 away ; others will come to act their parts, and 
 these principles may then be put into practical 
 execution, in their utmost extent. I will not 
 detain the committee to prove that a property 
 in the parent implies property in the progeny. 
 The maxim " Partus sequitur ventrem" is as 
 old as the civil law ; it is founded upon the im- 
 mutable principle, that wherever I have prop- 
 erty in the capital stock, I have the same prop- 
 erty in its products. . He who owns the land 
 owns all the fruit Avhich it produces. If, then, 
 you may admit my property in the parent, you 
 
 cannot deny it in the child. If, indeed, yon 
 deny my right to a vested interest in an unborn 
 human being, you may, perhaps, go one step 
 further, and deny the same interest in those 
 who now exist. The argument is as strong in 
 one case as the other. Assume but this princi- 
 
 Sle, and then you need not wait for futurity to 
 o this great work of emancipation. No, sir, 
 you may say at once to every bondman in the 
 United States, you are free. 
 
 I have now, sir, finished my view of this 
 question. I believe, upon my conscience, that 
 the proposed restriction is a violation of the 
 constitution ; I trust I have proven it ; if I 
 have, or if there be even serious doubt, I con- 
 jure the committee to pause before they take 
 the step proposed ; sir, it was long a desidera- 
 tum in politics to devise a Government like 
 ours, which should, by the union of many sov- 
 ereign States, each retaining its sovereignty for 
 municipal purposes, combine the strength of a 
 monarchy with the freedom of a republic. With 
 us it is " in the full tide of successful experi- 
 ment." Let us not take any course calculated 
 to arrest its success ; such, I fear, will be the 
 unhappy tendency of the present measure. Let 
 it not be supposed that, I come here the apostle 
 of disunion ; no, sir, I look upon the Union of 
 these States as the ark of our political safety ; 
 if that be lost, we may bid farewell, a long fare- 
 well, to all our pleasing hopes and fond antici- 
 pations of future greatness and glory. They 
 will be as the illusions of a deceitful dream. 
 But, whilst I deprecate disunion as the most 
 tremendous evil, I cannot shut my eyes against 
 the light of experience ; I cannot turn a deaf ear 
 to the warning voice of history ; from these we 
 learn that harmony is the spirit which can alone 
 animate and sustain a confederate republic. 
 Whilst this spirit exists, it is displayed in acts 
 of legislation reciprocally beneficent to every 
 member of the confederacy, and these become 
 new ligaments to bind them together in the 
 bonds of brotherhood ; this spirit is not all at 
 once extinguished, nor are the bonds of union 
 suddenly burst asunder; but when, instead of 
 this beneficent spirit of legislation which I have 
 described, a different course prevails, this spirit 
 of harmony gives way successively to jealousy, 
 distrust, and, finally, discord ; let but this last 
 spring up amongst us, you may consider the 
 days of the Eepublic as numbered, and that it 
 is fast hastening to its dissolution. 
 
 When that sad catastrophe shall befall us, this 
 noble Confederacy, which, in its undivided state, 
 could stand against a world in arms, will be 
 broken, if not into its constituent parts, into 
 some minor confederacies, the victims of for- 
 eign intrigue and of their own border hatred. 
 Where, then, will be your commerce which 
 covers every sea ? Where your army and navy^ 
 the means of your defence, the instruments of 
 your glory ? They will be remembered only to 
 make the contrast with your then situation 
 more painful. What will become, then, of this 
 boundless tract of western land, the subject of
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 527 
 
 FEBRUARY, 1820.] 
 
 The Missouri Bill Restriction on the State. 
 
 [H. OP R. 
 
 the present contest, which has poured, and 
 would continue to pour, such rich streams of 
 wealth into your treasury? It may become 
 the theatre on which the title to itself may be 
 decided, not by Congressional debate, not by 
 construction of treaties or constitutions, but by 
 that force which always begins where constitu- 
 tions end. I conjure you then, beware, lest, by 
 this measure, you excite the discontent of one- 
 half of the Union, by legislating injuriously to 
 them, upon a subject in which they have so 
 deep a stake of interest, and you have none in 
 point of property ; take care that you do not 
 awaken the painful reflection, that the federal 
 arm is strong only to destroy. I hope and trust 
 that the wisdom of our councils may be such as 
 to avert these evils ; but he knows little of the 
 human character, who does not fear that conse- 
 quences like these may follow, if the hand from 
 which the greatest good is looked for, be the 
 one which deals out the deepest injury. 
 
 God grant that, in deciding this question, we 
 may bear in mind this excellent motto, " United 
 we stand, divided we fall." 
 
 SATURDAY, February 12. 
 The Missouri Bill. 
 
 The House then resolved itself into a Com- 
 mittee of the Whole on this bill. The proposed 
 restriction being still under consideration 
 
 Mr. PINDALL, of Virginia, said, gentlemen 
 who insisted to impose this restriction on Mis- 
 souri had not asserted the existence of any su- 
 preme, fundamental, or national law of this con- 
 tinent which would of itself inhibit slavery in 
 the new States. Ifo one had contended that 
 the Constitution of the United States contained 
 any precept precluding the admission of slave- 
 holding States, but the position so eagerly urged 
 was, that, although the Federal Constitution did 
 not inhibit slavery, yet it vested in Congress 
 such powers as enabled that body to exercise 
 the discretion of requiring the insertion of such 
 a provision in the constitution of a new State. 
 The question, continued Mr. P., then is, not 
 whether there be a fundamental principle or 
 supreme law inhibiting slavery, but whether 
 there is in this country a tribunal or legislative 
 council having a discretion superior to the pow- 
 er of the people when assembled in convention. 
 That this is the posture in which the question 
 presents itself, is evident, for that portion of the 
 State constitution which you now propose to 
 make for Missouri, has not been assented to, and 
 probably would not be assented to, by the peo- 
 ple of Missouri, nor have the people of the Unit- 
 ed States assented to the proposal, or ever had 
 an opportunity of listening to it in convention. 
 
 The Federal Convention is a national, or 
 rather international compact, in which the re- 
 lations of sovereignty between the respective 
 States and between those States and the Gene- 
 ral Government are prescribed, adjusted, and 
 limited. If gentlemen object to this description 
 of the constitution, they are requested to fur- 
 
 nish their own definition of the instrument, 
 which I trust will afford the conclusion which I 
 am in quest of. Yielding me this description of 
 the constitution, it will follow that a change in 
 the relations thus established and defined be- 
 tween the States and this Government, neces- 
 sarily involves an alteration of the Federal 
 Constitution. The positive and express requisi- 
 tion on the part of Congress, of a particular pro- 
 vision in the constitution of Missouri, to remain 
 irrevocable by that State and the people thereof, 
 unless by the concurrence of this Government, 
 must seek an alteration or amendment of the 
 Federal Constitution, inasmuch as it would, by 
 the introduction of a new fundamental prin- 
 ciple, alter and vary those relations between the 
 States, and between the States and this Govern- 
 ment, which had been previously adjusted and 
 ascertained by the great federal compact ; and 
 that such alteration cannot have place merely 
 by an act of Congress, is manifested by the con- 
 stitution, which has required a more difficult 
 process of amendment. Gentlemen who sup- 
 port this restriction derive their title to inter- 
 fere, from the power to admit new States on 
 discretionary conditions ; and the Federal Con- 
 stitution being here again silent, they de- 
 duce their authority to annex such conditions, 
 through the avenue of inferences from some 
 other delegated power. They have been re- 
 minded that it was illicit to infer any power 
 which, when assumed, would remain destitute 
 of limitations, as the whole design of the instru- 
 ment might, by such means, be subverted, and 
 they have sought to meet the suggestion by an- 
 nouncing supposed boundaries to their favorite 
 power. These boundaries, however, are the 
 mere dictates of ordinary prudence, and to be 
 supported only by the discretion and good sense 
 of Congress ; boundaries equally applicable to 
 the powers of unlimited discretion ; as different 
 in their exercise as the moral sentiments or 
 affections of men differ, and the property as 
 well of absolute monarchies as of republics. 
 
 The Convention of 1787 was not satisfied to 
 limit the political faculties of this Government 
 to dimensions which our own prudence should 
 suggest, but afforded limitations of equal force 
 and authenticity with the delegation of powers, 
 and, as it has professed so to do in all cases, I 
 can admit of no inference of power in any case, 
 unless the just extension and proportion of that 
 power can be shown also from the constitution. 
 I must say to a gentleman from Pennsylvania, 
 and others, who have dwelt so copiously on the 
 wisdom of the Federal Legislature, and the 
 safety of the country in relying on its discre- 
 tion,"that I do not partake in their confidence ; 
 but, on the contrary, my diffidence, nay, dis- 
 trust, increases in proportion to the eager soli- 
 citude of gentlemen from one-half of the Union, 
 to legislate on subjects in which neither them- 
 selves nor their constituents have any interest 
 or concern, and on which the country must of 
 course bo destitute of the common pledges for 
 the rectitude of our deliberation.
 
 528 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 The Missouri Bill Restriction on the State. 
 
 [FEBRUARY, 1820. 
 
 Gentlemen have found it necessary to impose 
 a heavy emphasis on the power of Congress to 
 admit new States into the Union, which, im- 
 plying the power to refuse such admission, 
 clothes that hody, it is said, with an authority 
 to prescribe the condition on which a State shall 
 be admitted. This, however, is an error which, 
 notwithstanding its plausible aspect, can be 
 readily refuted by comparing this grant of au- 
 thority with the structure of the Federal Gov- 
 ernment ; preparatory to which it is scarcely 
 necessary to remark, that the faculties of Con- 
 gress, arising from the constitution, are so gov- 
 erned by the nature of the objects on which 
 they are to operate, that the rules of interpre- 
 tation as respects one of our grants of power, 
 may have no application in relation to another ; 
 for, whilst under one grant of power we are 
 launched into a wide field of legislation, bridled 
 only by self-prudence, another delegation (such, 
 for instance, as we exercise in counting the 
 votes of the Presidential electoral college) con- 
 fines us to the narrow path of duty usually con- 
 fided to mere ministerial agents. If our legis- 
 lative acts may, in some cases, be made to depend 
 for their efficacy on arbitrary conditions, it will 
 not from hence follow that all the capacities of 
 the constitution could be thus handled. We 
 may declare war, or impose taxes, accompanied 
 with such modifications as we please ; and Gov- 
 ernment, in making a compact with a foreign 
 power, may stipulate its conditions and terms, 
 without which, indeed, it would be no com- 
 pact; but, in admitting new States into the 
 Union, we have no authority, nor is it necessary 
 we should have power to stipulate conditions ; 
 for, the people of the United States, whose ser- 
 vants we are, and in whose right we act, have 
 themselves stipulated the conditions and terms 
 of the compact ; for, in all the articles of the 
 Federal Constitution are found a full and fair 
 designation of the rights acquired and obliga- 
 tions incurred by the adopted State. That in- 
 strument or treaty distinctly expresses the mu- 
 tual advantages and duties which are to subsist 
 between the adopted State and the old States 
 and the Federal Government. The people of 
 the old States have made a contract of limited 
 partnership ; they have also conferred on us a 
 special power to admit (in our discretion, if you 
 please) additional partners into the firm under 
 the old compact, but have not authorized us to 
 change the contract itself, or substitute a new 
 one in its place. 
 
 I shall not insist that Congress can prescribe 
 no sort of condition, under any circumstances 
 whatever, on the admission of a new State, but 
 ground myself on positions which entitle me to 
 warn my adversaries that, even if they show a 
 right to propose or require one condition, they 
 will not have established their title to impose 
 conditions of a different import. If gentlemen 
 will assert our right to require the previous pay- 
 ment of a sum of money by Missouri, as the 
 price of her admission, in like manner as a bo- 
 nus was paid by the Bank of the United States, I 
 
 I might yield to the claim ; by which, however, 
 they would gain nothing in this contest, for, 
 after Missouri would pay the money and be in- 
 ducted into the Union, she would immediately 
 require all the political rights claimed by any 
 other State. Impose (if you please) conditions 
 without which Missouri shall not be admitted, 
 but you shall not impose conditions which would 
 deprive her, after her admission, of portions of 
 her sovereignty, which the Federal Constitu- 
 tion guaranties or tolerates, nor shall you, in 
 any wise, change those relations of sovereignty 
 which the constitution supposes ought to exist 
 between the States and this Government, as 
 you would thereby, in effect, substitute a new 
 constitution, in lieu of that already sanctioned 
 by the people. 
 
 The advocates of the restriction have quoted 
 the compact between Virginia and Kentucky, 
 when the latter was erected into a State, which 
 they suppose affords an instance of the capa- 
 city of a State to alienate a portion of its su- 
 preme power. A recurrence to that compact 
 will manifest that nothing of the kind \vas ef- 
 fected or attempted. The stipulations either 
 relate to objects which impose no municipal re- 
 straints on the supremacy of Kentucky, or are 
 merely declaratory of a reciprocity of rights 
 and du .ies which would have had place, with- 
 out such declaration, either by force of the law 
 of nations or the Federal Constitution, but 
 were inserted from abundant caution. Thus, 
 the lands of non-residents of Kentucky were 
 not to be taxed higher than the lands of resi- 
 dents ; a result which the Constitution of the 
 United States had already virtually secured, 
 &c. But, if I am wrong in this, I pray gentle- 
 men to put their own interpretation on the 
 compact between Virginia and Kentucky, and 
 show me the aid they expect to derive from it. 
 Let me, then, admit the compact stipulates to 
 transfer or impair the legislative power of one 
 of these States. This transfer, or subduction, 
 either deranges some of the adjustments of 
 power previously recognized by the Federal 
 Constitution, or it does not. If its tendency 
 be to derange the distribution of powers made 
 by the Federal Constitution, the compact thus 
 far, will be void. But ifj on the other hand, 
 the compact has no manner of collision with 
 the Federal Constitution, it will be valid, and 
 take its full effect, and be altogether severed 
 out of the residuary powers of these States, 
 which have not been surrendered to this Gov- 
 ernment. I would now submit this question : 
 It being admitted that the States have a capa- 
 city, growing out of the residuary powers, 
 whether it will hence follow that the Federal 
 Government can, out of its delegated powers, 
 do the same thing? I know of no middle 
 terms to serve an affirmative conclusion. 
 
 The same gentleman infers our power to es- 
 tablish the restriction from the capacity which 
 Congress possesses for its execution. Congress, 
 he says, may agree with the people of Mis- 
 souri, and hence they will assent to impose the
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 529 
 
 FEBRUARY, 1820.] 
 
 The Missouri Bill Restriction on the State. 
 
 [H. 
 
 restriction themselves. And, if they will not 
 otherwise assent. Congress may thwart their 
 wishes by making the Missouri Kiver the 
 boundary between contemplated States, and so 
 divide or subdivide the inhabitants as will not 
 only impose inconvenient dimensions on the 
 new States, but cause a postponement of the 
 time of their admission, until the population of 
 each of such divisions maybe sufficiently nu- 
 merous to form a State. I acknowledge that 
 powerful means are at the disposal of Congress, 
 which might produce a strong impression on 
 the fears of those who oppose our designs. 
 Indeed, Congress, having a legislative author- 
 ity over the present Territory, could adopt 
 rigid laws and regulations, to waste the estates 
 and persecute the persons of the obdurate and 
 refractory; nay, we could repeal the militia 
 system of the Territory, withdraw the frontier 
 posts and troops, inhibit the passage of succors 
 across the Mississippi, and thereby encourage 
 the Osage, and other Indians, to a war which 
 would probably bring the Missourians to a more 
 mature consideration of the expediency of 
 adopting our projects. These means, which 
 partake of the character of the measure pro- 
 posed by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, of 
 splitting their Territory by inconvenient parti- 
 tion lines, manifest the physical, not the moral 
 power of Congress ; after the manner of the 
 highwayman, who demonstrates to the satisfac- 
 tion of his victim, his physical, but not his 
 moral or just title to the money he designs to 
 acquire; and much in the way of the King 
 who prevailed with the Jewish banker to loan 
 him his money, by exercising over him the 
 power (appertaining to sovereignty, too) of 
 drawing a tooth each day, until the contract of 
 loan was ratified. 
 
 If Congress has the power to impose the re- 
 striction, it must first be derived from the leg- 
 islative powers of the constitution ; or, sec- 
 ondly, it must be acquired by the capacity of 
 this Government to make a compact for that 
 object with Missouri. Those who assent to 
 the first, or legislative power, have relied 
 greatly on the clause which inhibits Congress 
 from preventing the migration or importation 
 of such persons as the States may think proper 
 to admit previous to the year 1818, which they 
 suppose implies a right in Congress to prohibit 
 the migration from State to State after that 
 epoch. Before I submit my own views in re- 
 lation to this clause of the constitution, permit 
 me to make a remark in corroboration of the 
 opinions of the gentleman from Georgia, (Mr. 
 REID,) and other non-restrictionists, who con- 
 tend that the word migration was inserted in 
 the constitution from abundant caution, lest the 
 word importation should not imply a full and 
 effectual authority sought to be invested in 
 Congress to prohibit the bringing in slaves from 
 foreign countries, under all circumstances. 
 
 Every act of Congress, passed since the ] 
 adoption of the Government, to discourage or j 
 prohibit the foreign slave trade, has used terms i 
 VOL. VI. 34 
 
 of prohibition additional to, and rather broader 
 than, simple importation ; in proof of which I 
 refer you to the acts of 22d March, 1794; 10th 
 May, 1800 ; 28th February, 1803 ; 2d March, 
 1807; and some amendatory laws, of later 
 dates. Without pretending to say whether a 
 mere authority to inhibit the importation of 
 slaves would have comprehended the prohibi- 
 tion of all the various modes by which the in- 
 troduction of slaves might be effected, I would 
 merely remark that there can be nothing 
 strange in believing that the Convention, in its 
 solicitude to prohibit the foreign trade, might 
 have deemed it prudent to employ the word 
 migration in addition to importation; as suc- 
 cessive legislative bodies, who certainly only 
 intended to prohibit the foreign trade, have 
 adopted a similar method of expression. And, 
 although our construction would, on a critical 
 scrutiny, convict this portion of the constitu- 
 tion of tautology, that of itself would not in- 
 validate the interpretation ; for the convention 
 may have deemed it better to risk such impu- 
 tation than a defeat or evasion of the legisla- 
 tive powers of Congress. Indeed, the consti- 
 tution abounds in tautological terms, instances 
 of which are seen in the declarations that no 
 State shall lay any imposts or duties on im- 
 ports ; and that no State shall make any agree- 
 ment or compact, &c. 
 
 I will beg leave to submit the view of this 
 migration or importation clause, which has pre- 
 vailed in my mind. That this clause, which 
 only prohibits Congress from the exercise of a 
 branch of its power until 1808, does not in it- 
 self confer any power on Congress, is yielded 
 by all ; and, on the other hand, I admit that 
 the temporary prohibition affords evidence that 
 the constitution contains a Congressional power 
 after 1808, correspondent to the prohibition. 
 The admission I make is of the existence of such 
 power after 1808 ; but the extent and more pre- 
 cise limitations of that power are different con- 
 siderations, and must be sought after in some 
 other place ; for, if you would make the excep- 
 tions or temporary prohibitions of the consti- 
 tution not only presumption? of the existence, 
 but evidence of the extent, of correspondent 
 powers, where such exception fails to operate, 
 the constitution would be totally perverted, and 
 the whole attitude of the Government become 
 inverted. "Would you infer from the prohibi- 
 tion to pass ex post facto laws, that Congress 
 can pass prospective laws in all cases whatso- 
 ever ; or from the prohibition to pass bills of 
 attainder, a power to pass all laws of a general 
 nature to punish crimes ; or from the prohibi- 
 tion of trial for capital offences, except by in- 
 dictment, that this Government can, by indict- 
 ment, punish all manner of offences? Or 
 would you not rather consider these inhibitions 
 as evidence of the mere existence of corre- 
 spondent powers, for the extent of which it was 
 necessary to refer to some other parts of the 
 constitution, in which the powers were grant- 
 ed ? The Convention of New York, in adopt-
 
 530 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OP R.] 
 
 The Missouri Bill Restriction on the State. 
 
 [FEBRUARY, 1820. 
 
 ing the Federal Constitution, accompanied the 
 ratification with some express declarations ; one 
 of which was, " that those clauses in the said 
 constitution which declare that Congress shall 
 not have or exercise certain powers, do not im- 
 ply that Congress is entitled to any powers not 
 given by the said constitution ; but such clauses 
 are to be construed either as exceptions to cer- 
 tain specified powers, or as inserted merely for 
 greater caution." Similar declarations were 
 made by the conventions of other States. I 
 am, therefore, authorized to require gentlemen 
 who pretend that the migration and importa- 
 tion clause is not satisfied by reference to the 
 power of Congress over th foreign slave trade, 
 to produce some other portion of the constitu- 
 tion conferring a more extensive authority. 
 
 It is proposed to negotiate a compact or 
 treaty with Missouri to insert an irrevocable 
 inhibition against slavery in her constitution. 
 This House is then made to partake with the 
 President and Senate in the treaty-making 
 power. Be it so. The convention of New 
 York, which ratified the Federal Constitution, 
 declared that no treaty should he construed so 
 to operate as to alter the constitution of any 
 State; but the delegation from that State seem 
 now to perceive that a treaty which can effect 
 no sort of alteration of an old constitution may 
 make a new one. The proposed stipulation 
 with Missouri would dislocate the tenth article 
 of the amendments to the constitution, which 
 declares that the powers not delegated to the 
 United States, nor prohibited by it to the States, 
 are reserved to the States respectively, or to 
 the people. This power in relation to domes- 
 tic slavery would not remain or be reserved to 
 the State or people of Missouri, but would be 
 withheld from them by this Government. As 
 the restriction or compact with Missouri would 
 grow out of an act of Congress, and as all acts 
 of Congress are objects of cognizance by the 
 Federal Judiciary, this Government, through 
 its Executive and Judiciary departments, would 
 succeed to a sort of anomalous and invidious 
 authority in the domestic concerns of the new 
 State, unlike what is found in all the other 
 States, and contrary to any conception which 
 could have been entertained by the framers of 
 the Confederacy. The authors of the Federal- 
 ist, in expounding the constitution to the Amer- 
 ican people, and persuading them to its ratifica- 
 tion, urged that no apprehension should be en- 
 tertained of tyranny, or abuse of power, from 
 the General Government, inasmuch as the pow- 
 ers reserved to the States over the lives, liber- 
 ty, and property of the people, would insure 
 to the States a weight and influence sufficient 
 to check, and frequently eoatrol the operations 
 of the Federal Government. But what be- 
 comes of the balances of public security, (I ask 
 you,) if Congress be permitted to obliterate the 
 great lines of demarcation established by the 
 constitution, by buying in first one, and then 
 another, of the reserved rights of the States ? 
 By eueh means a few years hence might pre- 
 
 sent us a confederacy between this Government 
 and the new Western States, very different in 
 its character and import from the constitution 
 of the old thirteen States, and probably dan- 
 gerous to their safety, as it would comprehend 
 interests in which they could have no partici- 
 pation. 
 
 The treaty of the 30th of April, 1803, by 
 which France ceded Louisiana to the United 
 States, imposes an express obligation on this 
 Government to admit the inhabitants of the 
 ceded country into the Federal Union as soon 
 as possible. The gentleman from New York 
 (Mr. TAYLOR) has surprised us with an avowal 
 that the Government was not, and never would 
 be, bound to admit Missouri into the Union, as 
 a State, and that the requisition of the treaty 
 would be discharged by merely suffering that 
 country to remain appended by a Territorial 
 government. The terms of the treaty are, 
 however, too palpable to admit of hesitation ; 
 they provide both for the protection of the 
 country, as a territory, and for the admission 
 of the same afterwards, as a State or States ; 
 the third article providing that the inhabitants 
 shnll be incorporated in the union of the United 
 States, and admitted, as soon as possible, ac- 
 cording to the principles of the Federal Con- 
 stitution, to the enjoyment of all the rights, 
 advantages, and immunities, of citizens of the 
 United States, and, in the mean time, they shall 
 be protected, &c. It being not an act of Con- 
 gress, but the Federal Constitution, which is to 
 govern the admission, and it only providing for 
 the admission of new States, the admission as 
 a State or States must have been intended. 
 Permit me to ask the gentleman what is meant 
 by the protection to be afforded in the mean 
 time, or what that mean time is? 
 
 We have long been convinced that ours is 
 the only free country on earth ; that the colo- 
 nies adjacent to us are the objects of tyranny, 
 cruelty, and oppression, at all times willing to 
 become ours by revolt or otherwise, and that 
 the advantage of such connection is incalculable 
 to them. Let us, however, beware of the in- 
 
 pride. It is certain that Louisiana has been 
 aggrandized by her connection with the United 
 States, but a review of her condition, previous 
 to her change of masters, may occasion a doubt 
 whether the old inhabitants, on whose behalf 
 the stipulations of the treaty were inserted, 
 were improved in their circumstances by the 
 cession. The Spanish Government afforded the 
 inhabitants their land, gratuitously. By the 
 ordinance of 1Y93, the inhabitants of Louisiana 
 and the Floridas were admitted to a free com- 
 merce with Europe and America. No excep- 
 tion as to the articles sent or to be received. 
 Tobacco and all other articles, the introduction 
 of which into Spain had been prohibited from 
 other places, were allowed to be taken from 
 these provinces. The importation of foreign 
 rice into Spain was prohibited for the avowed 
 purpose of encouraging its growth in Louisiana
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 531 
 
 FEBRUARY, 1820.] 
 
 The Missouri Bill Restriction on the State. 
 
 [H. or R. 
 
 and the Floridas; all articles exported from 
 Spain to these provinces were free of duty, and 
 a drawback of the duties which had been paid 
 on foreign articles was allowed. The articles 
 exported from those provinces to Spain were 
 free of duty, whether consumed in Spain, or 
 re-exported to foreign countries. The same 
 ordinance had also provided that a preference 
 should he given to all the productions of Lou- 
 isiana and the Floridas, by prohibiting their 
 importation from foreign countries, whenever 
 those provinces should produce sufficient quan- 
 tities for the consumption of Spain. The gov- 
 ernments of these provinces were mild and 
 provident, having been guided by a policy 
 which afforded a security against Indian depre- 
 dation, which had not always been the good 
 fortune of our frontiers. I think, if this peo- 
 ple were indeed miserable, their sufferings were 
 not imputable to their old Government. We 
 have divorced them from their ancient associa- 
 tions, and given birth and encouragement in 
 that country to new objects of emulation, by 
 engaging to couple their destiny (in the lan- 
 guage of Governor Claiborne) with our own 
 unexampled prosperity, and the world must 
 now witness with what sincerity or ill faith we 
 are to meet the demand for a performance of 
 our compact. 
 
 MONDAY, February 14. 
 The Missouri Bill. 
 
 Mr. PIXCKXEY, of South Carolina, addressed 
 the Chair as follows : 
 
 Mr. Chairman : It was not my intention at 
 first, and it is not now my wish, to rise on this 
 important question : one that has been so much 
 and so ably discussed in both branches of Con- 
 gress : one that has been the object of so many 
 meetings of the people of the different States, 
 and of so many resolutions of the legislatures, 
 and instructions to their members: but I am 
 so particularly circumstanced, that it is impos- 
 sible to avoid it. Coming from one of the most 
 important of the Southern States, whose inter- 
 ests are deeply involved, and representing here 
 a city and district which, I believe, export more 
 of our native products than any other in the 
 Union ; having been also a member of the Old 
 Congress, some important acts of which are 
 brought into question on this occasion, and, 
 above all, being the only member of the Gen- 
 eral Convention which formed the Constitution 
 of the United States, now on this floor, and on 
 whose acts rests the great question in contro- 
 versy, how far you are or are not authorized to 
 adopt this measure, it will, from all these cir- 
 cumstances, be seen that it is impossible for me 
 to avoid requesting yoor permission to state 
 some observations in support of the vote I shall 
 give on a question, certainly the most impor- 
 tant that can come before Congress : one, to say 
 the least of it, on which may depend, not only 
 the peace, the happiness, and the best interests, 
 but, not improbably, the existence of that 
 
 Union which has been, since its formation, the 
 admiration of the world, and the pride, the 
 glory, and the boast, of every American bosom 
 that beats within it. 
 
 In performing this solemn duty, I trust I 
 shall do it with that deference to the opinions 
 of others which it is always my duty to show 
 on this respectable floor, and that I shall be as 
 short as the nature of the subject will permit, 
 and completely moderate. Indeed, in questions 
 of this importance, moderation appears to me 
 to be indispensable to the discovery of truth. 
 I, therefore, lament extremely that so much, 
 warmth has been unnecessarily excited, and 
 shall, in the remarks I may make, studiously 
 avoid, what I conceive the decorum of debate 
 ought to enjoin upon every member. 
 
 At the time I left, or sailed, from the city I 
 here represent, scarcely a word was said of the 
 Missouri question ; no man there ever supposed 
 that one of such magnitude was before you. I 
 therefore, have, since the serious aspect this 
 subject has assumed, received numerous in- 
 quiries on it, and wishes to know my opinion 
 as to the extent and consequences of it. I 
 have candidly replied, that, so far as respects 
 the regaining an ascendency on both the floors 
 of Congress ; of regaining the possession of the 
 honors and offices of our Government ; and of, 
 through this measure, laying the foundation of 
 forever securing their ascendency, and the 
 powers of the Government, the Eastern and 
 Northern States had a high and deep interest. 
 That, so far as respects the retaining the hon- 
 ors and offices and the powers of the Govern- 
 ment, and the preventing the establishment of 
 principles to interfere with them, the Southern 
 and Western States had equal interest with the 
 Northern. But, that, when we consider to 
 what lengths the right of Congress to touch the 
 question of slavery at all might reach, it be- 
 came one, indeed, of tremendous import. 
 
 Among the reasons which have induced me 
 to rise, one is to express my surprise. Sur- 
 prise, did I say ? I ought rather to have said, 
 my extreme astonishment, at the assertion I 
 heard made on both floors of Congress, that, in 
 forming the Constitution of the United States, 
 and particularly that part of it which respects 
 the representation on this floor, the Northern 
 and Eastern States, or, as they are now called, 
 the non-slaveholding States, have made a great 
 concession to the Southern, in granting them a 
 representation of three-fifths of their slaves; 
 that they saw the concession was a very great 
 and important one at the time, but that they 
 had no idea it would so soon have proved itself 
 of such consequence ; that it would so soon have 
 proved itself to be by far the most important 
 concession that had been made. They say, that 
 it was wrung from them by their affection to the 
 Union, and their wish to preserve it from dis- 
 solution or disunion ; that they had, for a long 
 tune, lamented they had made it ; and that, if 
 it was to do over, no earthly consideration 
 should again tempt them to agree to so unequal
 
 532 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OP R.] 
 
 The Missouri Bill Restriction on the State. 
 
 [FEBRUARY, 1820. 
 
 and BO ruinous a compromise. By this, I sup- 
 pose, Mr. Chairman, is meant, that they could 
 have had no idea that the Western and South- 
 ern States would have grown with the rapidity 
 they have, and filled so many of the seats in 
 this House ; in other words, that they would so 
 soon have torn the sceptre from the East. 
 
 It was, sir, for the purpose of correcting this 
 great and unpardonable error; unpardonable, 
 because it is a wilful one, and the error of it is 
 well known to the ablest of those who make 
 it ; of denying the assertion, and proving that 
 the contrary is the fact, and that the concession, 
 on that occasion, was from the Southern and 
 the "Western States, that, among others, I have 
 risen. 
 
 It is of the greatest consequence that the 
 proof I am about to give should be laid before 
 this nation ; for, as the inequality of represent- 
 ation is the great ground on which the North- 
 ern and Eastern States have always, and now 
 more particularly and forcibly than ever, raised 
 all their complaints on this subject, if I can 
 show and prove that they have not even a 
 shadow of right to make pretences or com- 
 plaints ; that they are as fully represented as 
 they ought to be ; while we, the Southern mem- 
 bers, are unjustly deprived of any representa- 
 tion for a large and important part of our pop- 
 ulation, more valuable to the Union, as can be 
 shown, than an equal number of inhabitants in 
 the Northern and Eastern States can, from their 
 situation, climate, and productions, possibly be. 
 If I can prove this, I think I shall be able to 
 show most clearly the true motives which have 
 given rise to this measure ; to strip the thin, 
 the cobweb veil from it, as well as the pre- 
 tended ones of religion, humanity, and love of 
 liberty ; and to show, to use the soft terms the 
 decorum of debate oblige me to use, the ex- 
 treme want of modesty in those who are al- 
 ready as fully represented here as they can be, 
 to go the great lengths they do in endeavoring, 
 by every effort in their power, public and pri- 
 vate, to take from the Southern and Western 
 States, which are already so greatly and un- 
 justly deprived of an important part of the 
 representation, a still greater share ; to endeavor 
 to establish the first precedent, which extreme 
 rashness and temerity have ever presumed, 
 that Congress has a right to touch the question 
 and legislate on slavery ; thereby shaking the 
 property in them, in the Southern and Western 
 States, to its very foundation, and making an 
 attack which, if successful, must convince them 
 that the Northern and Eastern States are their 
 greatest enemies ; that they are preparing 
 measures for them which even Great Britain, 
 in the heat of the Eevolutionary war, and 
 when all her passions were roused by hatred 
 and revenge to the highest pitch, never ven- 
 tured to inflict upon them. Instead of a course 
 like this, they ought, in my judgment, sir, to 
 be highly pleased with their present situation ; 
 that they are fully represented, while we have 
 lost so great a share of our representation ; 
 
 they ought, sir, to be highly pleased at the dex- 
 terity and management of their members in 
 the Convention, who obtained for them this 
 great advantage ; and, above all, with the mod- 
 eration and forbearance with which the South- 
 ern and Western States have always borne 
 their many bitter provocations on this subject, 
 and now bear the open, avowed, and, by many 
 of the ablest men among them, undisguised at- 
 tack on our most valuable rights and proper- 
 ties. 
 
 At the commencement of our Revolutionary 
 struggle with Great Britain, all the States had 
 slaves. The New England States had numbers 
 of them, and treated them in the same manner 
 the Southern did. The Northern and Middle 
 States had still more numerous bodies of them, 
 although not so numerous as the Southern. 
 They all entered into that great contest with 
 similar views, properties, and designs. Like 
 brethren, they contended for the benefit of the 
 whole, leaving to each the right to pursue its 
 happiness in its own way. 
 
 They thus nobly toiled and bled together, 
 really like brethren ; and it is a most remarka- 
 ble tact that, notwithstanding in the course of 
 the Revolution the Southern States were con- 
 tinually overrun by the British, and that every 
 negro in them had an opportunity of leaving 
 then- owners, few did; proving thereby not only 
 a most remarkable attachment to their owners, 
 but the mildness of the treatment, from which 
 their affection sprang. They then were, as 
 they still are, as valuable a part of our popula- 
 tion to the Union as any other equal number of 
 inhabitants. They were, in numerous in- 
 stances, the pioneers, and in all the laborers, of 
 your armies. To their hands were owing the 
 erection of the greatest part of the fortifications 
 raised for the protection of our country ; some 
 of which, particularly Fort Moultrie, gave, at 
 that early period of the inexperience and un- 
 tried valor of our citizens, immortality to 
 American arms; and in the Northern States 
 numerous bodies of them were enrolled into 
 and fought by the sides of the whites the bat- 
 tles of the Revolution. 
 
 Things went on in this way until the period 
 of our attempt to form our first national com- 
 pact, the Confederation, in which the equality 
 of vote was preserved, and the first squeamish- 
 ness on the subject of not using, or even allud- 
 ing to, the word slavery, or making it a part of 
 our political machinery, was shown. In this 
 compact, the value of the lands and improve- 
 ments was made the rule for apportioning the 
 public burdens and taxes. But the Northern 
 and Eastern States, who are always much more 
 alive to their interests than the Southern, found 
 that their squeamishness was inconsistent with 
 their interest ; and, as usual, made the latter 
 prevail. They found it was paying too dear 
 for their qualms to keep their hand from the 
 slaves any longer. At then" instance, and on 
 their motion, as will appear by a reference to 
 the Journals of the Old Congress, the making
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 533 
 
 FEBRUARY, 1820.] 
 
 The Missouri Bill Restriction on the State. 
 
 [H. OF R 
 
 lands the rule was changed, and people, includ- 
 ing the whites and three-fifths of other de- 
 scriptions was adopted. It was not until in 
 1781, that the Confederation was adopted by, 
 and became binding on, all the States. This 
 miserable, feeble mockery of Government 
 crawled on until 1785, when, from New York's 
 refusing to agree with all the States to grant to 
 Congress the impost, (I am not sure, but I be- 
 lieve she stood alone in the refusal,) the States 
 determined no longer to put up with her con- 
 duct, and absolutely rebelled against the Gov- 
 ernment. The first State that did so was New 
 Jersey, who, by a solemn act, passed in all its 
 proper forms by her legislature and government, 
 most positively and absolutely refused any 
 longer to obey the requisitions of Congress, or 
 to pay another dollar. As there was no doubt 
 other States would soon follow their example 
 as Pennsylvania shortly did Congress, aware 
 of the mischiefs which must arise if a dissolution 
 took place of the Union before a new Govern- 
 ment could be formed, sent a deputation of 
 their own body to address the Legislature of 
 New Jersey, of which I was appointed chair- 
 man. We did repair there, and addressed them, 
 and I had the honor and happiness to carry back 
 with me to Congress the repeal of her act by 
 New Jersey a State, during the whole of the 
 Revolutionary war, celebrated for her patriot- 
 ism, and who, in this noble self-denial, and 
 forgetfulness of injuries inflicted by New York 
 on her and the rest of the Union, exhibited a 
 disinterestedness and love of Union which did 
 her the highest honor. 
 
 The revolt of New Jersey and Pennsylvania 
 accelerated the new constitution. On a motion 
 from Virginia the Convention met at Philadel- 
 phia, where, as you will find from the Journals, 
 we were repeatedly in danger of dissolving 
 without doing any thing; that body being 
 equally divided as to large and small States, and 
 each having a vote, and the small States insisting 
 most pertinaciously, for near six weeks, on 
 equal power in both branches nothing but the 
 prudence and forbearance of the large States 
 saved the Union. A compromise was made, 
 that the small States and large should be equally 
 represented in the Senate, and proportionally 
 in the House of Representatives. I am now 
 arrived at the reason for which I have, sir, 
 taken the liberty to make these preliminary 
 remarks. For, as the true motive for all this 
 dreadful clamor throughout the Union, this 
 serious and eventful attack on our most sacred 
 and valuable rights and properties, is, to gain a 
 fixed ascendency in the representation in Con- 
 gress; and, as the only flimsy excuse under 
 which the Northern and Eastern States shelter 
 themselves, is, that they have been hardly 
 treated in the representation in this House, and 
 that they have lost the benefit of the compro- 
 mise they pretend was made, and which I shall 
 most positively deny, and show that nothing 
 like a compromise was ever intended. 
 
 By all the public expenses being borne by in- 
 
 direct taxes, and not direct, as was expected ; 
 if I can show that all their pretensions and 
 claims are wholly untrue and unfounded, and 
 that while they are fully represented, they did, 
 by force, or something like it, deprive us of a 
 rightful part of our representation, I shall then 
 be able to take the mask from all their pretend- 
 ed reasons and excuses, and show this unpar- 
 donable attack, this monster, in its true and 
 uncovered hideousness. 
 
 Long before our present public distresses had 
 convinced even the most ignorant and unin- 
 formed politician of the truth of the maxim I 
 am about to mention, all the well-informed 
 statesmen of our Union knew that the only true 
 mode for a large agricultural and commercial 
 country to flourish, was never to import more 
 than they can pay for by the export of their 
 own native products ; that, if they do, they will 
 be sure to plunge themselves into the distressing 
 and disgraceful situation this country is in at 
 present. 
 
 If, then, this great political truth or maxim, 
 or call it what you please, is most unquestion- 
 able, let us now see who supports this Govern- 
 ment; who raises your armies, equips your 
 navies, pays your public debt, enables you to 
 erect forts, arsenals, and dock yards. Who 
 nerves the arm of this Government and enables 
 you to lift it for the protection, the honor, and 
 extension of our beloved Republic into regions 
 where none but brutes and savages have before 
 roamed? Who are your real sinews in war, 
 and the best I had almost said nearly the 
 only sinews and sources of your commerce in 
 peace ? I will presently tell you. 
 
 If, as no doubt, you will in future confine 
 your imports to the amount of your exports of 
 native products, and all your revenue is to be, 
 as it is now, raised by taxes or duties on your 
 imports, I ask you who pays the expense, and 
 who, in fact, enables you to go on with your 
 Government at all, and prevents its wheels from 
 stopping ? I will show you by the papers which 
 I hold in my hand. This, sir, is your Secretary 
 of the Treasury's report, made a few weeks 
 ago, by which it appears that all the exports of 
 native products, from Maine to Pennsylvania, 
 inclusive, for the last year, amounted to only 
 about eighteen millions of dollars ; while those 
 among the slaveholding States, to the south- 
 ward of Pennsylvania, amounted to thirty-two 
 millions or thereabouts, thereby enabling them- 
 selves, or acquiring the right, to import double 
 as much as the others, and furnishing the Treas- 
 ury with double the amount the Northern and 
 Eastern States do. And here let me ask, from 
 whence do these exports arise ? By whose 
 hands are they made ? I answer, entirely by 
 the slaves ; and yet these valuable inhabitants, 
 without whom your very Government could 
 not go on, and the labor of two or three of 
 whom in the Southern States is more valuable 
 to it than the labor of five of their inhabitants 
 in the Eastern States, the States owning and 
 possessing them are denied a representation but
 
 534 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OP R.] 
 
 The Missouri Bill Restriction on the State. 
 
 [FEBBUAKY, 1820. 
 
 for three-fifths on this floor, while the whole of 
 the comparatively unproductive inhabitants of 
 the Northern and Eastern States are fully rep- 
 resented here. Is it just is this equal? And 
 yet they have the modesty to complain of the 
 representation, as unjust and unequal ; and that 
 they have not the return made them they ex- 
 pected, by taxing the slaves, and making them 
 bear a proportion of the public burdens. Some 
 writers on political economy are of opinion that 
 the representation of a State ought always to 
 be equally founded on population and taxation. 
 It is my duty to believe that these are the true 
 criterions ; for my own State (South Carolina) 
 having, in her House of Representatives, 124 
 members, 62 of them are apportioned by the 
 white population, and 62 on taxation ; thus rep- 
 resenting the contributions of our citizens in 
 every way, whether arising from services or 
 taxes. 
 
 Before I proceed to the other parts of this 
 question, I have thus endeavored to give a new 
 view of the subject of representation in this 
 House ; to show now much more the Eastern 
 and Northern States are represented than the 
 Southern and Western; how little right the 
 former have to complain, and how unreasonable 
 it is that, while, to continue the balance of rep- 
 resentation in the Senate, we consent to give ad- 
 mission to Maine, to make up for Missouri, they 
 most unconscionably require to have both, and 
 thus add four to the number now preparing, 
 most cruelly, to lift the arm of the Government 
 against the property of the Southern and West- 
 ern States. 
 
 If I have succeeded, as I hope I have, in prov- 
 ing the unreasonableness of the complaints of 
 the Eastern and Northern States on the subject 
 of representation, it would, I suppose, appear 
 extraordinary to the people of this nation that 
 this attempt should now be made, even if Con- 
 gress should be found to possess the right to 
 legislate or interfere in it. But if, in addition 
 to this, it should be in my power to show that 
 they have not the most distant right to inter- 
 fere, or to legislate at all upon the subject of 
 slavery, or to admit a State in any way what- 
 ever except on terms of perfect equality ; that 
 they have no right to make compacts on the 
 subject, and that the only power they have is 
 to see that the government of the State to be 
 admitted is a republican one, having legislative, 
 executive, and judiciary powers, the rights of 
 conscience, jury, a habeas corpus, and all the 
 great leading principles of our republican sys- 
 tems, well secured, and to guarantee them to it : 
 if I shall be able to do this, of course the attempt 
 must fail, aud the amendment be rejected. 
 
 The supporters of the amendment contend 
 that Congress have the right to insist on the 
 prevention of involuntary servitude in Missouri ; 
 and found the right on the ninth section of the 
 first article, which says, " the migration or im- 
 portation of such persons as the States now 
 existing may think proper to admit, shall not 
 be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year 
 
 1808, but a tax or duty may be imposed on 
 such importation not exceeding ten dollars." 
 
 In considering this article, I will detail, as 
 far as at this distant period is possible, what 
 was the intention of the Convention that formed 
 the constitution in this article. The intention 
 was, to give Congress a power, after the year 
 1808, to prevent the importation of slaves 
 either by land or water from other countries. 
 The word import, includes both, and applies 
 wholly to slaves. Without this limitation, Con- 
 gress might have stopped it sooner under their 
 general power to regulate commerce; and it 
 was an agreed point, a solemnly understood 
 compact, that, on the Southern States consent- 
 ing to shut their ports against the importation 
 of Africans, no power was to be delegated to 
 Congress, nor were they ever to be authorized 
 to touch the question of slavery ; that the prop- 
 erty of the Southern States in slaves was to be 
 as sacredly preserved, and protected to them, 
 as that of land, or any other kind of property 
 in the Eastern States were to be to their citizens. 
 
 The term, or word, migration, applies wholly 
 to free whites ; in its constitutional sense, as in- 
 tended by the Convention, it means " voluntary 
 change of servitude," from one country to an- 
 other. The reasons of its being adopted and 
 used in the constitution, as far as I can recollect, 
 were these : that the constitution, being a frame 
 of government, consisting wholly of delegated 
 powers, all power, not expressly delegated, 
 being reserved to the people or the States, it 
 was supposed, that, without some express grant 
 to them of power on the subject, Congress would 
 not be authorized ever to touch the question of 
 migration hither, or emigration to this country, 
 however pressing or urgent the necessity for 
 such a measure might be; that they could 
 derive no such power from the usages of na- 
 tions, or even the laws of war ; that the latter 
 would only enable them to make prisoners of 
 alien enemies, which would not be sufficient, 
 as spies or other dangerous emigrants, who 
 were not alien enemies, might enter the coun- 
 try for treasonable purposes, and do great in- 
 jury; that, as all Governments possessed this 
 power, it was necessary to give it to our own, 
 which could alone exercise it, and where, on 
 other and much greater points, we had placed 
 unlimited confidence ; it was, therefore, agreed 
 that, in the same article, the word migration 
 should be placed; and that, from the year 1808, 
 Congress should possess the complete power to 
 stop either or both, as they might suppose the 
 
 rblic interest required ; the article, therefore, 
 a negative pregnant, restraining for twenty 
 years, and giving the power after. 
 
 The reasons for restraining the power to pre- 
 vent migration hither for twenty years, were, 
 to the best of my recollection, these : That, as 
 at this time, we had immense and almost im- 
 measurable territory, peopled by not more than 
 two millions and a half of inhabitants, it was 
 of very great consequence to encourage the 
 emigration, of able, skilful, and industrious
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 FEBRUARY, 1820.] 
 
 The Missouri Bill Restriction on the State. 
 
 [H. or R. 
 
 Europeans. The wise conduct of William Penn, 
 and the unexampled growth of Pennsylvania, 
 were cited. It was said, that the portals of the 
 only temple of true freedom now existing on 
 earth should be thrown open to all mankind ; 
 that all foreigners of industrious habits should 
 be welcome, and none more so than men of 
 science, and such as may bring to us arts we are 
 unacquainted with, or the means of perfecting 
 those in which we are not yet sufficiently skilled 
 capitalists whose wealth may add to our com- 
 merce or domestic improvements; let tho door be 
 ever and most affectionately open to illustrious 
 exiles and sufferers in the cause of liberty ; in 
 short, open it liberally to science, to merit, and 
 talents, wherever found, and receive and make 
 them your own. That the safest mode would be 
 to pursue the course for twenty years, and not, 
 before that period, put it at all into the power 
 of Congress to shut it ; that, by that time, the 
 Union would be so settled, and our population 
 would be so much increased, we could proceed 
 on our own stock, without the farther accession 
 of foreigners ; that, as Congress were to be pro- 
 hibited from stopping the importation of slaves 
 to settle the Southern States, as no obstacle 
 was to be thrown in the way of their increase 
 and settlement for that period, let it be so with 
 the Northern and Eastern, to which, particularly 
 New York and Philadelphia, it was expected 
 most of the emigrants would go from Europe : 
 and it so happened, for, previous to the year 
 1808. more than double as many Europeans em- 
 igrated to these States, as of Africans were im- 
 ported into the Southern States. 
 
 The people of Europe, from their total igno- 
 rance of our country and Government, have al- 
 ways augured that its great extent, when it 
 came to be thickly peopled, would occasion its 
 separation ; this is still the opinion of all, and 
 the hope of many there ; whereas, nothing can 
 be more true in our politics than that, in pro- 
 portion to the increase of the State governments, 
 the strength and solidity of the Federal Gov- 
 ernment are augmented ; so that, with twenty 
 or twenty-two governments, we shall be much 
 more secure from disunion than with twelve, 
 and ten times mere so than if we were a single 
 or consolidated one. By the individual States 
 exercising, as they do, all the powers necessary 
 for municipal or individual purposes trying all 
 questions of property, and punishing all crimes 
 not belonging, in either case, to the federal 
 courts, and leaving the General Government at 
 leisure and in a situation solely to devote itself 
 to the exercise of the great powers of war and 
 peace, commerce and our connections with 
 foreigners, and all the natural authorities, dele- 
 gated by the constitution, it eases them of a 
 vast quantity of business that would very much 
 disturb the exercise of their general powers. 
 Nor is it clear that any single government, in a 
 country so extensive, could transmit the full 
 influence of the laws necessary to local purposes 
 through all its parts; whereas, the Stati- L'>V- 
 ernments, having all a convenient surrounding 
 
 territory, exercise these powers with ease, and 
 are always at hand to give aid to the federal 
 tribunals and officers placed among them to 
 execute their laws, should assistance be neces- 
 sary. Another great advantage is, the almost 
 utter impossibility of erecting among them the 
 standard of faction, to any alarming degree, 
 against the Union, so as to threaten its dissolu- 
 tion, or produce changes in any but a constitu- 
 tional way. It is well known that faction is 
 always much more easy and dangerous in small 
 than large countries; and when we consider 
 that, to the security afforded by the extent of 
 our territory are to be added, the guards of the 
 State Legislatures, which being selected as they 
 are, and always the most proper organs of their 
 citizens' opinions as to the measures of the 
 General Government, stand as alert and faith- 
 ful sentinels to disprove, as they did in the 
 times that are past, such acts as appear impolitic 
 or unconstitutional, or to approve and support, 
 as they have frequently done since, such as were 
 patriotic or praiseworthy. With such guards 
 it is impossible for any serious opposition to be 
 made to the Federal Government on slight or 
 trivial grounds ; nor, through such an extent of 
 territory or number of States, would any but 
 the most tyrannical or corrupt acts claim serious 
 attention; and, whenever they occur, we can 
 always safely trust to a sufficient number of 
 the States arraying themselves in a manner to 
 produce by their influence the necessary reforms, 
 in a peaceable and legal mode. With twenty- 
 four or more States it will be impossible, sir, 
 for four or five States, or any comparatively 
 small number, ever to threaten the existence of 
 the Union. They will be easily seen through 
 by the other eighteen or twenty, and frowned 
 into insignificance and submission to the general 
 will, in all cases where the proceedings of the 
 Federal Government are approved by them. 
 And, even in cases where doubts may arise as 
 to the wisdom or policy of their measures, all 
 factious measures will bte made to wait consti- 
 tutional redress, in the peaceable manner pre- 
 scribed by the constitution. 
 
 Without the instrumentality of the States in 
 a country so large and free, and with their Gov 
 ernment at a great distance from its extremities, 
 there would be considerable danger of faction ; 
 but at present there is very little, and, as the 
 States increase, the danger will lessen ; and it 
 is this admirable expanding principle or system, 
 if I may use the term, which, while it carries 
 new States and governments into our forests 
 and increases the population and resources of 
 the Union, must unquestionably, at the same 
 time, add to its means to resist and repress with 
 ease all attacks of foreign hostility or domestic 
 faction. It is this system, which is not at all 
 understood in Europe and too little among our- 
 selves, that will long keep us a strong and unit- 
 ed people ; nor do I see any question, but the 
 one which respects slavery, that can ever divide 
 us. 
 
 The question being the admission of a new
 
 536 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 The Missouri Bill Restriction on the State. 
 
 [FEBRUARY, 
 
 State, I hope these remarks will be considered 
 as in point, as they go to show the importance 
 of the State governments, and how really and 
 indeed indispensably they are the pillars of the 
 Federal Government, and how anxious we 
 should be to strengthen and not to impair them, 
 to make them all the strong and equal sup- 
 porters of the federal system. 
 
 With respect to Louisiana, Congress have 
 already by their acts solemnly ratified the treaty 
 which extends to all the States, created out of 
 that purchase, the benefits of an admission into 
 the Union on equal terms with the old States ; 
 they gave to Louisiana first, and afterwards to 
 Missouri and Arkansas, Territorial governments, 
 in all of which they agreed to the admission of 
 slaves. Louisiana was incorporated into the 
 Union, allowing their admission ; Missouri was 
 advanced to the second grade of Territorial gov- 
 ernment, without the prohibition of slavery : 
 thus, for more than sixteen years, Missouri con- 
 sidered herself precisely in the situation of her 
 sister Louisiana, and many thousands of slaves 
 have been carried by settlers there. To deny 
 it, then, now, will operate as a snare, unworthy 
 the faith of this Government. What is to be 
 done? Are the slaves now there to be man- 
 umitted, or their masters obliged to carry them 
 away, break up all their settlements, and, in 
 this unjust and unexpected manner, to be hurled 
 into ruin ? If we are to pay no respect to the 
 constitution, or to treaties, are we to pay no 
 respect to our own laws, by which the faith of 
 the nation has, for sixteen years, been solemnly 
 pledged, that no prohibition would take place, 
 as to slavery, in those States ? I have said so 
 much, to show how important it is to the firm- 
 ness and duration of the American Union, to 
 preserve the States and their government in the 
 full possession of all the rights secured by the 
 constitution. 
 
 I have hitherto said nothing of the treaty, as 
 I consider the rights of Missouri to rest on the 
 constitution so strongly, as not to require the aid 
 of the treaty. But, I will, at the same time 
 say, that, if there was no right under the con- 
 stitution, the treaty, of itself, is sufficient, and 
 fully so, to give it to her. Let us, however, 
 shortly examine the treaty. The words are 
 these : " The inhabitants of the ceded territory 
 shall be incorporated in the Union of the Unit- 
 ed States, and admitted, as soon as possible, ac- 
 cording to the principles of the Federal Consti- 
 tution, to the enjoyment of all the rights, ad- 
 vantages, and immunities, of the citizens of the 
 United States." Of these it is particularly ob- 
 servable, that, to leave no doubt on the mind 
 of either of the Governments which formed it, 
 or of any impartial man, so much pains are 
 taken to secure to Louisiana all the rights of 
 the States of the American Union, a singular 
 and uncommon surplusage is introduced into 
 the article. Either of the words, immunities, 
 rights, or advantages, would have been, of it- 
 self, fully sufficient. Immunity means privi- 
 lege, exemption, freedom right means justice, 
 
 just claim, privilege advantage means conven- 
 ience, gain, benefit, favorable to circumstances. 
 If either word, therefore, is sufficient to give 
 her a right to be placed on an equal footing 
 with the other States, who shall doubt of her 
 right, when you now find that your Govern- 
 ment has solemnly pledged herself to bestow on, 
 and guarantee to, Louisiana all the privileges, 
 exemptions, and freedom, rights, immunities, 
 and advantages, justice, just claims, conven- 
 iences, gains, benefits, and favorable circum- 
 stances, enjoyed by the other States ? 
 
 In speaking of treaties, Vattel states as fol- 
 lows : " The implicit submission to their author- 
 ity which is exhibited everywhere, proves the 
 strength^ indeed, unanswerable strength, in 
 which it is founded." 
 
 These writers say, that every thing which the 
 public safety renders inviolable is sacred in so- 
 ciety. Who, then, can doubt that treaties are 
 in the number of those things that are held 
 most sacred by nations? They determine the 
 most important affairs, give rules to their pre- 
 tensions, and secure their most precious in- 
 terests. But treaties are only vain words, if they 
 are not considered as inviolable rules to sover- 
 eigns, and as sacred throughout the whole world. 
 Treaties are, then, most holy and sacred among 
 nations; and, if people are not wanting to 
 themselves, infamy must ever be the share of 
 him who violates his faith ; for, in doing so, he 
 violates the law of nations; he despises that 
 faith which they declare sacred ; he is doubly 
 guilty he does an injury to all nations, and 
 wounds the whole human race. 
 
 Having thus, I trust, proved clearly that you 
 have no right to adopt this inhibition of slave- 
 ry, but are forbid to do so by the constitution, 
 as well as by the treaty, I ought perhaps to 
 stop here; but there are some other points 
 which I ought not to pass unnoticed. One of 
 these is the ordinance of July, 1787, passed by 
 the Old Congress, at the period of the sitting of 
 the Convention in Philadelphia, for forming the 
 constitution, by which that body (the Old Con- 
 gress) undertook to form a code for the future 
 settlement, government, and admission into the 
 Union, of all the Territory Northwest of the 
 river Ohio, ceded by Virginia to the United 
 States in 1785 ; which cession has so often been 
 read to the House in this discussion. On this 
 subject, I beg leave to remark that, by the Con- 
 federation of the United States, the Old Con- 
 gress had no power whatever but that of ad- 
 mitting new States, provided nine States as- 
 sented. By this, it is most unquestionable, 
 that no number of States under nine had any 
 right to admit new States. Of course, it was 
 the intention of the Confederation that, on so 
 important a measure as the establishment of 
 governments for, and the admission of, new 
 States, Congress should never possess the pow- 
 er to act, unless nine States were represented in 
 that body at the time of their doing so. This 
 ordinance, therefore, in prescribing the forms 
 of government, as they respected legislative,
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 537 
 
 FEBRUARY, 1820.] 
 
 The Missouri Bill Restriction on the State. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 executive, and judiciary powers, in establishing 
 bills of rights, and the times and terms of their 
 admission into the Union, and inhibiting servi- 
 tude therein, is chargeable with ingratitude, 
 and usurpation. It is chargeable with ingrati- 
 tude, when we reflect that the cession of the 
 great tract of country this rising empire of 
 freemen was gratuitously, and with noble dis- 
 interestedness and patriotism, made by Vir- 
 ginia, that the passing of an ordinance which 
 contained a provision which could not but go 
 to prevent the admission of Virginians there, as 
 they could not move there with their slaves, 
 was a most ungracious and ungrateful return 
 to that State for her liberality, and could not 
 but meet with the disapprobation of this na- 
 tion. 
 
 Let us, sir, recollect the circumstances the 
 Old Congress were in at the time they passed 
 this ordinance : they had dwindled almost to 
 nothing ; the Convention had been then three 
 months in session ; it was universally known a 
 constitution was in its essentials agreed to ; and 
 the public were daily expecting (what soon 
 happened) the promulgation of a new form of 
 Government for the Union. I ask, sir, was it 
 under these circumstances proper for a feeble, 
 dwindled body, that had wholly lost the con- 
 fidence of the nation, and which was then 
 waiting its supercession by the people a feeble, 
 inefficient body, in which only seven or eight 
 States were represented, the whole of which 
 consisted of but seventeen or eighteen men a 
 number smaller than your large committees ; a 
 body literally in the very agonies of political 
 death ; was it, sir, even decent in them (not to 
 say lawful or constitutional) to have passed an 
 ordinance of such importance ? I do not know 
 or recollect the names of the members who 
 voted for it, but it is to be fairly presumed they 
 could not have been among the men who pos- 
 sessed the greatest confidence of the Union, or 
 at that very time they would have been mem- 
 bers of the Convention sitting at Philadelphia.* 
 
 * This ordinance is constantly quoted as of the year 1787, 
 and, consequently, as the work of the members of the Con- 
 tinental Congress of that year ; but it is, in reality, of the 
 date of 1784, and of the members of that year, headed by 
 Mr. Jefferson. Virginia made her great cession of the 
 Northwest Territory in 1781, and perfected it by deed of 
 cession in April, 17S4; and being the great grantor of that 
 great domain, and upon conditions for her own and the 
 common benefit, her delegation in Congress naturally took 
 the lead in making the cession available according to its in- 
 tent. Mr. Jefferson was then a delegate in the Continental 
 Congress, and one of the three members who signed and 
 delivered the deed. His organizing mind naturally charged 
 itself with the measures which were to grow out of the ces- 
 sion, and the first of that charge was an ordinance for the 
 government of the Northwest Territory, containing every 
 thing in the ordinance of 1787, except the clause for the re- 
 covery of fugitives from service; and laying its foundations 
 in compact The anti-slavery clause was in it ; but that 
 clause was rejected because the recovery clause was not 
 added. With that exception the ordinance then passed, and 
 continued in force until it was superseded by the amended 
 
 Let those acquainted with the situation of 
 the people of Asia and Africa, where not one 
 man in ten can be called a freeman, or -whose 
 situation can be compared with the comforts of 
 our slaves, throw their eyes over them, and 
 carry them to Russia, and from the North to 
 the South of Europe, where, except Great Brit- 
 ain, nothing like liberty exists. Let them view 
 the lower classes of their inhabitants, by far 
 the most numerous of the whole; the thou- 
 sands of beggars that infest their streets, more 
 than half starved, half naked, and in the most 
 wretched state of human degradation. Let him 
 then go to England ; the comforts, if they have 
 any, of the lower classes of whose inhabitants 
 are far inferior to those of our slaves. Let him, 
 when there, ask of their economists, what are 
 the numbers of millions daily fed by the hand 
 of charity ; and, when satisfied there, then let 
 him come nearer home, and examine into the 
 situation of the free negroes now resident in 
 New York and Philadelphia, and compare them 
 with the situation of our slaves, and he will 
 tell you that, perhaps, the most miserable and 
 degraded state of human nature is to be found 
 among the free negroes of New York and 
 Philadelphia, most of whom are fugitives from 
 the Southern States, received and sheltered in 
 those States. I did not go to New York, but I 
 did to Philadelphia, and particularly examined 
 this subject while there. I saw their streets 
 crowded with idle, drunken negroes, at every 
 corner ; and, on visiting their penitentiary, 
 found, to my astonishment, that, out of five hun- 
 dred convicts there confined, more than one- 
 half were blacks; and, as all the convicts 
 
 ordinance of 1787 efforts having been made at each cession, 
 without effect, to insert the anti-slavery clause. This was 
 done in 1787 Virginia again taking the lead. The commit- 
 tee who reported it had two Virginia members upon it, 
 (Messrs. Carrington and E. H. Lee,) and one South Caro- 
 linian, (Mr. Kean,) and two members from non-slaveholding 
 States, (Messrs. Dane of Massachusetts, and Smith of New 
 York.) They reported the bill as it now stands, (the anti- 
 slavery and fugitive slave recovery clause added ;) and it 
 passed unanimously, and within the exact time which the 
 forms of legislation permitted. They reported on Wednes- 
 day, the llth of July, when it was read the first time, and 
 ordered to a second reading the next day. The next day it 
 was read the second time, and ordered to a third reading the 
 day after: and on that day, Friday, the 18th, it was read 
 the third time, and unanimously passed. It repealed the 
 ordinance of 1784, which had thus been in force three years; 
 and containing, as originally drawn, all the provisions of the 
 ordinance of 1787, except the provision relative to fugitives 
 from service, its date may be considered that of the ordi- 
 nance of 1787 in all that concerns its merits or demerits. 
 At the adoption of the ordinance of 1787 iu re-enactment, 
 with the anti-slavery clause added there were but three 
 free States present; to wit: Massachusetts, New York, 
 New Jersey : while of slave States there were five present; 
 to wit: Delaware, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, 
 Georgia. From tho slave States every delegate from every 
 State voted for the ordinance: of the free States, one mem- 
 ber from one State, (Mr. Yates of New York,) voted against 
 it
 
 538 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 The Missouri Bill Restriction on the State. 
 
 [FEBRUARY, 1820. 
 
 throughout that State are sent to that peniten- 
 tiary, and, if Pennsylvania contains eight hun- 
 dred thousand white inhabitants, and only 
 twenty-six thousand blacks, of course the 
 crimes and vices of the blacks in those States 
 are, comparatively, twenty times greater than 
 thoses of the whites in the same States, and 
 clearly proves that a state of freedom is one of 
 the greatest curses you can inflict on them. 
 
 From the opinions expressed respecting the 
 Southern States and the slaves there, it appears 
 to me most clear, that the members on the op- 
 posite side know nothing of the Southern 
 States, their lands, products, or slaves. Those 
 who visit us, or go to the southward, find so 
 great a difference that many of them remain 
 and settle there. I perfectly recollect that 
 when, in 1791, General Washington visited 
 South Carolina, he was so surprised at the 
 richness, order, and soil of our country, that he 
 expressed his great astonishment at the state of 
 agricultural improvement and excellence our 
 tide-lands exhibited. He said he had no idea 
 the United States possessed it. Had I then 
 seen as much of Europe as I have since, I would 
 have replied to him, that he would not see its 
 equal in Europe. Sir, when we recollect that 
 our former parent State was the original cause 
 of introducing slavery into America, and that 
 neither ourselves nor ancestors are chargeable 
 with it ; that it cannot be got rid of without 
 mining the country, certainly the present mild 
 treatment of our slaves is most honorable to 
 that part of the country where slavery exists. 
 Every slave has a comfortable house, is well 
 fed, clothed, and taken care of; he has his 
 family about him, and in sickness has the same 
 medical aid as his master, and has a sure and 
 comfortable retreat in old age, to protect him 
 against its infirmities and weakness. During 
 the Avhole of his life he is free from care, that 
 canker of the human heart, which destroys at 
 least one-half of the thinking part of mankind, 
 and from which a favored few, very few, if in- 
 deed any, can be said to be free. Being with- 
 out education, and born to obey, to persons of 
 that description moderate labor and discipline 
 are essential. The discipline ought to be mild, 
 but still, while slavery is to exist, there must 
 be discipline. In this state they are happier 
 than they can possibly be if free. A free black 
 can only be happy where he has some share of 
 education, and has been bred to a trade, or 
 Borne kind of business. The great body of 
 slaves are happier in their present situation than 
 they could be in any other, and the man or men 
 who would attempt to give them freedom, 
 would be their greatest enemies. 
 
 All the writers who contend that the slaves 
 increase faster than the free blacks, if they as- 
 sert what is true, prove that the black, when in 
 the condition of a slave, is happier than when 
 free, as, in proportion to the comfort and hap- 
 piness of any kind of people, such will be the 
 increase ; and the next census will show what 
 has been the increase of both descriptions, free, 
 
 and slave, and will, I think, prove the truth of 
 these opinions. 
 
 TUESDAY, February 15. 
 The Missouri Bill. 
 
 The House then again resolved itself into a 
 Committee of the Whole, on this bill. 
 
 Mr. EANKIN, of Mississippi, took the floor, 
 and spoke more than an hour against the re- 
 striction. 
 
 Mr. R. observed, that Creon, King of Thebes, 
 had been represented by Euripides, to have sent 
 a herald to Athens, who inquired for the King 
 of Athens. Theseus replied, " You seek him in 
 vain ; this is a free city, and the sovereign pow- 
 er is in all the people." In our Government, 
 all admit the sovereignty of the people; but, if 
 the arguments of gentlemen who advocate this 
 restriction be correct, Congress possesses abso- 
 lute sovereignty, and the people are their ser- 
 vants. It is urged that, although Congress has 
 no express delegation of power in the constitu- 
 tion, yet Congress may, by virtue of its sov- 
 ereign power, impose any conditions on the 
 admission of Missouri into the Union. There 
 is no sovereignty in Congress, known to the 
 constitution, except such as is expressly dele- 
 gated ; the limits of which are clearly marked 
 and defined by that instrument. Even State 
 governments, which derive their powers imme- 
 diately from the people, are but a portion of 
 natural liberty or absolute sovereignty, dele- 
 gated to rulers, to be exercised for the common 
 welfare. The Federal Government, emanating 
 from the States, and wielding an authority 
 regulating and protecting the community of 
 States, is one degree farther removed from the 
 source of power. In such a Government, we 
 are not required, as gentlemen have contended, 
 to search the constitution for prohibitions, but 
 we search for what is delegated. The silence 
 of the constitution is our law a mandate as 
 prohibitory to our exercise of legislation, as the 
 voice of the Almighty to the waves of ocean. 
 Its language is, " Thus far shall you go, and no 
 farther." Depart from these principles, and 
 you tread on dangerous grounds. Imagine you 
 possess an undefined, unlimited sovereignty, 
 not delegated, but resting on your capricious 
 will, superior to all constitution and laws, and 
 you sap the foundation of your liberty ; sooner 
 or later you are buried in the ruins of the su- 
 perstructure. Despotism is equally dangerous, 
 odious, and oppressive, whether exercised by 
 an individual or the National Legislature. 
 Despotism is but the arbitrary exercise of pow- 
 ers limited, defined, and bounded by no law 
 but the sovereign will of the despot. 
 
 Without resorting to general principles and 
 reasoning, the language of the constitution 
 itself is sufficiently explicit as to what we may 
 do constitutionally. The first article declares, 
 that all powers therein " granted are vested in 
 the Congress of the United States." We have, 
 then, to inquire, is the power to impose this
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 FEBRUARY, 1820.] 
 
 The Missouri Bill Restriction on the State. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 restriction " granted " by the constitution ? If 
 there be any doubt on that subject, prudence, 
 at least, forbids us to proceed farther. The 9th 
 and 10th articles of the amendments declare, 
 " that the enumeration in the constitution of 
 certain rights shall not be construed to deny or 
 disparage others retained by the people ; " and 
 "that the powers not delegated to the United 
 States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it 
 to the States, are reserved to the States, re- 
 spectively, or to the people." I have been par- 
 ticular in making these preliminary remarks, 
 because gentlemen who have occupied a distin- 
 guished ground in favor of the restriction ap- 
 pear to rely much on the sovereignty of Con- 
 gress. It is necessary that a thing so power- 
 ful in its operations should be clearly understood. 
 
 Regarding the principles already laid down, 
 let us proceed to examine the different clauses 
 and sections of the constitution which are sup- 
 posed to enable us constitutionally to impose 
 this restriction on Missouri. In pursuing the 
 course which I had originally designed for my- 
 self, (said Mr. R.,) I must necessarily tread on 
 some of the grounds occupied by the gentlemen 
 who have preceded me in the debate. This is 
 a misfortune arising from the necessity which 
 has compelled me to delay my argument until 
 this period, but would not justify presenting it 
 to the committee mutilated and imperfect. 
 
 By the 9th section of the first article of the 
 constitution, it is declared, "the migration or 
 importation of such persons as any of the 
 States now existing shall think proper to ad- 
 mit, shall not be prohibited by Congress prior 
 to the year 1808," &c. Does this delegate any 
 power to Congress to prohibit the importation 
 of slaves, even after the year 1808? A gentle- 
 man from Pennsylvania (Mr. SERGEANT) says, 
 that a prohibition of the exercise of a power 
 necessarily implies that there is a power to be 
 restricted. This conclusion is by no means ne- 
 cessary. It may proceed from abundant cau- 
 tion, in order to avoid the doctrine of implied 
 powers, which have been so much used in this 
 discussion. But even this restriction, which 
 might, at the time the article was prepared, 
 have appeared necessary, in order to reconcile 
 the contrariety of opinions that then existed, 
 and quiet the jealousies of the States, became 
 unnecessary when the amendments were sub- 
 sequently adopted, confining the exercise of the 
 powers of Congress to what was expressly dele- 
 gated. Many enlightened statesmen viewed 
 the Federal Government as a monster crouch- 
 ing over the State sovereignties, already pos- 
 sessed of powers, which at some future day it 
 would exert, sufficient to annihilate them, and 
 therefore imposed checks and barriers where 
 none were necessary. This is mentioned, not 
 with a view of disturbing antecedent It icislu- 
 tion, but to show that, in the united zeal of the 
 North and South to terminate the slave trade, 
 they have exercised a power at least questiona- 
 ble. But, if questionable in relation to that 
 which implication favors, how much more so 
 
 in regard to this new, undefined, unlimited as- 
 sumption of sovereignty ? 
 
 In the construction of this section, said Mr. 
 R., we should adopt the rules dictated by com- 
 mon sense, applicable to such subjects. Con- 
 strue it either literally or according to the spirit 
 and meaning. Gentlemen in favor of this re- 
 striction, may adopt either, or both, as will 
 best suit their purpose. Gentlemen, not satis- 
 fied with this, ask us to admit that the word 
 "persons," means negroes or slaves, which 
 meaning they derive from the spirit and mean- 
 ing of the section, and adopt a literal sense for 
 the word " migration," which is said to mean 
 a transition from one State into another, al- 
 though you may not travel a mile in the pas- 
 sage. Heretofore, when any man was asked 
 what is the meaning of this section, he imme- 
 diately replied, "to enable Congress to pro- 
 hibit the slave trade after the year 1808." But, 
 sir, to what conclusion do we arrive in con- 
 struing this section literally? The word 
 "persons," is a generic term, embracing every 
 description of human beings, no matter of what 
 complexion, while the words " migration and 
 importation" are of equally extensive significa- 
 tion ; the former including such persons as 
 have volition, and can migrate ; and the latter, 
 such as have no volition, but are imported or 
 carried along by the will of the master. This 
 signification to the word migration, appears to 
 comport with its original, or, what a gentleman 
 from Delaware (Mr. MoLASEJwas pleased to call 
 its technical use, being applied to the passage 
 of birds from one region into another, changing 
 their climate at pleasure, free as the air they 
 skim in the transition. It has been subse- 
 quently used to signify a voluntary change of 
 country by individuals and families, but never 
 to signify an involuntary removal. 
 
 If this word " migration " must have a mean- 
 ing unconnected with, and different from " im- 
 portation," why not use it, as many contend it 
 was originally designed by the Convention, to 
 enable Congress to prohibit the influx or migra- 
 tion of foreigners to our country, after a lim- 
 ited period? This word "migration" was, 
 therefore, either intended to apply to emigra- 
 tion from Europe, or, what appears equally 
 probable, was intended, in connection with the 
 word " persons," to disguise this anti-republican 
 feature in our republican constitution. For 
 why should the Convention conceal the words 
 " negroes or slaves," under the word " persons," 
 and, in the same sentence, speak of the " impor- 
 tation " of " persons " as they would of a bale 
 of merchandise? The words "shall think 
 proper to admit," point strongly to an admis- 
 sion from abroad, and not to a mere change of 
 residence within the United States. 
 
 Some regard, as gentlemen in opposition to 
 the principles I advocate have very justly con- 
 tended, ought to be paid to a long-continued 
 exposition of this section, by legislation in rela- 
 tion to its provisions. The authorities pro- 
 duced by the friends of restriction, to show the
 
 540 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 The Missouri Bill Restriction on the State. 
 
 [FEBRUABY, 1820. 
 
 respect which tribunals of justice pay to this 
 principle, will be applied by them while we 
 trace the course of legislation adopted by Con- 
 gress in relation to this subject. Upwards of 
 thirty years have elapsed since the adoption 
 of the constitution, during which period Con- 
 gress have, with a vigilance that never reposed, 
 directed their efforts to the abolition of the 
 slave trade, without even suspecting they pos- 
 sessed the power now attempted to be assumed 
 a power to prevent an American citizen from 
 changing his residence, and carrying with him 
 his slave to any section of the Union where 
 slavery is not prohibited. How easily might 
 every preceding Congress have exercised their 
 "humanity" in preventing an "extension of 
 the evils of slavery " to the States of Kentucky, 
 Tennessee, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama ! 
 But the wisdom of 1819 was alone competent 
 to this arduous task; this discovery of "nega- 
 tives pregnant," and latent and dormant powers. 
 
 In 1794, Congress prohibited " residents" in, 
 or " citizens " of, the United States, from fitting 
 out vessels for the slave trade, and, in 1800, 
 from having an interest in vessels fitted out for 
 that purpose. The act of 1803 prohibited the 
 importation of slaves into States where slavery 
 was prohibited by law, and that of 1807, passed 
 in anticipation of the period fixed in the consti- 
 tution, was intended for ever to terminate that 
 traffic to the United States. From that period 
 until the last session of Congress, it was be- 
 lieved by all sides that, whatever power was 
 delegated by this section, had been expended 
 in legislation. 
 
 What construction was given this article by 
 contemporaneous expositions? In that most 
 able commentary on the Constitution of the 
 United States, called the Federalist, which is 
 known to be the joint production of Mr. Madi- 
 son, General Hamilton, and " that great civil- 
 ian, Mr. Jay," we have a construction which 
 will be found in No. 42 of that work. Add to 
 this an authority, which gentlemen in favor of 
 this restriction will certainly be disposed to re- 
 spect, the opinion of the Massachusetts Con- 
 vention, when in debate on the Constitution 
 of the United States. They say that, by the 
 old Articles of Confederation, the General 
 Government had no power to prevent the im- 
 portation of slaves into the States, and rejoice that 
 a period is fixed when Congress may interpose 
 its authority, and for ever terminate this traffic. 
 
 The meaning of this section we have from a 
 very distinguished man, who was a member of 
 the General Convention that formed the Con- 
 stitution of the United States. There was a 
 time when the brilliancy of this man's mind 
 illumined the path of reason and penetrated the 
 labyrinths of art and science ; yesterday he was 
 within these walls, but no longer what he was ; 
 he stands the melancholy wreck of intellectual 
 greatness, teaching humiliation to human pride, 
 and showing how low man can be depressed 
 when enervating disease palsies his frame, and 
 the hand of the Almighty presses upon him. I 
 
 refer to Luther Martin, of Maryland. When 
 called upon by the Legislature of his State to 
 declare his objections to the constitution, pre- 
 viously to its adoption, in a written communi- 
 cation to that body, he declares : 
 
 " By the ninth section of this article, the importa- 
 tion of such persons as any of the States now existing 
 shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited, 
 prior to the year 1808, but a duty may be imposed 
 on such importation." 
 
 " The design of this clause is to prevent the Gen- 
 eral Government from prohibiting the importation of 
 slaves ; that the same reasons which caused them to 
 strike out the word ' national,' and not admit the word 
 ' stamps,' influenced them here to guard against the 
 word slaves ; they anxiously sought to avoid the ad- 
 mission of expressions which might be odious in the 
 ears of Americans, although they were willing to ad- 
 mit into their system those things which the expres- 
 sion signified ; and hence it is, that the clause is so 
 worded as to authorize the General Government to 
 impose a duty of ten dollars on every foreigner who 
 comes into a State to become a citizen, whether he 
 comes absolutely free, or qualified so as a servant ; 
 although this is contrary to the design of the framcrs, 
 and the duty was only meant to extend to the im- 
 portation of slaves." P. 55. 
 
 After observing that the committee of detail 
 had reported this clause, without limitation as 
 to the time of importation, which provision the 
 Convention rejected, he says : " they were in- 
 formed by the delegates from South Carolina 
 and Georgia that their States never would agree 
 to any system which put it in the power of the 
 General Government to prevent the importa- 
 tion of slaves, and that they, as delegates from 
 those States, must withhold their assent from 
 such system." A committee, composed of one 
 member from each State, was chosen, to whom 
 this subject, together with that part of the re- 
 port of the committee of detail which declared 
 " that no navigation act shall be passed, with- 
 out the assent of two-thirds of the members 
 present in each House," was referred. "This 
 committee," says he, " of which also I had the 
 honor to be a member, met, and took into their 
 consideration the subjects committed to them ; 
 I found the Eastern States, notwithstanding 
 their aversion to slavery, very willing to in- 
 dulge the Southern States, at least with a tem- 
 porary liberty to prosecute the slave trade, 
 provided the Southern States would, in their 
 turn, gratify them by laying no restriction on 
 the navigation acts; and after a very little 
 time the committee, by a great majority, agreed 
 on a report, by which the General Government 
 was to be prohibited from preventing the im- 
 portation of slaves, for a limited time, and the 
 restrictive clause relative to navigation acts was 
 to be omitted." 
 
 He adds, in page 58, " You will perceive, sir, 
 not only that the General Government is pro- 
 hibited from interfering in the slave trade, be- 
 fore the year 1808, but there is no provision in 
 the constitution that it shall afterwards be pro- 
 hibited, nor any security that such prohibition 
 will ever take place."
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 541 
 
 FEBRUARY, 1820.] 
 
 The Missouri Bill Restriction on the State. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 This statement is not made from frail mem- 
 ory, after time had almost effaced the recollec- 
 tion of scenes long transpired, but is history it- 
 self, recording events while transacting. 
 
 Mr. HENDEICKS, of Indiana, spoke as follows : 
 
 Mr. Chairman, the history of the Northwest- 
 ern Territory is connected with the earliest and 
 the proudest days of this Republic, and its his- 
 tory in times to come will show it warmly and 
 devotionally attached to the rights of the States 
 and the integrity of the Union. Sir, there is 
 nothing fortuitous or uncertain in this opinion. 
 The States of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, are 
 standing monuments of the magnanimity of an 
 ancient and respectable State, (Virginia.) They 
 are monuments also of a wise and liberal policy, 
 whence springs their happy institutions, and 
 their freedom from slavery, that great evil of 
 the South. They show a policy of the General 
 Government, which, should it roll on with the 
 flood of emigration to the West, will add a con- 
 stellation to your Union, equal in lustre to the 
 brightest star of the East. This is the view of 
 the amendment under discussion an amend- 
 ment which commands my approbation and 
 coerces my support. An amendment, objec- 
 tionable, say gentlemen, because Congress have 
 not the constitutional power to enact it. Those 
 who oppose the restriction of slavery in Mis- 
 souri call for the constitutional provision, which 
 authorizes the measure call for the speaking 
 index which points to this question, as though 
 every measure of the Government could have 
 been anticipated, and all its future incidents 
 seen by the framers of the constitution. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, the language of the constitu- 
 tion is plain enough for me. And here let me 
 remark, that this amendment presents itself to 
 my mind in a point of view different from that 
 in which it appears to be considered by most 
 gentlemen who have spoken of it. This amend- 
 ment is objected to, because it is understood to 
 propose conditions for the State of Missouri. 
 This is not the way I understand it. It speaks to 
 the people of Missouri Territory, and not to the 
 State of Missouri. To the people of the Missouri 
 Territory, and to the people of all the territories, 
 we have been in the habit of speaking. Even 
 gentlemen on the opposite side of the question 
 admit we may speak to them. 
 
 Sir, I think, in the progress of this discussion, 
 it has been clearly made out that Congress may 
 impose conditions. Indeed, this seems of neces- 
 sity to be admitted on all hands, for without 
 admitting this principle we cannot justify the 
 government we hold over the territories, or the 
 control we hold over the public lands within 
 the limits of the new States. Sir, in this case, 
 we do not dictate to, or impose conditions on, 
 the State. We only say to the people of the 
 Territory what we consider necessary -for their 
 constitution to contain, and without which 
 they are not to expect admission into the 
 Union. They are not possessed of sovereign 
 State powers when making this constitution, 
 nor when it is made, until Congress shall admit 
 
 them into the Union. This ceremony of ad- 
 mission has been deemed necessary in the his- 
 tory of our Government, in relation to ah 1 the 
 new States. Their sovereign State power is 
 derived from the constitution, which has not 
 force or efficacy until approved by Congress. 
 It is true the power which made this constitu- 
 tion was in existence before, but it was chaos 
 reduced by these proceedings to consistency 
 and order. 
 
 But, it is said, that by this amendment you 
 require these conditions to be adopted by Mis- 
 souri, and to come from her, because Congress 
 have not the power to make or impose them. 
 This, sir, is true, and is correct, in the same 
 way that the first party to a contract must ob- 
 tain the consent of the second party before the 
 contract is complete ; but, after that consent is 
 obtained, the first party has the same advantage 
 from it, and it is as binding on the second pyty 
 as if all had been originally in the power of the 
 first party ; for, in truth, this is nothing more 
 or less than a contract, and it is one of those 
 contracts which, though made in the minority 
 of Missouri, will be binding on her after she 
 shall arrive at full age. I deny, then, Mr. Chair- 
 man, that any thing required by this amend- 
 ment is to be done in the character or capacity 
 of a State, on the part of Missouri. 
 
 Again, sir, the treaty. The third article of 
 the treaty so much spoken of in this debate, 
 could not have been intended to pass the boun- 
 daries of the constitution. If such were its stipu- 
 lations those stipulations could not be carried 
 into effect. Sir, what created the treaty-mak- 
 ing power? The constitution; and the mo- 
 ment the treaty-making power passes the boun- 
 daries of the constitution, that moment its pow- 
 ers become annihilated. "We are told that it 
 is now too late to object to the treaty that it 
 has been ratified by the Senate, and sanction- 
 ed by the House of Representatives, in the pas- 
 sage of laws to carry it into effect. Sir, I do 
 not object to the validity of the treaty. The 
 acquisition of Louisiana was one of the hap- 
 piest epochs of our political history since the 
 close of the Revolution. But I object to any 
 construction of that treaty unknown to and 
 unauthorized by the constitution. I object to 
 any construction of the treaty which would do 
 away the discretion of Congress in the admis- 
 sion of new States. Can any unconstitutional 
 stipulation in a treaty gain strength by the 
 ratification of the Senate, or the passage of a 
 law by Congress to carry that treaty into effect ? 
 Surely not. Suppose, for instance, that the 
 treaty-making power had stipulated that the 
 appointment of the officers, and the authority 
 of training the militia of the States to be form- 
 ed west of the Mississippi, should be reserved 
 to the Government of the United States, 
 would gentlemen tell us that the stipulation 
 could be carried into effect ? No ; because such 
 stipulation would be contrary to the Consti- 
 tution of the United States. Such stipulation 
 would be an infringement of the rights of the
 
 542 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OP R.] 
 
 The Missouri Bill Restriction on the State. 
 
 [FEBRUARY, 1820. 
 
 States. And are we not to guard the rights of 
 the General Government, as well as those of 
 the States ? The treaty, then, I understand as 
 placing the inhabitants of the province of Louis- 
 iana in the same situation they would have 
 been in if they had been included within the 
 original limits established by the Treaty of 
 Peace. 
 
 Sir, if the treaty-making power can pass the 
 limits of the constitution, it could have provid- 
 ed that the States to be formed in the province 
 of Louisiana could have the power of making 
 war or peace, or of creating titles of nobility. 
 The language of the treaty is, in substance, the 
 language of the constitution ; and the privileges 
 and immunities conferred on the Louisianian 
 must be such privileges and immunities as the 
 Government of the United States can bestow ; 
 for, according to the principles of the gentle- 
 men opposed, neither the treaty nor the consti- 
 tution can confer on the ancient inhabitant of 
 Louisiana the rights and privileges which result 
 from the regulations of a State, and which are 
 the offspring of municipal law, because these 
 things, say gentlemen, are the prerogatives of 
 State sovereignties, and cannot be exercised by 
 Congress. Then, what are the privileges and 
 immunities of an inhabitant of Louisiana under 
 the treaty and the constitution? They are 
 simply those of a citizen, distinguished from a 
 foreigner or an alien. The inhabitant of Louisi- 
 ana is not subject to the requisitions of an alien 
 law ; he becomes at once a citizen of the United 
 States. The treaty, then, does not seem to 
 stand in the way of the free operation of the 
 constitution the practice and policy of the 
 Government in the admission of new States. 
 There is no guarantee in the treaty in favor of 
 adventurers to the country, or in favor of the 
 Louisianian, after he shall have become a mem- 
 ber of the State government. 
 
 The force of the treaty then fails, gentlemen. 
 It is imposing conditions on him, in the char- 
 acter of a citizen of a State, of which they com- 
 plain ; and in such character the treaty has no 
 guarantee in his favor, and it would be absurd 
 if it had. It would be France stipulating for 
 the privileges and immunities of citizens, not 
 only of the United States, but of a particular 
 State. 
 
 But, sir, to the positive language of the con- 
 stitution : " Congress shall have power to dis- 
 pose of, and to make all needful rules and regu- 
 lations respecting the territory, or other prop- 
 erty belonging to the United States." Here 
 there is a direct power ; absolute control over 
 the most important and first object of sov- 
 ereignty. Here is a constitutional power, more 
 extensive than is necessary for the amendment 
 before the committee. Congress owns, in fee 
 simple, the soil of the country. This soil may 
 be retained by its owners, or it may be parted 
 with on conditions. It may be leased for life 
 or for years. These leases may contain as 
 many conditions as may be agreed on. One of 
 these may be, that the soil shall not be culti- 
 
 vated by a slave, and that it shall not be the 
 residence of a slave. Sir, the citizen of the 
 United States, no matter whether he be from 
 the South or North, may constitutionally be 
 prevented from settling that soil. Your stand- 
 ing armies and your militia may be marched 
 from every State to dispossess him. This is a 
 policy which the Government will very seldom 
 adopt, but the power to adopt it is found in the 
 constitution, and it is the constitutional power 
 to adopt this measure which we are now in 
 search of, and not its expediency. Sir, this 
 part of the constitution is not a dead letter. 
 Look at your statute book. There you will 
 find laws specifying this power and authorizing 
 its exertion, in driving intruders from the pub- 
 lic lands. It is but a few years, sir, since the 
 President's proclamation required the exercise 
 of this power, and, but for the relaxing policy 
 of the Government, the military force of the 
 country would have been employed in carrying 
 it into effect. Here, then, is a case in which 
 Congress may constitutionally exclude the fur- 
 ther introduction of freemen from that soil; 
 much easier, do I apprehend, may she exclude 
 slaves ; mere property. A case in which Con- 
 gress may, after the admission of a State with- 
 out restriction of slavery, hold a direct and ab- 
 solute negative over the peopling her territory 
 with slaves. 
 
 Sir, the third section of the fourth article of 
 the constitution says, " that new States may be 
 admitted by the Congress into this Union." 
 Here, sir, is all the power known to the con- 
 stitution, on the subject of admitting new 
 States. Congress may admit, and may refuse 
 admission. Congress may exercise abroad an 
 uncontrollable discretion on the subject; but, in 
 the proper exercise of this discretion, Congress 
 may not reject without a cause. If a cause of 
 rejection exist, this House will know it. Con- 
 gress may then examine the boundaries ex- 
 hibited in the constitution submitted, to see 
 that they do not pass the limits and boundaries 
 of this Government ; for, if the doctrine con- 
 tended for by many gentlemen on this floor bo 
 correct, that Congress can only determine 
 whether the constitution be republican or not, 
 then the question of boundary would be an im- 
 proper inquiry for this House. The people 
 claiming admission might stop at the Sabine, 
 or go to the Kio del Norte. They might in- 
 clude the more western provinces of Mexico, 
 or go to the Isthmus of Darien. This doctrine 
 established, with the binding obligations of the 
 treaty to admit the people of Missouri, as con- 
 tended for by other gentlemen, and the question 
 of boundary with Spain is no longer under the 
 sole direction of the treaty-making power. The 
 people of Missouri may go to the West and to 
 the South, to the furthermost boundary ever 
 claimed by the Government. You are bound 
 by treaty, say gentlemen, to admit them, and, 
 once admitted, you are bound by the constitu- 
 tion to protect them against invasion. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, I am not at liberty to inquire
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 543 
 
 FKBHDART, 1820.] 
 
 The Missouri Bill Restriction on the State 
 
 [H. OF R 
 
 how the slaves of the South became slaves. I am 
 not at liberty to inquire what ruthless hand first 
 manacled the slave, and trampled on the natural 
 rights of man. I may not travel out of the 
 record, the constitution. In that instrument, 
 although the terms manacle and slave are not 
 to be found, this species of property is recog- 
 nized by strong language, and by definition too 
 plain to'be mistaken. With pleasure do I hear, 
 from the representatives of the South, that this 
 evil does not lie at their door ; and with equal 
 pleasure do I find, in the history of my country, 
 the proof of this fact. Slavery, personal slavery, 
 was introduced into this country by that Gov- 
 ernment whose policy it was to rivet the fetters 
 of political slavery on the freemen of the colo- 
 nies. It is a vestige of British policy which the 
 storms of the Revolution could not do away, 
 and which had too deep root in the Govern- 
 ment to be eradicated by reform. It was an 
 evil of so much magnitude that it became neces- 
 sary to provide for it in the constitution ; but, 
 being an evil, the provisions of the constitution 
 never meant to foster and cherish it in the Gov- 
 ernment. It was not intended to grow with its 
 growth, and strengthen with its strength; to 
 grow faster, and become stronger, than this 
 Government, which it would do by planting it 
 in the fertile regions beyond the Mississippi. 
 Sir, it is not fairer to say that slavery has been 
 adopted by this Government, because its exist- 
 ence is found in the constitution, than it would 
 be to say that crimes of the deepest dye are 
 sanctioned by this Government, because their 
 existence is recognized and admitted by the 
 constitution. Sir, evil is more frequently the 
 object of legislation than good. For good, and 
 for good men, constitutions and governments 
 are not necessary. They are made for evil, for 
 vicious, and for bad men. The existence of 
 every crime is admitted in a constitution, but it 
 would be an inference, from this, entirely inad- 
 missible, that murder was sanctioned by the 
 constitution, and ought not to be punished by 
 law. 
 
 Sir, I understand the constitution to recognize 
 the slave of the South as the property of his 
 master. As such, he is protected by the consti- 
 tution, and his situation is unalterable by law ; 
 but., like all other property, he is liable to the 
 restraints of law. Sir, an honorable gentleman, 
 endeavoring, as I understood him, to reconcile 
 slavery with abstract principle, has said, that 
 any thing is right and proper to be done which 
 the safety of a people may require. Will the 
 honorable gentleman permit us to change a little 
 the direction of that argument, and to bring it 
 to bear more immediately on the question? 
 Suppose, then, the safety of this great Republic 
 to require the restriction of slavery. If the 
 gentleman's argument be a good one, it furnishes 
 at once, on the ground of expediency, all that is 
 necessary with which to support the amend- 
 ment before the committee. Sir, from the ex- 
 istence of slavery in the constitution and Gov- 
 ernment, we are not chargeable with crime; 
 
 but, when we adopt a new constitution, or re- 
 ceive a new constitution recognizing slavery 
 when we introduce an evil in the Government, 
 then we become chargeable with that eviL 
 Then it is we create the condition of slavery, 
 which before that time had no sanction of a 
 permanent law. Then it is that we are at lib- 
 erty to inquire into first principles, and to com- 
 pare the situation of a slave with the natural 
 rights of man. 
 
 Sir, on this question I should be willing to 
 rest on the wisdom of those who have gone be- 
 fore me. I should be willing to say, that the 
 construction of the constitution, from the com- 
 mencement of the Government to this period 
 the precedents furnished, and the system of 
 legislation, from the much famed ordinance of 
 1787 almost to the present day, are sufficient, 
 lights for me on this occasion. I should say 
 that a system of legislation continued for thirty 
 years a system which existed before the con- 
 stitution, and under the constitution producing 
 the happiest political results, is one which I 
 would not readily believe to be founded in 
 usurpation, and tending to the destruction of 
 the Government. Such, sir, is the ordinance 
 of 1787 for the government of the Northwestern 
 Territory ; the propositions offered by Congress 
 to the people of Ohio, in the law authorizing 
 them to form for themselves a constitution and 
 State government ; the provisions of the con- 
 stitution of that State inhibiting slavery. Such 
 were the propositions of Congress to the people 
 of Indiana, in 1816, in the law authorizing them 
 to form a constitution and State government. 
 Such was the positive and absolute condition 
 requiring that the constitution of Indiana when 
 formed, should be republican, and not repugnant 
 to the articles of the ordinance of 1787, one of 
 which prohibited slavery; and such were the 
 provisions of the constitution of that State in- 
 hibiting slavery. Such, also, were the propo- 
 sitions offered to Illinois on a similar occasion. 
 Sir, for further notice of some of the principles 
 of this ordinance, and for additional links in this 
 chain of legislation, I refer yon to the acts of 
 cession of North Carolina and Georgia to the 
 General Government to the acts of Congress 
 preparatory to the admission of Kentucky into 
 the Union to the act relative to the Territory 
 of Orleans, authorizing the people of that Terri- 
 tory to form for themselves a constitution and 
 State government. Permit me, sir, to turn the 
 attention of the committee to some of the con- 
 ditions and restrictions of that act. The proviso 
 to the third section is in these words : 
 
 " Provided, The constitution to be formed in vir- 
 tue of the authority herein given, shall be republi- 
 can, and consistent with the Constitution of the United 
 States ; that it shall contain the fundamental princi- 
 ples of civil and religious liberty ; that it shall secure 
 to the citizen the trial by jury in all criminal cases, 
 and the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, con- 
 formably to the provisions of the Constitution of the 
 United States ; and that, after the admission of the 
 Territory of Orleans as a State into the Union, the
 
 544 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 The Missouri Bill Restriction on the State. 
 
 [FEBBUABY, 1820. 
 
 laws which such State may pass shall be promulgated, 
 and its records of every description shall be preserved, 
 and its judicial and legislative written proceedings 
 conducted, in the language in which the laws and 
 the judicial and legislative written proceedings of the 
 United States are now published and conducted ; and 
 that the river Mississippi, and the navigable rivers 
 and waters leading into the same, or into the Gulf of 
 Mexico, shall be common highways, and forever free, 
 as well to the inhabitants of the said States as to other 
 citizens of the United States, without any duty, im- 
 post, or toll therefor, imposed by the said State." 
 
 Of the same character is the act prohibiting 
 the taking of slaves to the Territory of Orleans. 
 All this, sir, I cannot believe to have been the 
 offspring of inattention in those who have legis- 
 lated since the commencement of this Govern- 
 ment. I believe, sir, that precedents and con- 
 structions of a constitution, are as binding on 
 Legislatures as decisions are binding on the 
 courts of law. And the reason which requires 
 a written constitution, requires that this should 
 be so. Why, sir, is a written constitution neces- 
 sary ? It is necessary that the lines and boun- 
 daries be clearly delineated and certainly known. 
 It is necessary that the powers of the Govern- 
 ment be defined and rendered certain; and, 
 where doubts, ambiguities, and uncertainties 
 exist, precedents and constructions define and 
 make certain. And, sir, precedents have addi- 
 tional force and efficacy when formed under 
 circumstances calculated to impress a character 
 of intelligence and stability upon them when 
 formed in the cairn of tranquillity and reason, 
 remote from party excitement and political 
 strife. Such, sir, are the precedents to which 
 I have alluded. 
 
 Mr. CUTHBEBT, of Georgia, followed, and oc- 
 cupied the floor also about an hour against the 
 restriction, when the committee rose, on motion 
 of Mr. JOHNSON, of Virginia, and the House ad- 
 journed. 
 
 WEDNESDAY, February 16. 
 Another member, to wit, from New Jersey, 
 CHABLES KINSEY, appeared, produced his cre- 
 dentials, was qualified, and took his seat. 
 
 The Missouri Bill. 
 
 The House then resumed, as in Committee of 
 the Whole, the consideration of the proposed 
 amendment to this bill. 
 
 Mr. JOHNSON, of Virginia, addressed the Chair 
 as follows : 
 
 Mr. Chairman : Without occupying your at- 
 tention by any unnecessary apologies, I shall at 
 once proceed to the examination of the princi- 
 ples involved in the question which now occu- 
 pies the attention of this committee, and which, 
 it is said, moves the great ocean of popular feel- 
 ing even to the bed on which for some time it 
 has, with so much tranquillity, reposed. In pro- 
 portion to the magnitude of the effect is the 
 solicitude of the human mind to trace to its 
 source the cause by which it has been produced. 
 What then, sir, has produced this degree of ex- 
 
 citement which gentlemen assure us exists in 
 the nation ? Is it the mere question whether 
 the lands of Missouri shall be cultivated by free- 
 men or by slaves ? No, sir no, sir no." It is 
 a question about power ; power that idol which 
 has a charm, an irresistible fascination, for the 
 human heart. It is a question calculated to test 
 the powers of the Federal Government ; to de- 
 termine how much sovereignty or power is left 
 
 Gentlemen tell us that there is great excite- 
 ment in the country, and desire us to be quiet 
 and patient, lest we should add to the excite- 
 ment. And pray, sir, by whom has this excite- 
 ment been produced ? From what quarter did 
 the proposition come ? Where have town and 
 county meetings been gotten up, to manufacture 
 resolutions of thanks to individual members of 
 Congress, to stimulate them to go on with this 
 choice work of excitement ? Not in the slave- 
 holding States not in Virginia; but in the 
 States north and east of the Potomac in New 
 York and in New England. Do gentlemen be- 
 lieve that they will be permitted to produce a 
 state of general excitement and agitation in the 
 country, and then to avail themselves of the 
 state of public feeling, in order to silence oppo- 
 sition ? Gentlemen will excuse us if we cannot 
 imitate the meekness of the lamb, which crops 
 the flowery flood, and licks the hand just raised 
 to shed his blood. 
 
 The political doctors of the day, not satisfied 
 with resorting to the different clauses of the con- 
 stitution, which give to Congress power to make 
 all needful rules and regulations respecting the 
 territory and other property belonging to the 
 United States ; to admit new States into the 
 Union ; to regulate commerce ; to provide for 
 the common defence and general welfare ; have 
 most strangely resorted to the 9th section of the 
 1st article of the constitution, to derive for 
 Congress this omnipotent power of fixing im- 
 mutably the fundamental principle, by which 
 the people of Missouri and their posterity are to 
 be governed. This section, from the beginning 
 to the end, contains nothing but prohibitions 
 and restrictions on the powers of Congress. 
 The ficst clause of this section contains the pro- 
 hibition, on the power of Congress, relative to 
 the migration or importation of such persons as 
 any of the States shall think proper to admit 
 prior to the year 1808. I shall not dwell on 
 the terms migration and importation, which 
 have been so often repeated, during this debate, 
 as to cause them to grate on the ear as harshly 
 and disagreeably as the chains of the convict. 
 
 I am very happy that the gentleman from 
 South Carolina, (Mr. PINCKNEY,) a member of 
 the Convention which formed the Constitution 
 of the United States, has given an account of 
 the understanding of the Convention, as to the 
 true import and meaning of these terms, which 
 corresponds completely with the definitions 
 given of them by the most learned and the best 
 speakers who have taken part in this debate, to 
 wit, that migration was applied to all persons
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 545 
 
 FEBKCARY, 1820.] 
 
 The Missouri Bill Restriction on the State. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 of whatever color or description, who should 
 voluntarily remove to the United States, or any 
 particular State importation, to all persons 
 who should be brought, by the will of others, 
 into any of the States. All contracts or com- 
 pacts may grant more or less than the contract- 
 ing parties designed to convey. If Congress 
 possess- no other power over the subject of mi- 
 gration or importation, than what can be derived 
 from this 9th section, it is, to my mind, most 
 perfectly clear, that not a single power is pos- 
 sessed over the subject. 
 
 It will be recollected by the committee, that 
 the preceding section contains an enumeration 
 of the powers designed to be intrusted to the 
 Congress of the United States. Would it not be 
 a most singular inconsistency for men of very 
 inferior perspicacity and intelligence to those 
 who framed the Constitution of the United 
 States, who should be engaged in a work of such 
 deep and momentous importance as that of pre- 
 paring a form of government for a free people, 
 who were jealous and watchful of their liberties, 
 in order to form a government of limited and 
 denned powers which should be peiiectly secure 
 from abuse? First, to enumerate, with care 
 and accuracy, the several powers intended to be 
 intrusted to the representatives of the people 
 yielding to the well-founded jealousy entertained 
 of the propensity of man to abuse delegated 
 powers, that the very singular mode should have 
 been adopted to confer new and more extensive 
 powers, by prohibiting, except under peculiar 
 circumstances, or for a limited time, the exercise 
 of some of the most important powers, expressly 
 delegated, or resulting by necessary and una- 
 voidable implication, from powers thus con- 
 ferred. Sir, there is no rule of construction ; 
 no principle of reason which is not opposed to 
 such a mode of imparting power. I know I may 
 be met with the objection, that it is from this 
 clause that Congress derives the power to sus- 
 pend the writ of habeas, corpus. To which I 
 answer, that Congress derives from this clause 
 no power over the writ of habeas corpus ; that 
 it was designed to furnish a rule of construction, 
 to prevent the abuse of power by suspending 
 this writ, on which the personal security and 
 liberty of the citizen so much depended. The 
 people of this country had not long shaken oif 
 the yoke of a foreign tyrant. They had had 
 many painful evidences of the abuse of power 
 by the British Government in suspending the 
 great and efficacious writ. But can it for a 
 moment be doubted that Congress has the con- 
 stitutional power to suspend the writ of habeas 
 corpus? But for the prohibition contained in 
 this section on the exercise of this power, it 
 might have been very much abused. Are not 
 the powers delegated to Congress, in their na- 
 ture sovereign? Is not the power to declare 
 war a high sovereign power, confided by the 
 people to their representatives? Is not the 
 power to create tribunals inferior to the Supreme 
 Court, expressly given? Is not the whole judi- 
 ciary of the United States organized by an act 
 VOL. VI. 35 
 
 of Congress ? Are not the forms of writs, and 
 the rules of proceeding, prescribed by Congress? 
 Can it be at all doubtful that the power which, 
 under the constitution, prescribes the rule of 
 action ; in other words, gives the law to the 
 courts and the people, when the public interest 
 demands it, can suspend even this highly im- 
 portant and remedial writ ? This was known 
 to the Convention ; the prohibition was wisely 
 inserted, as a necessary guard to the liberty of 
 the citizen. 
 
 Again, it may be contended that, from the 
 10th section of the same article, which contains 
 nothing but restraints and prohibitions upon the 
 exercise of certain powers by the States, that 
 they, when actually invaded, or in such immi- 
 nent danger as will not admit of delay, derive 
 the power to keep troops and ships of war, to 
 enter into compacts with each other, with for- 
 eign powers, and even to engage in war. Not 
 so, sir. It serves merely as a rule of construc- 
 tion, as an additional evidence of the jealousy 
 of the people of this country of their rights and 
 liberties, and of the propensity of man to abuse 
 power when intrusted to him. Not a right is 
 conferred on the States by this section. The 
 States, in relation to the General Government, 
 and in reference to their defence, occupy the 
 same ground as individuals. Whenever a gov- 
 ernment is unable to defend the citizen, the 
 right of self-defence, a natural right, recurs to 
 him ; so of the States. When the General Gov- 
 ernment is unable to defend the States, the natu- 
 ral and inalienable right of self-defence reverts 
 to the States, and authorizes them to defend and 
 preserve themselves. 
 
 Shall I be permitted to invite the attention of 
 the committee to the amendments to the Consti- 
 tution of the United States, articles first and 
 second ? These articles contain prohibitions of 
 a very singular character, on the exercise of 
 powers by Congress. I confess that I have never 
 seen these articles without regret. I have con- 
 sidered them as disgraceful to the high and 
 lofty character of the American people. I pre- 
 sume, if a convention were now called, to frame 
 a constitution for the people of the United States, 
 that, instead of embodying a few general and 
 fundamental principles, contained in a little 
 pamphlet like this, [holding the constitution in 
 his hand,] it would require a large folio volume 
 to contain the necessary restrictions and prohi- 
 bitions on the Government against undue and 
 unwarrantable exercise of power. What are 
 the prohibitions in these articles ? " 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 peace- 
 ably to assemble, and to petition the Government 
 for a redress of grievances. A well-regulated 
 militia being necessary to the security of a free 
 State, the right of the people to keep and bear 
 arms shall not be infringed." I ask the com- 
 mittee to pause for a moment, and to reflect 
 on the character of these prohibitions. What
 
 546 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R] 
 
 The Missouri Bill Restriction on the State. 
 
 [FEBRUARY, 1820. 
 
 must have been the jealousy of those who 
 deemed it necessary to guard against the abuse 
 of power, by such restrictions, on a Government 
 of limited, denned, and delegated authority? 
 Under what pretence could Congress dare to 
 interfere with aifairs of religion with the free- 
 dom of speech or of the press ? Under what state 
 of things could it be presumed to be necessary 
 for the sovereign people of the United States to 
 retain to themselves the poor privilege of as- 
 sembling peaceably to petition, not their sover- 
 eign lords and masters, but their public servants 
 and agents, for a redress of grievances? To 
 what daring usurpations must they have looked, 
 when it was deemed necessary to secure to 
 freemen the privilege of keeping and bearing 
 arms ? But, sir, constitutional securities against 
 the abuse of power, of delegated and limited 
 power, seem to be but beautiful and splendid 
 illusions. 
 
 The doctrines of humanity and religion have 
 not been much pressed into service by the re- 
 strictionists latterly. It is somewhat singular 
 that the passion of humanity should, at the same 
 instant of time, have seized so strongly upon 
 New England and Old England ; that this pas- 
 sion should have been so strongly and so sin- 
 gularly enlisted in favor of the black slaves in 
 the United States. Slavery on every other por- 
 tion of the globe seems to have had no effect on 
 the sympathies of these philanthropists. They 
 have not been excited by the condition of the 
 .white slaves of Europe ; nor by the sufferings 
 of the white, black, and party-colored slaves of 
 ;the Indies. The African slave trade the en- 
 slaved descendants of Africans in the United 
 States are the subjects of peculiar sensibility 
 .and interest to those who have recently engaged 
 in proclaiming the doctrines of benevolence and 
 humanity. The peculiar and strongly-marked 
 hostility of Old England to the people of the 
 Southern aod Western States, the holders of 
 black slaves, is well known. Let the people of 
 England of Great Britain cast their eyes on 
 the map of the earth, and see what a large pro- 
 portion of its habitable part is covered, and by 
 millions of human beings held in the most 
 wretched state of bondage, by the policy of 
 their own Government. In the West Indies, in 
 .Europe, in the East Indies, millions of human 
 beings, presenting every sliade of color, and 
 .every grade of suffering and misery, testify by 
 iheir execrations that they are the victims of 
 British policy of British cruelty and ambition. 
 Yet we find the pages of every public journal 
 in Great Britain filled with exclamations and 
 denunciations against the holders of black slaves 
 in the United States. England, despotic and 
 heartless as she is, still endeavors to preserve 
 the appearance of some regard and respect for 
 the opinions of the world. She still can blush, 
 or appear to blush, by keeping the veil closely 
 drawn. It would not do for her to express 
 much sympathy for white slaves. Her half-fed 
 and badly-clothed subjects in the highlands of 
 Scotland; her enslaved subjects in Ireland; 
 
 would attract painful attention. The miserable 
 condition of the people in the East Indies, ren- 
 dered thus miserable by her despotic pulley, 
 would intrude itself. The white slaves in 
 every part of Europe, therefore, fail to excite 
 her humanity. The Hungarian peasant, whose 
 state of slavery and subjugation, according to 
 Bright, are infinitely more oppressive than that 
 of the black slave in America, excites no por- 
 tion of her sympathy or humanity. Can Eng- 
 land disguise the fact can her friends conceal it 
 that she has done more to entail misery on the 
 African race, and their descendants, than all the 
 other powers of the earth ? 
 
 Humility is said to be the most odious garb in 
 which Pride can be dressed. This may be true, 
 sir ; but it is still more odious to see Ambition 
 dressed out in the meek habiliments of religion, 
 with humanity on her lips, whilst the love of 
 power swells her heart. We need take but a 
 glance at the history of the times that are past, 
 to see this same Ambition, covered with the 
 mantle of religion, profaning the God whom 
 it affected to adore ; poisoning the stream of 
 human felicity ; rioting on the sufferings of the 
 innocent. Shall we look for examples to the 
 land which is sometimes called the land of our 
 ancestors to Great Britain to happy Eng- 
 land? If we look to the reign of the bloody 
 Mary or the present Regent, we shall see the 
 spirit of ambition arrayed on the side of human- 
 ity and religion ; how happily, let the blood 
 and the tears of the Catholics of Ireland, shed 
 by the same sabre which has been drawn in de- 
 fence of the Catholics of Spain, testify. The 
 worship of the Deity has been proscribed to the 
 Catholics at home to the Catholics of Ireland 
 whilst the Spanish Catholic has been sustain- 
 ed by the same authority, even at the point of 
 the bayonet, to his altar and his God. And all 
 this has been done in the name of humanity, 
 and under the pretext of devotion to religion! 
 
 Sir, I am attached, to the Union ; but it is a 
 rational attachment. I have no superstitious 
 attachment, either to the Union or any thing 
 else. I am attached to the Union, because I 
 believe it calculated to secure the political 
 rights, tranquillity, prosperity, and happiness, of 
 the people of this country. The moment the 
 Union shall fail to secure and promote these 
 objects I shall detest it, as I would any other 
 species of despotism. 
 
 With what propriety can those who, during 
 the Revolution, embarked with us their fortunes 
 and their hopes on board the same ship ; who 
 gladly clung to us during the hour of danger, 
 after it stood the storm during the Revolu- 
 tionary conflict, and rode triumphantly through 
 the tempest during the late war with Great 
 Britain passing safely over the rough sea 
 which set in from abroad, undisturbed by the 
 ripple added by domestic faction now that all 
 is peace and sunshine, turn upon us, and upbraid 
 us with the stains and spots of negro slavery ; 
 a species of slavery which existed before and 
 during the Revolution in every State in the
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 547 
 
 FEBRUARY, 1820.] 
 
 The Missouri Bill Restriction on the State. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 Union ; which has always existed since the 
 Revolution, in portions of this country, and 
 which they bound themselves, by the most 
 sacred of all compacts, never to disturb ? Let 
 the parties to the compact, who have been borne 
 thus safely and happily in this old ship, but ad- 
 here to the charter-party the constitution I 
 have no doubt she will glide in safety on the 
 wave of time to the end of the present century, 
 prepared, at that period, still to go on with the 
 fairest prospect of a successful voyage to the 
 close of the next century. Permit me to bor- 
 row the dying words of the immortal Lawrence, 
 while his eye was glazed by death : honor and 
 glory brightened on his brow he exclaimed, 
 " don't give up the styp ?" I say to you, hold 
 on to the Union don't give up the political ship 
 cling to the original charter-party the con- 
 stitution ; all will be well the nation will be 
 happy. 
 
 Is there a citizen of the United States who 
 has not felt his bosom warmed and animated by 
 the sun of our political confederacy ? The sun 
 which on the 4th of July, 1776, rose with such 
 unusual brightness and matchless splendor, 
 which, for more than forty years, has warmed 
 and animated this society, and lighted its path 
 to glory and to happiness. Shall the political 
 balance and harmony of our system be destroy- 
 ed, and that sun be precipitated, with disastrous 
 ruin, on the bosom of this society, which it has 
 so often cheered and brightened into joy and 
 felicity? I trust that Heaven will avert the 
 sad calamity. That, under the genial influence 
 of this sun, that flowering wreath which has so 
 long bound in concord and harmony this Con- 
 federacy, will maintain an imperishable verdure 
 that its bloom will be perpetual, its fragrance 
 immortal ! 
 
 Mr. DAP.LIXGTON, of Pennsylvania, addressed 
 the chair as follows : 
 
 Mr. Chairman, I wish to submit a few re- 
 marks on this question ; and I trust the com- 
 mittee will be disposed to extend their indul- 
 gence towards me for a few moments, when 
 they recollect that I am not in the habit of tres- 
 passing upon their patience in this way. I am 
 very sensible that I shall not be able to do jus- 
 tice even to my own views of the subject ; for 
 I am utterly unpractised in the business of pub- 
 lic speaking ; yet, believing that this is a ques- 
 tion of vital importance, not only to the char- 
 acter of this nation, but likewise to its safety, 
 prosperity, and happiness ; and believing also, 
 that some erroneous impressions exist, in rela- 
 tion to many of those who advocate the amend- 
 ments before you, I feel constrained to attempt 
 a few observations. 
 
 I shall not presume to undertake an exposi- 
 tion of ambiguous constitutional points, after the 
 very able and learned discussions which \ve 
 have had from gentlemen who have piv<vd,.<l 
 me. Such an attempt would, in my opinion, be 
 as unnecessary now, as it certainly would lie 
 presumptuous in me at any time. I shall, there- 
 fore, content myself, at this stage of the debate, 
 
 with offering some of those views which present 
 themselves to a common understanding. And 
 here, sir, as an American, proud and jealous of 
 our national character, I trust I may be permit- 
 ted to say, that it is a source of no little mortifi- 
 cation to me to see the Congress of these United 
 States, in the 44th year of our independence, 
 seriously sustaining the question whether it be 
 rightful and expedient, without an uncontrolla- 
 ble necessity, to sanction human slavery in the 
 new republics which are to be added to this 
 Confederacy? I had once fondly hoped that 
 such a spectacle would never have been exhibit- 
 ed by us, to gratify the malignant envy of the 
 despots, and their execrable parasites, who out- 
 rage the rights of mankind in the Old World, 
 and who sicken at the idea of their conservation 
 here. I had hoped, that we should have per- 
 severed with unanimity, as we have hitherto 
 done, in erecting new republics upon the true 
 and genuine principles of our Government, ex- 
 cluding human slavery with the utmost care 
 and solicitude, wherever it should be in our 
 power to do so. The generous and predomi- 
 nant sentiments of the American people, as far 
 as I have had an opportunity to be acquainted 
 with those sentiments, seemed to me to warrant 
 such a hope ; and I cannot yet relinquish the 
 idea. 
 
 We have been told, indeed and I feel it my 
 duty, as a Representative of Republican Penn- 
 sylvania, to notice the remark we have been 
 told, Mr. Chairman, that, however laudable may 
 be the motives of many who are in favor of re- 
 stricting slavery, yet that there are political jug- 
 glers behind the scenes, who are making use of 
 the proposition and its advocates, as the forlorn 
 hope, and the last desperate effort of an expir- 
 ing party. Sir, where I am best known, it 
 would be needless to say that I have nothing 
 to do with their views, their efforts, or their 
 hopes ; that I have never had any concern or 
 connection with that expiring party. From my 
 earliest youth, upwards, I have been a demo- 
 cratic republican ; and I leave it to those who 
 have once belonged to the aforesaid expiring 
 party, if there be any such here, to develop the 
 schemes of their jugglers. I have never been in 
 their secrets ; but I cannot help observing, that 
 I see gentlemen who are avowed members of 
 that unfortunate party, zealously engaged in 
 the ranks of our opponents, in endeavors to 
 defeat this amendment. Sir, I do not believe 
 it is a question of party views with any man 
 who loves his country, or feels an interest in its 
 reputation and permanent welfare. But, sir, I 
 have always been taught to believe, that it was 
 no part of republicanism to authorize, or even 
 to connive at, slavery, in the formation of gov- 
 ernments, where it could possibly be prevent- 
 ed. I will here frankly confess, too, that it is 
 cause of pain and regret to be opposed to gen- 
 tlemen for whom I have the highest regard, 
 and with whom it has generally been the pride 
 and the happiness of myself and my colleagues 
 to co-operate. But, on this occasion, I must
 
 548 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 The Missouri Bill Restriction on the State. 
 
 [FEBRUARY, 1820. 
 
 pursue a course, however opposite to that of 
 ray Southern friends, which a solemn sense of 
 duty renders imperative ; and I ask gentlemen 
 to exercise their accustomed liberality towards 
 us. If they think it strange that we, who have 
 generally acted with them, are opposed to them 
 on this subject, we can only say, that we think 
 it equally strange, and we do most sincerely 
 regret, to find them in opposition to us. 
 
 The sparse population now in Missouri may 
 not yet perceive the evils of slavery ; and may, 
 therefore, be willing to indulge in the danger- 
 ous gratifications which it affords, until it is too 
 late. So it was in South Carolina and Georgia. 
 Those States wished for more slaves. They in- 
 sisted on the privilege (which, unhappily for 
 themselves, and the whole nation, was conced- 
 ed to them) of importing that description of 
 persons for twenty years after the adoption of 
 the Federal Constitution. But, Mr. Chairman, 
 what do they say now ? Do they not see their 
 error? Nay, do they not feel it, and deplore 
 it ? And are we never to profit by woful ex- 
 perience? Are we to go on, wilfully, and per- 
 verse, blindfold, in this fatal career, until slavery 
 shall be extended over three-fourths of the re- 
 publics in this Confederacy? I hope not. I 
 pray to God that we may have the virtue and 
 the firmness to restrain its progress, before we 
 are irretrievably lost in the dreadful abyss. 
 Some of the learned gentlemen of the bar, who 
 oppose this amendment, have exercised their 
 ingenuity in subtle distinctions, and technical 
 rules of deduction, borrowed from their pro- 
 fession. They were,, no doubt, very applicable 
 to the subject ; and, as far as I understand them, 
 I listened with pleasure I hope with profit. 
 They also borrowed some of their illustrations 
 from my profession ; and there, I think, I un- 
 derstood them better. But, Mr. Chairman, I 
 could by no means assent to their correctness, 
 when they came within my province. I trust 
 they were more correct while on their own 
 grounds. Gentlemen compared the evil of 
 slavery to a malignant poison ; and they called 
 upon us to dilute it, by diffusion, in order to 
 render it more tolerable. Sir, it is a malignant 
 poison, or rather, I would say, it is a malignant 
 disease in the body politic, whose deleterious 
 ravages are extended with all the certainty and 
 inveteracy of specific contagion. It is more 
 loathsome than the small-pox itself; and its des- 
 olating influence ought, by all means, to be 
 confined within the smallest possible limits. 
 "Would you diffuse contagion in a community, 
 by way of relief? "Would you disseminate small- 
 pox, with a view to dilate its malignity, or to 
 mitigate its effects? No, sir, that would be 
 quackery without a parallel in the darkest ages 
 of the profession. Sir, the immortal ordinance 
 of 1787, respecting the territories northwest of 
 the Ohio, was the grand Jennerian discovery in 
 relation to the malady of slavery in our coun- 
 try ; and I trust we shall continue to avail our- 
 selves of the blessing. The Congress of 1787 
 introduced a sort of political vaccination into 
 
 the constitutions of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, 
 which effectually secured those States from the 
 evil ; and I am also for extending the same 
 salutary process to our infant sister, Missouri. 
 And why ? Is it to injure her ? Is it to muti- 
 late or disfigure her ? No, sir, it is to secure 
 her health, and to preserve her beauty 1 Mr. 
 Chairman, should you deem these observations 
 to savor unduly of the shop, I must plead, in 
 mitigation of your censure, the precedent set by 
 the gentlemen of the green satchel. Much has 
 been said, Mr. Chairman, on both sides, about 
 religion, as connected with this question. I 
 shall not adduce religious arguments in aid of 
 my opinions, because I am well aware that the 
 sacred name of religion has been too often im- 
 properly used for political purposes. I have, 
 indeed, heard the benevolent principles of Chris- 
 tianity urged, with unanswerable force, in my 
 estimation, against the further extens/on of this 
 crying enormity ; and yet I have also recently 
 seen, with feelings which I shall not attempt to 
 describe, the holy scriptures cited as authority 
 in favor of the practice of holding mankind as 
 slaves ! But I am not disposed to mingle poli- 
 tics with religion. I am for keeping Church 
 and State separate, on all occasions. I cannot, 
 however, help noticing a remark of the gentle- 
 man from South Carolina, (Mr. PETOKNEY.) I 
 understood him to say, that slavery could not 
 be inconsistent with religion, because the Deity 
 permits a large portion of the human race to be 
 held in bondage. I am sure the gentleman did 
 not reflect on the extent to which such an argu- 
 ment would go, or he would not have advanced 
 it. Sir, if that doctrine were correct, it would 
 go to sanction every evil that is permitted to 
 exist in society ; and we should find little rea- 
 son to smile, or be surprised, at the quaint de- 
 termination of the liberty- loving fathers and 
 founders of New England, who, we are told, 
 resolved that they would be governed by the 
 laws of God until they could enact others better 
 suited to their condition. But, sir, I must beg 
 leave to say, that the religion which sanctifies 
 the unnecessary existence of slavery, is not the 
 religion which we profess in Pennsylvania. 
 
 It has been said, Mr. Chairman, in opposition 
 to this amendment, that all the citizens of the 
 United States have a right to the territory west 
 of the Mississippi, inasmuch as it was purchased 
 wtth their money; that, therefore, Congress 
 cannot prevent citizens from removing thither 
 with their slaves and other property. But it is 
 admitted that the people of Missouri may, them- 
 selves, exclude slavery. Now, if it be a right 
 which belongs to a citizen of the United States, 
 as such, to remove there with every description 
 of property, how comes it that his slaves may 
 be thus excluded ? Can sixty thousand people, 
 by forming a State government in one of your 
 territories, abridge the rights of citizens of the 
 United States? When the public lands aro 
 thrown into the market, can these Missourians 
 exclude all purchasers who wish to come there 
 with their slaves ? It would seem that they
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 549 
 
 FEBRUARY, 1820.] 
 
 The Missouri Bill Restriction on the State. 
 
 [H. OF R 
 
 can ; and this, to my mind, conclusively shows 
 that the right to carry slaves into the new 
 States is not a right of a United States citizen, 
 as such. But again : it is generally conceded, 
 that Congress may prohibit slavery in a terri- 
 tory; and yet, if holding and carrying slaves 
 were one of the rights of a citizen as aforesaid, 
 such prohibition would seem to-be a more direct 
 infringement of that right, because the territory 
 is the common property of the people of the 
 United States. My inference, therefore, is, that 
 the right to carry slaves into a new State, or 
 territory, is not a federal right. I consider the 
 right, if it may be so called, of holding man- 
 kind as slaves, to be a local one, derived from 
 those State institutions where slavery is already 
 permitted. 
 
 THURSDAY, February 17. 
 The Missouri Bill. 
 
 The House then again proceeded, in Commit- 
 tee of the Whole, to the consideration of this 
 bill, and the amendment proposed thereto by 
 Mr. TAYLOR. 
 
 Mr. SIMKIXS, of South Carolina, resumed the 
 debate, and spoke more than an hour against 
 the restriction. 
 
 Mr. DENNISON, of Pennsylvania, took the 
 other side, and spoke some time in support of 
 the restriction. 
 
 Mr. TYLER, of Virginia, addressed the Chair 
 as follows : 
 
 Mr. T. said that he regretted that the state of 
 his health had been such as, heretofore, to have 
 prevented him from taking part in this debate ; 
 that, although he had not entirely recovered 
 from that indisposition, yet that he felt himself 
 called on by a sense of duty to express his sen- 
 timents on this important question ; important, 
 not only as to the actors of this day ; important, 
 not only as to the present point of time, but 
 vitally so, as to the permanency of our political 
 institutions, and, of consequence, important to 
 the interests of ages yet unborn. The day has 
 not long passed, said he, in which this country 
 was divided between two great parties; the 
 struggle then was for office. That state of 
 things might be considered as natural to a re- 
 public. But party spirit has almost entirely 
 disappeared. When at its greatest height what 
 did it amount to? It gave to you some uneasi- 
 ness, it is true, in the time of your travail and 
 difficulty, but, under its influence, the country 
 prospered, and our most anxious wishes were 
 consummated. But behold now our situation ! 
 You have no longer the man of the North 
 against the man of the North, but State against 
 State the North and East against the South 
 and West one moiety of this country arrayed 
 against the other. Sir, the republican of the 
 North has now turned his back on the republi- 
 can of the South. I call on him to pause; I re- 
 quire of him to remember the days which we 
 have seen together. In times of great peril we 
 have been united; difficulties have vanished 
 
 before us ; and, by our united policy, the high 
 destinies of our common country have been ad- 
 vanced. Say that you triumph on this occasion. 
 Over whom do you triumph? I will tell you : 
 over those who have heretofore been your 
 friends; over those who waded with you 
 through the perils and difficulties of your Rev- 
 olutionary struggle ; over men whose destinies 
 have been united with yours since the dark 
 period of 1798 and 1799; whom, since that 
 period, you have met here as firm and steadfast 
 friends. Poor is the triumph unworthy the 
 trophy ! 
 
 Sir, said he, we have heard much of excite- 
 ment, of irritation. How has it arisen, and 
 who has produced it ? Let it be set down in 
 the tablets of your memory that it is the work 
 of the North, and not of the South. A bill is 
 reported in the usual form for the admission of 
 a Territory as an independent State into this 
 Union ; and the unusual and extraordinary pro- 
 position is made to abridge it in the exercise of 
 an essential right. We have a right to demand 
 the reason of this innovation. Other States 
 have been admitted without this restriction. 
 .Why is it that you now assume to yourselves 
 the exercise of this power ? Are the people of 
 Missouri less capable of adopting measures cal- 
 culated to advance their happiness than the 
 people of the other States? Who are they? 
 They are identified with ourselves ; they are 
 emigrants from all the States. They have car- 
 ried with them the very principles which we 
 possess ; their stock of intelligence is as great, 
 in proportion to their numbers, as is to be found 
 elsewhere. Be sure, then, that you have the 
 right, and that it is good policy to adopt this 
 limitation on the powers of that people. If 
 you doubt as to either the right or the policy, 
 remember that, as to the first, you cannot satisfy 
 your consciences by the exercise of doubtful 
 power ; and that, as to the last, to doubt should 
 induce you to abstain from acting. All experi- 
 ence proves that they who act in obedience to 
 the dictates of a doubtful policy may, by possi- 
 bility, be right, but that they are much more 
 often wrong than right. 
 
 Gentlemen have attempted to show the con- 
 stitutional right to impose this condition, and 
 in what manner ? They have hunted through 
 every section of the constitution ; one fixes on one 
 clause, another on another, and by a course of 
 ingenuity almost intangible, have attempted to 
 extract this grand desideratum of powers. For 
 one, on such an occasion, I not only require that 
 you shall reason ingeniously, but that you shall 
 render your power clear and manifest. Tell me 
 not of implied and doubtful powers; against 
 them I weigh the very nature of our Govern- 
 ment, and the spirit of our institutions. They 
 Are founded on the great principle that man ia 
 capable of self-government ; that he requires no 
 foreign aid in regulating his domestic concerns. 
 Our Revolution was founded on this principle ; 
 England denied to us the right to legislate, ex- 
 cept by her special authority ; nay, she pro-
 
 550 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 The Missouri Bill Restriction on the State. 
 
 [FEBRDABY, 1820. 
 
 claimed the very principle which you now pro- 
 claim as applicable to Missouri the right to 
 bind you by her own system of legislation. To 
 this the American spirit did not bow. It went 
 forth to the battle, in the majesty of its strength, 
 and achieved the victory of our independence. 
 But, sir, the principle which we are called on 
 to adopt, goes, by a sightless distance, farther 
 than England ever dared to go. Her acts of 
 legislation were fleeting and ephemeral ; liable 
 at all times to repeal ; but we are to legislate, 
 not only for the present day, but for all ages to 
 come. This restriction, if adopted, is unalter- 
 able and interminable in its duration. No suc- 
 ceeding generation have any power over it. It 
 constitutes the very essence of the political ex- 
 istence of Missouri. It is the condition prece- 
 dent, and must, through all future time, attach 
 to the estate. Gentlemen have exultingly read 
 to us the Declaration of Independence. From 
 it they have gathered that which, as an abstract 
 truth, I am not disposed to deny : " that all 
 men are, by nature, equally free, sovereign, and 
 independent." Can this proposition admit of 
 application to a state of society ? Does not its 
 fallacy meet you in every walk of life ? Dis- 
 tinctions will exist. Virtue and vice, wealth 
 and poverty, industry and idleness, constitute 
 so many barriers, which human power cannot 
 break down, and which will ever prevent us 
 from carrying into operation, in extenso, this 
 great principle. Take this principle and preach 
 it up to the monarchs of the world ; will they 
 descend from their lofty eminences, or raise 
 mankind to a level with themselves? No, sir, 
 the principle, although lovely and beautiful, 
 cannot obliterate those distinctions in society 
 which society itself engenders and gives birth 
 to. Liberty and equality are captivating sounds ; 
 but they often captivate to destroy. England 
 had her Jack Cades and levellers. Look, I pray 
 you, to revolutionary France. These were the 
 principles of that day. Mark the consequences ! 
 Murder and rapine stalked over the land, and 
 the guillotine, the work, too, of a philanthropist 
 of that day, was the sad monument of this fal- 
 lacy. Liberty and equality was proclaimed by 
 Eobespierre and his associates, at the very mo- 
 ment when they were enriching the fields of 
 France with the blood of her citizens. Nor 
 was the doctrine confined to political institu- 
 tions, but, advancing with a daring step, fought 
 even with the Creator, and mocked at the im- 
 mutable truth of religion. 
 
 Turn your eyes also to South America. The 
 throne of the Incas was washed from under 
 them by the tide which flowed in from Spain. 
 The native of the forest was deprived of his 
 freedom, and made to toil for his new master. 
 Then, too, sprung up a philanthropist, who 
 claimed for the Indian an equal rank in creation 
 with the inhabitants of Spain. His claim was 
 admitted, and Africa mourned over the mistake, 
 and her deepest curses may still be uttered 
 against the memory of Las Casas. But, Mr. 
 Chairman, although I do not believe that this 
 
 principle of equality can be applied to man in 
 extenso, yet I love it, and admire it as an ab- 
 stract truth, and will carry it into operation 
 whensoever I can ; and, sir, I call on gentlemen 
 to lend me their aid in the present instance. If 
 we cannot raise the black man up to the level 
 with the white and that we have not the con- 
 stitutional power to do so none here have denied 
 let us raise, at least, the white man up to this 
 level. Extend an equality of rights to the 
 people of Missouri. Place them upon a footing 
 with the people of New York, Connecticut, and 
 of the other States. What are the rights of the 
 people of Connecticut and the other States? 
 They have the right to alter, to amend, to 
 abolish their constitutions. Connecticut has 
 lately done so. Will you deny to the people of 
 Missouri this right? You say to the people of 
 New York, alter your constitution as you see 
 fit in all its parts. Will you say in the same 
 breath to the people of Missouri, you shall not 
 exercise this right in regard to your constitu- 
 tion ? Is this your boasted equality ? If it be, 
 sir, " I will have none of it." It is base coin, 
 and will not pass current. This is said, too, to 
 be a parental care for Missouri. I am pleased 
 with plain and simple illustrations: would a 
 father act in the way in which you propose to 
 act? His child has attained the age of twenty- 
 one ; by the laws of society that child is en- 
 titled to an equality of rights with himself; and 
 what would you think of the parent who should 
 say to the child, "Sir, you are now a man, but 
 you shall not exercise the rights of a man, ex- 
 cept upon conditions f " Would the child sub- 
 mit? Would a kind parent hold such language? 
 No ; he would resort to advice ; would adopt 
 the course which is recommended by the gen- 
 tleman from Connecticut, (Mr. FOOT,) in a res- 
 olution which he has presented. If he pursued 
 any other, he would be pronounced arbitrary 
 and cruel. Let us avoid such an imputation. 
 Missouri is now full grown ; this, your offspring, 
 has attained full age; attempt no longer to 
 trammel her ; let her set up for herself, and, al- 
 though you may advise her, do not attempt to 
 force her. Sir, she will not, and ought not to 
 submit to force ; she would disgrace her parent 
 stock if she did so. The proud Koman spirit 
 which inhabits every portion of this country, 
 spurns control. Would you humble this spirit 
 if you could ? If you would, you cannot do it ; 
 but if you could, your country would have no 
 cause to thank you for so doing. 
 
 What will be the consequences, if you persist 
 in this measure ? A sectional feeling is already 
 generated ; a geographic line is drawn. Tell 
 me not of that policy which shall divide the 
 people of this country by local feelings and pre- 
 judices. This is the bane of a Republic it is 
 the rock which ought to be most cautiously 
 avoided sir, it is the greatest of all dangers to 
 the union of these States. Take not my poor 
 word for it. Nay, disregard the admonitions of 
 him who has so often been called the Father of 
 his Country. Forget the valedictory address of
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 551 
 
 FEBRUARY, 1820.] 
 
 The Missouri Bill Restriction on the State. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 WASHINGTON. But can you, or will you, close 
 your eyes to the lights of experience? Re- 
 member ancient Rome : she conquered mighty 
 powers ; the world obeyed her nod ; but she, 
 in the end, conquered herself. The people di- 
 vided among themselves, and these divisions 
 led to the erection of the Throne of the Caesars 
 over her prostrate liberty. So, too, with the 
 Grecian republics: united Greece stood up suc- 
 cessfully against the mighty power of Xerxes ; 
 and the fall of Leonidas was but the precursor 
 of the glory achieved at Marathon and Platsea. 
 But Sparta wished to domineer over Athens, 
 and their intestine feuds opened the channel to 
 that flood of vandalism which deluged Greece, 
 and obliterated all trace of freedom. Such, 
 too, was the fate of the Achaian league. I be- 
 seech gentlemen then to pause, lest they pro- 
 duce a similar division- of sentiment in this 
 happy land. What else can retard our onward 
 march ? What were you fifty years ago ? By 
 Europe we were esteemed as little better than 
 savages ; nay, dozing philosophers had ventured 
 to pronounce that all animated nature here wore 
 a degenerate aspect. But history has refuted 
 and thrown back this slander in the teeth of 
 those who uttered it. We emerged with great 
 brightness from the struggles of the Revolution. 
 Our prosperity continued to advance. We have 
 emerged from a second conflict, with additional 
 radiance. We bearded the Hercules of the 
 other hemisphere, and we lost naught by the 
 conflict. Our proud banners floated in triumph 
 over the waves. What now is our condition? 
 Kings and potentates court our amity. We are 
 lifted up to a high station among the nations of 
 the earth. Say that our march is not impeded, 
 who can set limits to our glory ? Tyre rose a 
 little speck above the ocean, and she was con- 
 sidered strong and mighty. England, with an 
 area scarcely exceeding that of some of these 
 States, controls the destinies of Europe. And 
 what shall be their glory, in comparison with 
 ours? We direct the destinies of a mighty 
 continent. Our resources are unlimited: our 
 means unbounded. If we be true to ourselves, 
 the glory of other nations, in comparison with 
 ours, shall resemble but a tale from the days of 
 chivalry. Our mighty and refulgent sun shall 
 almost obscure, by its radiance, the little stars 
 of their renown. Let us, then, avoid a question 
 like the present : disappoint not these fond 
 hopes. Gentlemen on the opposite side may 
 yield without dishonor. They pursue but a 
 scheme of policy ; we are differently situated ; 
 we cannot, without violation of our oaths, sup- 
 port this measure. We believe, in our con- 
 sciences, that the constitution confers on us no 
 such power, For myself, I cannot, and will 
 not, yield one inch of ground. Let me, then, 
 adjure our brethren from the North to come 
 and sit down once more by our side. I call on 
 them to heal the dilferences which this measure 
 has produced. Your course is palpable and 
 plain. You have two roads before you ; take 
 this, and all is harmony and peace ; over that, 
 
 hang doubts and fears. I invoke the Genius of 
 the Constitution to cover and protect us against 
 the evils which threaten us. What if you im- 
 pose the restriction, and Missouri, instead of 
 submitting, shall form herself into a commu- 
 nity and demand admittance, or sever from the 
 Union? Will you then retract? How much 
 more honorable to do it now! Or, do you 
 mean to persist iu your object at all hazards, 
 and, if she prove refractory, reduce her to sub- 
 mission ? Do you believe that Southern bayo- 
 nets will ever be plunged in Southern hearts ? 
 I know not how this may be, but I require you 
 to pause and deeply to reflect before you have 
 to resort to this extremity. 
 
 Mr. RICH, of Vermont, rose and addressed 
 the Chair as follows : 
 
 Mr. Chairman : Whilst I consider the present 
 question of greater interest by far than any 
 which has been agitated since the adoption of 
 the constitution, or any other on which I can 
 expect it will ever become my duty to give a 
 vote ; and, while I reflect on some circumstances 
 in relation to it, which to me are not a "litne 
 extraordinary, I feel it to be due, both to the 
 committee and myself, that I should occupy a 
 small portion of your time in explaining my 
 views upon the subject, and my reasons for the 
 vote I am about to give. The fact that, at the 
 last session, every member south of the State of 
 Delaware, and of the river Ohio, gave their 
 votes in favor of an unlimited extension of 
 slavery, while those to the north of those limits 
 gave almost as unanimous a vote against it, has 
 caused me to entertain fears that, either from 
 motives of interest or some peculiar feelings, 
 we had, on the one hand or the other, lost sight 
 of the great principles on which a wise and just 
 legislation is founded. 
 
 The circumstance, too, that a large portion 
 of those now opposed to me are the same gentle- 
 men with whom I have acted in times the most 
 difficult and perplexing ; whose opinions I have 
 highly approved, and with whose votes my own 
 have been usually recorded ; has induced me to 
 give the most attentive consideration to the 
 subject, in all the forms in which it has been 
 presented to my mind, lest it should happen 
 that feelings, perhaps peculiar to myself, might 
 have betrayed my judgment into an error. I 
 have paused I have' considered, and made up 
 my mind upon the most mature deliberation. 
 It is not my intention, sir, to attempt to follow 
 gentlemen who have gone before me, on the 
 opposite side of the question; and, except so 
 far as may be necessary to connect my views? 
 upon the subject, I shall endeavor to avoid :\ 
 repetition of the arguments employed by others > 
 on the side I have the honor to advocate. It 
 will be my purpose to attempt to show that 
 slavery does not proceed from the exercise of a 
 legitimate attribute of sovereignty, and that 
 hence, admitting all for which gentlemen con- 
 tend, as to a want of power in Congress to in- 
 terfere with " State rights," their constitutional 
 objections must fail them. If, in this part oi
 
 552 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 The Missouri Bill Restriction on the State. 
 
 [FEBRUARY, 1820. 
 
 my argument I shall be successful, I trust there 
 are few who will object to the expediency of 
 the proposition. 
 
 The fact that the word " slave" is nowhere to 
 be found in the constitution, or other words so 
 employed as to convey an idea that the fraraers 
 of that instrument intended to recognize slavery, 
 has satisfied my mind that, as from a condition 
 of things beyond their control, or that of their 
 country, they could not prohibit it in the then 
 " existing States," and as, for obvious reasons, 
 they were obliged indirectly to admit the fact 
 of its existence, they purposely, and very care- 
 fully, avoided the use of any expressions from 
 which, by fair construction, even an argument 
 could be derived in favor of its legitimacy. 
 Consequently, the legality of it must be deter- 
 mined by a reference to the laws of nature and 
 natural rights, and not to the constitution ; and 
 to me it is a matter of utter astonishment, that, 
 because the original States were recognized 
 with their existing institutions, some of which 
 had been under an absolute necessity to permit 
 slavery, it should from thence be contended 
 that, on admitting a new State, we have no 
 power to exclude slavery from it, on the ground 
 of its having been recognized as an attribute of 
 sovereignty over which we have no control. 
 
 If, then, it be true, that there is danger of 
 domestic violence from the existence of slavery, 
 which I am confident none will deny, I should 
 apprehend that a law, the object and certain 
 tendency of which is to diminish the relative 
 number of slaves in our country, and spread a 
 tree white population over the fairest portions 
 of it, must not only be proper, but indispensa- 
 bly necessary, to guard against the occurrence 
 of violence, and preserve the United States in 
 a condition to discharge its duties. All admit 
 that slavery is an evil ; and I contend that its 
 extension over the boundless regions of the 
 West, would be an extravagant and unnecessary 
 extension of an evil which must affect every 
 section of the Union, and every class of the 
 community ; and, if thus extended, an evil from 
 which our innocent posterity will never escape. 
 But we are told that, be the evil what it may, 
 Congress has no power which it can exercise 
 over the subject. And, sir, is it true that, in 
 one-third of a century from the adoption of 
 the constitution, we have made the unfortunate 
 discovery that an evil may threaten our exist- 
 ence, and one too which the people, who have 
 not the means for making a united effort, cannot 
 overcome, and yet Congress, which alone has 
 power to prescribe the national policy and 
 direct its energies, may look on and weep for 
 the calamity, but cannot extend the arm of 
 relief, because the wisdom of our fathers was 
 not sufficient to provide for the exigency? 
 Long, very long, sir, will be the period that will 
 have elapsed before I shall have come to that 
 conclusion. 
 
 If it can be demonstrated that a right to hold 
 a human being in slavery beyond its necessity, 
 is among the legitimate attributes of sovereignty, 
 
 and that slavery is not an evil, I shall cheerfully 
 yield the ground to those now opposed to me ; 
 but until this shall be made to appear, I shall 
 adhere to my positions, and shall contend that, 
 as in every country, a right to guard itself 
 against impending dangers must somewhere 
 exist; and as in this country, and upon this 
 subject, it is impossible for it to be exercised 
 with effect, but by the General Government, we 
 ought, on this occasion, as does the honorable 
 Speaker, and many others, now opposed to me, 
 when on the subject of internal improvements, 
 " give such an enlarged and liberal construction 
 to the constitution," as will enable us " to pro- 
 vide for the common defence and general wel- 
 fare," in the best practicable manner, while no at- 
 tribute of sovereignty shall be thereby infringed. 
 
 Hitherto, slavery has not been so recognized 
 by the General Government, as to cause our na- 
 tional character to be materially affected by it ; 
 for, although there are States in the Union 
 which, from the necessity of the case, may be 
 termed slaveholding States, it cannot, with truth, 
 be alleged that, as a nation, we have permitted 
 slavery. But if, under present circumstances, 
 Congress shall solemnly decide that it cannot 
 restrain the unlimited extension of it, and that 
 a want of power to do so results from an un- 
 qualified recognition of it by the constitution, 
 our national character will become identified 
 with it ; and instead of its being considered, as 
 heretofore, a local malady, and susceptible of 
 cure, it must henceforth be regarded as affecting 
 the whole system, and past the hope of possi- 
 bility of a remedy. Permit me then to express 
 a hope that gentlemen will yet find it consist- 
 ent with their views of the constitution and the 
 best interests of their country, to join with us 
 in limiting an evil which cannot at present be 
 removed ; and that we may continue our united 
 efforts to cause the blessings which naturally 
 result from the labors of our fathers, to be uni- 
 versally felt and acknowledged ; while evils, 
 which are local in their nature, and which can- 
 not be diminished by dispersion, may be made 
 to continue local till removed, and our national 
 character thereby preserved. 
 
 Could I feel certain there would be no acces- 
 sion to the present number of slaves, other than 
 by procreation, uninfluenced by an extraordi- 
 nary demand, a question, differing very widely 
 from the present, would be presented for my 
 decision. But, sir, we must take men and 
 things as they are. Permit it, then, over the- 
 boundless regions of the West, and the time 
 will not only never arrive when slavery can be 
 extinguished, not even with the universal con- 
 sent of the masters, but the absolute certainty 
 that the scenes which have been acted at St. 
 Domingo will, at some period, be acted in this 
 country will, to my mind, be established be- 
 yond a doubt ; for " the justice of the Almighty 
 cannot sleep forever," nor has he any " attri- 
 butes which could take sides with us in such a 
 contest." And I will here remark, that, al- 
 though this nation is not chargeable with the
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 553 
 
 FEBRUARY, 1820.] Maine and Missouri Senate's Amendments to the Maine Bill. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 original introduction of slavery, yet, unless it 
 shall employ all practicable means to ameliorate 
 its condition, and finally extinguish it, we must, 
 in the view of Heaven, of reason, and common 
 sense, be regarded as trespassers from the be- 
 ginning, and held answerable for all the direful 
 consequences. 
 
 The increase by procreation is capable of 
 being extended almost without limits; and, un- 
 til man shall cease to make merchandise of his 
 fellow, it will extend with the extension of de- 
 mand ; and you may pass what laws you will 
 against the importation, employ, if you please, 
 the whole army and navy of the country to 
 enforce them, and yet, if the demand be great, 
 the unfortunate Africans will be torn from their 
 country, and, with thousands of the American 
 free blacks, doomed to supply the demand. All 
 our experience proves, that wherever there is a 
 demand for a commodity, it will be supplied ; 
 and, if the demand cease, the commodity will 
 disappear. It is by limiting the demand, then, 
 and by that alone, that I can look with the 
 smallest degree of confidence, to a period when 
 slavery and its miseries and misfortunes shall 
 cease to exist, or our country rendered safe 
 against some dreadful catastrophe. 
 
 I admit, that to limit the demand, will affect 
 the value of that species of property, (if such 
 gentlemen will call it,) so far as its value de- 
 pends on its conveniency as an article of mer- 
 chandise ; and so far also, as a right of property 
 can exist in unborn millions of the human race. 
 But I submit to the candor and good sense of 
 that portion of my fellow-citizens who are pos- 
 sessed of it, whether they can reasonably re- 
 quire from us, that we should keep open an un- 
 limited demand, at the expense of our national 
 character, as we believe ; in opposition to the 
 influence of religion, and the dictates of human- 
 ity ; and in a total disregard for the perpetuity 
 of our institutions, and the happiness of all 
 succeeding generations ? 
 
 I certainly feel no disposition to confine the 
 present slave population within so narrow lim- 
 its as to render their miserable condition more 
 miserable ; and when the country between 
 Pennsylvania on the north, the Gulf of Mexico 
 on the south, the Atlantic on the east, and the 
 Ohio, the Mississippi, and the western boundary 
 of Louisiana, on the west, or so much of it as 
 shall continue to permit slavery, a large portion 
 of which is yet a wilderness, shall become so 
 populous as to render an extension necessary, 
 either for the happiness of the slave or the 
 safety of the master, I would then, and not till 
 then, agree to its extension. But I never can 
 consent, under any circumstances, to give my 
 aid in furnishing new facilities for acquiring and 
 perpetuating a property in human beings. 
 
 SATURDAY, February 19. 
 Maine and Missouri Senate's Amendments to 
 
 the Maine Bill. 
 The House took up the amendments of the 
 
 Senate to the bill for the admission of Maine ; 
 which amendments propose to authorize, by the 
 same bill, the people of Missouri to form a State 
 government, without the slave restriction, but 
 containing a clause to exclude slavery from all 
 the territory West of the Mississippi which lies 
 North of thirty -six degrees thirty minutes North 
 latitude, except the proposed State of Missouri. 
 
 Mr. TAYLOR moved that the amendments 01 
 the Senate be disagreed to by the House. 
 
 Mr. SCOTT, of Missouri, moved that they be 
 committed to the Committee of the Whole, 
 which at present has under consideration the 
 Missouri bill of this House which motion had 
 precedence of the motion to disagree. 
 
 On these motions, and those that are subse- 
 quently mentioned, along and animated discus- 
 sion took place, of which the following is 
 
 men who spoke, and an indication of the sides 
 they respectively took. 
 
 Mr. HOLMES hoped the amendments would not 
 be committed. If they were, it would be some 
 time before they could be acted on, as there were, 
 he believed, at least thirty speeches yet to be 
 delivered on the restrictive proposition now be- 
 fore that committee ; and until that proposition 
 was decided, the Committee of the Whole would 
 not take up the amendments of the Senate : in 
 the mean time, the period allowed by the law of 
 Massachusetts (the 3d of March) for the consent 
 of Congress to the admission of Maine would ar- 
 rive, and all that had been done will be lost. 
 He hoped, therefore, that the House would act 
 promptly on these amendments ; separate the 
 two subjects, and give its consent to the admis- 
 sion of Maine, to whch no one had objected, or 
 could object, &c. 
 
 Mr. CULPEPEE was willing to admit Maine 
 unconnected with Missouri : but as they had 
 been united by the other branch of the Legis- 
 lature, the amendment ought to take the usual 
 course, and be treated with that courtesy and 
 respect which the source of the amendments 
 entitled them to, &c. 
 
 Mr. SMYTH, of Virginia, for the purpose of 
 allowing time for the debate on the restriction 
 to be brought to a close before the amendments 
 of the Senate should be taken up, moved that 
 they be postponed to next Monday week ; which 
 motion was lost by a large majority. 
 
 Mr. S. then moved their postponement to next 
 Monday ; which was also negatived. 
 
 Mr. EDWABDS, of North Carolina, was in favor 
 of the commitment, because they would con- 
 sume no more time if they took that course, 
 which was usual and proper, than if taken up 
 in the House, where they would be just as much 
 debated, &c. 
 
 Mr. STROTHEE was against an immediate de- 
 cision of the amendments, and in favor of their 
 commitment. The amendments contained new 
 features, which required reflection; that pro- 
 POMM.U' ;i compromise, for instance. These quos- 
 tions the House could not be prepared to decide 
 at once, because its attention had been exclu-
 
 554 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 ii. 
 
 R.] 
 
 Maine and Missouri Senate's Amendments to the Maine Bill. [FEBRUARY, 1820. 
 
 sively taken up in considering the restrictive 
 
 ristion. It was not proper that the House 
 uld be driven into the instant decision of 
 questions of such immense magnitude. He 
 wished not any long period of postponement ; 
 but was averse to acting hastily, and without 
 deliberation. Mr. S. spoke at some length to 
 enforce and illustrate the opinions stated here 
 in substance only. 
 
 Mr. LIVERMOBE strongly disapproved of the 
 connection of the bills as they came from the 
 Senate ; but he saw something in the amend- 
 ments which seemed likely to put an end to the 
 disagreeable subject which now occupied the 
 House. He wished the subject separated, and 
 then some course might be adopted similar to 
 the compromise proposed by the Senate, and 
 the matter ended happily and harmoniously. 
 He argued earnestly in favor of the claims which 
 Maine had to admission without delay, and 
 against a course which would, by allowing the 
 time to which she was limited to pass by, and 
 thus her reasonable expectations be defeated. 
 He deprecated the fee-lings of irritation which 
 such an unkind course would produce in her 
 citizens, &c. 
 
 Mr. WHITMAN opposed the commitment with 
 much earnestness and at considerable length. 
 He disapproved most pointedly and emphati- 
 cally the connection of the bills, and argued in 
 favor of a prompt decision of the question. He 
 felt as one personally interested, (being a mem- 
 ber from the District of Maine,) and confessed 
 that his feelings were stronger than he could 
 find proper language to express them in, and he 
 could scarcely trust himself to speak on the 
 subject of the amendments. 
 
 Mr. STORES observed that it was well known 
 that no man was more in favor of a compromise 
 of the unhappy subject than himself; but even 
 this he would not agree to on compulsion. He 
 was opposed to the commitment of the amend- 
 ments ; it would be of no utility, as the question 
 now before the committee would be first de- 
 cided before the amendments would be taken 
 up ; and then a bill would have previously 
 passed on the same subject. The subject of the 
 amendments was a legal one, he admitted ; but 
 the object of the connection was to coerce this 
 House, by operating on those members particu- 
 larly interested in the admission of Maine into 
 the Union. This course he thought was disap 
 proved by the House, and the proper way to 
 show it was by a prompt, a very prompt, rejec- 
 tion of the amendments. Such was the course 
 taken by the House on a former occasion, when 
 an amendment was inserted in an appropriation 
 bill by the Senate, providing for brevet pay, 
 which the House had previously stricken out. 
 Mr. S. repeated that he was in favor of the com- 
 promise, but he would not give up the right 
 giving a distinct and unshackled vote for the 
 admission of Maine. 
 
 Mr. SIMKINS conceived it would be extremely 
 wrong not to allow some time to reflect on this 
 subject. The amendments were long, and con- 
 
 ained numerous provisions, some of them of the 
 lighest importance. How were they to be un- 
 lerstoodfrom the single reading of them by the 
 Clerk? He wished them to be printed, and 
 ime allowed to examine and consider them, 
 le trusted that the majority, because they had 
 he power, would not force members at once to 
 lecide on so important a matter without know- 
 ng scarcely on what it was they were to vote. 
 ?he Senate had deemed the two subjects com- 
 atible, and had thought proper to join them : 
 t was not proper by any means to ascribe im- 
 )roper motives to the Senate for so doing. Re- 
 ipect for the Senate required that their amend- 
 ments should not be treated with so much pre- 
 jipitation and so little deference. He was in 
 avor of the commitment. 
 
 Mr. GBOSS, of New York, said he was glad of 
 in opportunity of stating, in his place, what he 
 bought of the conduct of the Senate in this 
 affair ; and proceeded to remark that he thought 
 t did not deserve the respect of this House, but 
 was stopped by the Speaker, as such expressions, 
 icre, applied to the other branch of the Legis- 
 .ature, were out of order. Mr. G. then re- 
 marked, that, come from where it might, the 
 imendment was an attempt to coerce the mem- 
 bers of this House, and he decidedly disapproved 
 of it, &c. 
 
 Mr. WALKEB, of North Carolina, made a few 
 remarks in favor of the commitment, which 
 were not at all heard. 
 
 Mr. MEBCEB supported the right of the Senate 
 to annex any amendment to a bill from this 
 House, and that the House had no right to know 
 the motives of the Senate, merely from the 
 prir,ia facie evidence of the amendments. It 
 was not proper to allude to them in debate, 
 much less to impute improper ones to that body. 
 The course adopted by the Senate in this in- 
 stance was justified by the practice of the Brit- 
 ish Parliament, from which our rules of pro- 
 ceeding are drawn instances of which Mr. M. 
 mentioned. He could imagine very strong 
 reasons, of the most honorable character, for 
 the amendments of the Senate, but it was not 
 right that he should advert to them ; and he 
 could not enter into the examination of views, 
 such as had been imputed by others. If the 
 proposition from the Senate be, as was believed, 
 the olive branch of peace on the most momentous 
 question that had ever agitated the councils of 
 the nation since the foundation of the Govern- 
 ment, was it proper thus to treat it? As to the 
 case stated by Mr. STOKES, the present one bore 
 no sort of analogy to it : that was a question on 
 the right of the Senate to originate in a money 
 bill a clause making an appropriation. In this 
 case, if the proposition from the Senate should 
 happily put to rest the divisions in the House, 
 and heal the wounds inflicted throughout the 
 nation by this question, they would deserve 
 immortal honor. 
 
 Mr. SERGEANT was against the commitment, 
 and in favor of an immediate decision on these 
 amendments. Without speaking or acting im-
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 555 
 
 FEBRUARY, 1820.] 
 
 Commodore Perry. 
 
 [a OF R. 
 
 properly towards the Senate, respect for them- 
 selves required the House to act promptly. Mr. 
 S. opposed the amendments at some length. 
 One reason for it was, that the bill came with 
 too much ; they did not belong to the bill ; it 
 proposed to connect with Maine all the ques- 
 tions belonging to the Missouri subject, and, 
 what was more, connected with Maine the sub- 
 ject called a compromise. Could gentlemen 
 seriously call this an amendment ? They might 
 call it what they pleased, but it would be 
 just as proper to annex to it a pension law or 
 a bankrupt bill, and call it an amendment. 
 Whatever the object of this amendment, it 
 would appear to have an improper end in view, 
 and such would be its effect on the public 
 mind, &c. 
 
 Mr. SMITH, of North Carolina, was in favor 
 of the commitment, and (as well as he could be 
 heard) spoke to show that the amendments 
 were not improper ; that the course taken by 
 the Senate was not unusual or unnatural ; and 
 that, whatever the decision on them here, he 
 doubted whether that body would recede. 
 
 Mr. SMITH, of Maryland, opposed the commit- 
 ment as useless, and argued to show that it 
 would not save time : that it would be attended 
 with inconvenience, without producing any 
 benefit, &c. 
 
 Mr. BBOWN, of Kentucky, spoke at consider- 
 able length, and very warmly, against the pro- 
 position to force members into an instant deci- 
 sion of this important question. He maintained 
 the justice and fairness of. allowing time for an 
 examination of the amendments, and for pre- 
 paration for a decision ; and condemned strong- 
 ly the attempt to coerce the House into an im- 
 mediate vote on a subject so little understood 
 and so important. 
 
 Mr. MCLANE, of Delaware, was in favor of 
 committing the bill, not because he was in fa- 
 vor of uniting Maine and Missouri, for he was 
 decidedly opposed to the union ; and if he sup- 
 posed the commitment would retard the admis- 
 sion of Maine, he should be opposed to it ; but 
 this could not be the effect ; it would be decided 
 as soon as the question now under consideration 
 could be. He had opposed the union of the bills 
 when the subject was originally before the House ; 
 he was still opposed to it, because he deemed it a 
 dangerous mode of legislation, and would vote 
 to disunite them, whenever the subject should 
 come distinctly before the House. But the 
 union of Missouri with Maine was not the only 
 amendment the Senate had made: they had 
 introduced another of equal, if not of greater 
 importance that which prohibited the intro- 
 duction of slavery into the Territories. He was 
 in favor of this proposition ; he presumed all 
 the advocates of restriction would also be in 
 favor of it. It was an amendment of vast im- 
 portance, which might as properly be introduced 
 into the bill for the admission of Maine as in one 
 for the admission of Missouri, or in a distinct 
 bill. It was because this was an important sub- 
 ject that he wished it to be duly weighed and 
 
 considered. It also embraced the basis of a 
 compromise, which had been adjusted in the 
 Senate, after great deliberation. Desirous as 
 he was of quieting public excitement, on some 
 principle of compromise, he hoped time would 
 be afforded to test its practicability. If Mis- 
 souri should be stricken from the bill, this 
 amendment, being a distinct proposition, would 
 remain, and deserved to be considered. If he 
 were now forced to vote upon the rejection of 
 the amendments of the Senate, opposed as he 
 was to the union of Maine with Missouri, he 
 should be compelled to vote against both pro- 
 visions, and thus aid in defeating a compromise 
 which he was so anxious to effect. He hoped, 
 therefore, that the bill would be committed. 
 
 The question was then taken on committing 
 the bill and amendments, and decided in the 
 negative yeas 70, nays 107. 
 
 Mr. SMYTH, of Virginia, then moved to lay 
 the amendments on the table, and print them, 
 that the House might at least see what it -was 
 called on to decide; which motion was also 
 lost yeas, 77, nays 96. 
 
 The question recurring on the motion to dis- 
 agree to the amendments 
 
 Mr. SIMKIXS moved that the amendments bo 
 postponed to Tuesday, and be printed ; declar- 
 ing that he was wholly unprepared at present 
 to vote on the subject ; and supported his mo- 
 tion in a speech of some length. The motion ' 
 was assented to by Mr. TAYLOB, and supported 
 by Messrs. RHEA, CULPEPEB, STEVENS, STORES, 
 and BALDWIN ; the last-named gentleman, among 
 other remarks, denying that the amendment 
 called a compromise, could be called so with 
 propriety, inasmuch as it was inconsistent with 
 the constitution, and the whole course of legis- 
 lation for thirty years. 
 
 The motion to postpone was opposed by 
 Messrs. WHITMAN, LIVEBMOBE, and HOLMES, 
 because they were opposed to any delay, as it 
 might endanger the fate of the Maine bill, 
 which they desired to have separated from the 
 other subject immediately, and disposed of as 
 justice and fairness required. 
 
 The question being taken on postponing the 
 bill to Tuesday, and printing the amendments, 
 was carried by a large majority ; and the House 
 adjourned. 
 
 TUESDAY, February 22. 
 Commodore Perry. 
 
 Mr. LOWNDES offered the following resolution 
 for consideration : 
 
 Resolved, That the Committee on Naval Affairs be 
 instructed to inquire into the expediency of extend- 
 ing to the widow of Captain Oliver Hazard Perry, 
 the provision which is now made by law for the 
 widows and children of naval officers who die from 
 wounds received in action. 
 
 Mr. L. observed that it was conceived that 
 the family of Commodore Perry was embraced 
 by the existing laws which provide for pen- 
 sions, as it was not to be supposed the gene-
 
 556 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 Maine and Missouri. 
 
 [FEBRUARY, 1820. 
 
 rosity or magnanimity of Congress did not in- 
 tend to comprehend such a case ; but as this 
 appeared to be doubted, he had deemed it 
 proper to propose the inquiry which he had 
 submitted. 
 
 The resolution was adopted nem. con. 
 
 Mr. RANDOLPH rose to offer a motion. He 
 believed it would be very difficult for any mem- 
 ber of this House certainly it was not possible 
 for him to keep pace with the honorable gen- 
 tleman from South Carolina, (Mr. LOWNDES,) 
 in the race of honor and public utility. That 
 gentleman had, by the motion which had just 
 been adopted, anticipated him, in part, in a 
 proposition which he (Mr. R.) had intended on 
 this particular day, for reasons which would 
 suggest themselves to the mind of every one, 
 to offer to the House. When he had this 
 morning heard the tower-guns announcing the 
 return of the birth-day of WASHINGTON, Mr. R. 
 said the thought had come across his mind in 
 reference to certain proceedings in this House 
 and elsewhere "this people draw nigh unto 
 me with their lips, and honor me with their 
 mouth, but their hearts are far from me." His 
 purpose, Mr. R. stated, was to make a motion 
 in relation to the wife and children of the late 
 Oliver Hazard Perry, of the United States 
 Navy. It was his opinion, Mr. R. said, whether 
 correct or not, that the country owed more to 
 that man, in its late contest with Great Britain, 
 than to any other whatever, always excepting 
 Isaac Hull that man who had first broken the 
 prestige, the cuirass of British invincibility. 
 He had frequently, Mr. R. said, heard persons 
 of that country speak in terms of admiration of 
 the achievement of Captain Hull, in his escape 
 from a fleet of the enemy in the Constitution 
 frigate ; of the admirable seamanship which he 
 had displayed; of his professional skill ; but he 
 had never heard any of them speak with cor- 
 dial applause of his achievement with the 
 Guerriere, that proud frigate of the first class 
 which had carried her name,- in defiance, em- 
 blazoned in large letters on her foretopsail, 
 that the American picaroons might beware of 
 His Majesty's ship, and make no mistakes. 
 That was an event on which they were gen- 
 erally silent, or their praise very faint. Mr. R. 
 believed that Old England would consent that 
 forty Pakenhams, with all their legions, should 
 have been buried in the alluvial lands of the 
 Mississippi, to take back the single action of the 
 Guerriere ; because that action had done more 
 than any thing else to open the eyes of Europe, 
 and dispel the illusion of British supremacy on 
 the ocean. Next in glory to the victory over 
 the Guerriere, was that on Lake Erie, by the 
 gallant Perry ; and this, Mr. R. said, was not 
 inferior in lustre to any event in the naval his- 
 tory of England, from that of La Hogue, under 
 Admiral Russell. One, said Mr. R., has shown 
 us the way to victory with single ships, the 
 other with fleets. Shall we suffer his family 
 to melt up the plate that was given to him by 
 his countrymen, by corporate and legislative 
 
 bodies, in compliment to his gallantry, to buy 
 bread ? He would say no more, but at once 
 offer the following resolution : 
 
 Resolved, That provision be made by law for the 
 support of the family of the late Oliver Hazard Perry, 
 Esq., of the United States Navy, and for the educa- 
 tion of his children. 
 
 Mr. LOWNDES concurred with great cordiality 
 in Mr. R.'s resolution. He felt in its fullest 
 force the sentiment of gratitude to the man 
 who had first taught his country to hope for 
 victory by fleets, as well as by single ships; 
 and Mr. L. said it was only because he had 
 supposed that the House would not at this time 
 give its approbation to a proposition such as 
 Mr. RANDOLPH had offered, that he had con- 
 tented himself with the very inferior one which 
 he had submitted. 
 
 Mr. HAZARD, of Rhode Island, did not rise to 
 say much on a subject which he said he could 
 scarcely trust himself to speak on at all. But 
 he rose to offer his thanks to the gentleman 
 from Virginia and the gentleman from South 
 Carolina, in behalf of the name of Perry to 
 thank them in behalf of the State which gave 
 him birth to thank them in the name of his 
 amiable widow to thank them in the name 
 of their common country. 
 
 The resolution was adopted ; and, on motion 
 of Mr. RANDOLPH, a committee of three was 
 appointed to bring in a bill in pursuance there- 
 to. 
 
 Maine and Missouri. 
 
 The House resumed the consideration of the 
 amendments of the Senate to the Maine bill, 
 (proposing to incorporate therein the Missouri 
 bill, embracing the amendment called the com- 
 promise.) 
 
 The amendments having been read 
 
 Mr. RANDOLPH delivered a speech of more 
 than two hours' length, against the feature of 
 the amendments of the Senate, which propose 
 to exclude the further migration or transpor- 
 tation of slaves into any of the Territories of 
 the United States north of 36 30' north lati- 
 tude. 
 
 Mr. RHEA commenced a speech ; but, from 
 the lateness of the hour, after two or three un- 
 successful divisions on motions for the purpose, 
 the House adjourned. 
 
 WEDNESDAY, February 23. 
 
 Maine and Missouri. 
 
 The House then resumed the consideration 
 of the amendments of the Senate to the bill for 
 the admission of Maine into the Union. 
 
 Mr. RHEA spoke about an hour on the sub- 
 ject, particularly on the inapplicability of the 
 ordinance of 1787 to the territory west of the 
 
 A division of the question was called for ; 
 and, on the question, Will the House disagree 
 to so much of the said amendments as is com- 
 prised in the words following, to wit:
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 557 
 
 FEBRUARY, 1820.] 
 
 The Missouri Bill Restriction on the State. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 " And to enable the people of Missouri Territory 
 to form a constitution and State government, and 
 for the admission of such State into the Union on 
 an equal footing with the original States : 
 
 " SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That the in- 
 hahitants of that portion of the Missouri Territory 
 included within the boundaries hereinafter designa- 
 ted, be, and they are hereby, authorized to form for 
 themselves a constitution and State government, and 
 to assume such name as they shall deem proper : " 
 
 It passed in the affirmative yeas 93, nays 
 72. 
 
 So the House disagreed to the amendment 
 of the Senate which proposed to annex the 
 Missouri hill to the Maine bill. 
 
 The question was then taken on disagreeing 
 to the residue of the amendments of the Sen- 
 ate, (the details of the Missouri bill,) with the 
 exception of that which embraces what is 
 familiarly called the compromise amendment, 
 and decided also by yeas and nays, in the af- 
 firmative for disagreeing 102, against it 68, as 
 follows : 
 
 YEAS. Messrs. Adams, Allen of Massachusetts, 
 Allen of New York, Anderson, Baldwin, Beecher, 
 Bloomfield, Boden, Brown, Brush, Buffum, Butler of 
 New Hampshire, Campbell, Case, Clagett, Clark, 
 Crafts, Cushman, Darlington, Dennison, Dewitt, 
 Dickerson, Dowse, Eddy, Edwards of Connecticut, 
 Edwards of Pennsylvania, Fay, Folger, Ford, For- 
 rest, Fuller, Fullerton, Gross of New York, Gross of 
 Pennsylvania, Guyon, Hackley, Hall of New York, 
 Hazard, Hemphill, Hendricks, Herrick, Hibshman, 
 Hill, Holmes, Hostetter, Kendall, Kinsey, Kinsley, 
 Lathrop, Lincoln, Linn, Livermore, Lyman, Maclay, 
 McLane of Delaware, McLean of Kentucky, Mallary, 
 Marchand, Mason, Meech, Meigs, R. Moore, S. Moore, 
 Monell, Morton, Mosely, Murray, Nelson of Virginia, 
 Parker of Massachusetts, Patterson, Phelps, Philson, 
 Pitcher, Plumer, Rich, Richards, Richmond, Rogers, 
 Ross, Russ, Sampson, Sergeant, Silsbee, Sloan, 
 Southard, Stevens, Storrs, Street, Strong of Vermont, 
 Strong of New York, Tarr, Taylor, Tomlinson, 
 Tompkins, Tracy, Trimble, Upham, Van Rensselaer, 
 Wallace, Wendovor, Whitman, and Wood. 
 
 NAYS. Messrs. Abbot, Alexander, Allen of Ten- 
 nessee, Archer of Maryland, Archer of Virginia, Ball, 
 Barbour, Bayly, Brevard, Bryan, Burton, Bnrwell, 
 Butler of Louisiana, Cannon, Cobb, Cocke, Crowell, 
 Cnlbreth, Culpeper, Cuthbert, Davidson, Earle, Ed- 
 wards of North Carolina, Ervin, Fisher, Floyd, 
 Garnett, Hall of North Carolina, Hardin, Hooks, 
 Johnson, Jones of Tennessee, Kent, Little, Lowndes, 
 McCoy, McCreary, Mercer, Metcalf, Neale, Newton, 
 Overstreet, Parker of Virginia, Pinckney, Quarles, 
 Rankin, Reed, Rhea, Ringgold, Robertson, Settle, 
 Simkins, Slocumb, Smith of New Jersey, Smith of 
 Maryland, B. Smith of Virginia, A. Smyth of Vir- 
 ginia, Smith of North Carolina, Strother, Swearin- 
 cen, Terrell, Tucker of Virginia, Tucker of South 
 Carolina, Tyler, Walker of North Carolina, Warfield, 
 Williams of Virginia, and Williams of North Carolina. 
 
 The question was then taken, Will the House 
 disagree to the said ninth section, (being the 
 last of the said amendments,) contained in the 
 words following, to wit : 
 
 SEC. 9. And be it further enacted, That, in all that 
 territory ceded by France to the United States, under 
 
 the name of Louisiana, which lies north of thirty-six 
 degrees and thirty minutes north latitude, excepting 
 only such part thereof as is included within the limits 
 of the State contemplated by this act, slavery and 
 involuntary servitude, otherwise than in the punish- 
 ment of crimes, whereof the party shall have been 
 duly convicted, shall be, and is hereby, for ever pro- 
 hibited : Provided, always, That any person escaping 
 into the same, from whom labor or service is lawfully 
 claimed, in any State or Territory of the United 
 States, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed, and 
 conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or 
 service as aforesaid : 
 
 And also determined in the affirmative yeas 
 159, nays 18. 
 
 FRIDAY, February 25. 
 The Missouri Bill. 
 
 The SPEAKER having announced the orders 
 of the day 
 
 Mr. HILL, of Massachusetts, rose, and said he 
 did not now wish to consume the time of the 
 House upon a subject, the progress of which 
 seemed to be stamped with all the marks of eter- 
 nity. But he rose merely to move that the 
 Committee of the Whole be discharged from any 
 further consideration of the Missouri bill. 
 
 Mr. LOWNDES said, that if the gentleman from 
 Massachusetts insisted on this motion being put, 
 he would cheerfully vote in favor of it ; yet, if 
 he would consent to withdraw his motion for 
 the present, to give two or three gentlemen 
 more an opportunity to speak to-day, he thought 
 it might be a saving of time, and the motion 
 could be renewed again, if necessary, to-morrow 
 morning, which would then, he thought, receive 
 a decided support. 
 
 Mr. HILL acquiesced in this suggestion, and 
 withdrew his motion. 
 
 The House then again went into a Commit- 
 tee of the Whole, Mr. COBB in the chair, on 
 this bill. 
 
 Mr. EBVIJT, of South Carolina, took the floor, 
 and spoke at considerable length against the re- 
 striction. 
 
 Mr. SCOTT, of Missouri, said, it had been erro- 
 neously stated that Missouri demanded that 
 which she ought more modestly to sue for as a 
 matter of special grace and favor. In the re- 
 marks which he should now have the honor to 
 submit on the subject, he did not wish to be 
 again misunderstood by the honorable gentle- 
 man 'from New York, (Mr. TAYLOR,) or any 
 other quarter. Mr. S. did not sound the tocsin 
 of alarm he did not beat up for volunteers in 
 rebellion against the constituted authorities of 
 his country but he should degrade, counteract, 
 and even misrepresent, the wishes of the peo- 
 ple of Missouri, was he to press their claim for 
 admission into the Union by obsequious suppli- 
 cations and prayers, suited alone to the taste 
 and palates of sycophants or of tyrants. Sir, 
 said Mr. S., Missouri asks, in the true American 
 character of moderation and firmness, your as- 
 sistance to organize her State government, as 
 preparatory to her admission into the Union.
 
 558 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 The Missouri Bill Restriction on the Slate. 
 
 [FEBRUARY, 1820. 
 
 She did not sink herself beneath notice, by an 
 affectation of inferiority, meekness, dependence, 
 and submission, which she did not feel, nor did 
 she, by any rash declarations, or warlike atti- 
 tudes, authorize the uftgenerous insinuations 
 tbat there was in that people a moral unfitness 
 for self-government. There had been no ex- 
 hibition of such a spirit of boisterous domina- 
 tion as ought to induce you to shun their com- 
 pany, or to avoid associating with them as a 
 member of the federal family. Missouri pre- 
 sented herself with the Constitution of the 
 United States in one hand, and the treaty of 
 cession in the other, and asked admission into 
 the Union. She exhibited, as preliminaries, a 
 long apprenticeship under the guardianship of 
 your laws ; a moral capacity and fitness in the 
 people for self-government ; a devoted attach- 
 ment to the constitution and laws of the land; 
 a firm and fixed republican character; and 
 numbers sufficient to entitle her to two Repre- 
 sentatives. She did not attempt to deceive 
 Congress in reference to her territory, or the 
 number of her inhabitants; she presented an 
 actual map of the surveys of the country, by 
 which a calculation might be made, within a 
 few miles, of the exact extent of her bounda- 
 ries ; she produced documents in support of her 
 population, sufficient to satisfy the most consci- 
 entious and scrupulous ; she was not driven to 
 the subterfuge of counting her citizens and 
 travellers in every county through which they 
 might pass, to make out her pretensions to ad- 
 mission, and then,- to take off the odium of this 
 deception, to christen the transaction with the 
 name of pious fraud, because the great object in 
 view was to jump into the Union, and obtain 
 the blessed privilege of dictating to her supe- 
 riors and her neighbors. Mr. S. regretted that 
 this question had produced so much excitement ; 
 he, however, disclaimed the responsibility of 
 ultimate measures, because he was acting only 
 on the defensive, and was not one of the pro- 
 posers or supporters of the proposition that had 
 caused it. If it was of recent date, he would 
 entertain some hopes of its short duration. 
 But, for more than one year, this question had 
 agitated many sections of this Government ; it 
 had mixed and mingled with every topic; it 
 had operated on, and even controlled, elections. 
 He had seen one instance of its powerful influ- 
 ence in an adjoining State, and he feared simi- 
 lar sacrifices had or would be made in other 
 quarters, of honorable men, for thejr integrity 
 and attachment to the principles of the con- 
 stitution. 
 
 After an extended argument against the right 
 and expediency of the restriction, Mr. S. con- 
 cluded with saying, 
 
 That this was not a question " whether 
 slavery should exist," but merely where 
 should the slaves, now in America, be per- 
 mitted to reside ? The mistake of this propo- 
 sition seemed to have measurably produced all 
 this contention and strife. Was this an origi- 
 nal question, whether we should subject a por- 
 
 tion of our fellow-beings to a state of servitude 
 and degradation, he believed that the people of 
 Missouri, from their innate love of liberty, 
 equality, and independence, would be among 
 the first to declare against the principle. But 
 the absolute condition of that description of 
 persons did exist, and actually had existed long 
 before even the first settlements were formed 
 in Missouri ; and if there were any advantages 
 to be derived from holding that description of 
 property, the people of Missouri, as citizens of 
 the United States, had the right, in common 
 with others. Congress, in deciding that they 
 should not be introduced, as one of the species 
 of property under our constitution and laws, 
 were doing that section of country a wrong, be- 
 cause it placed them, in powers and privileges, 
 below other States in the Union ; and when a 
 wrong was meditated on any people they alone 
 were the judges; such had been the current 
 doctrine, and so considered by the United States 
 themselves, when they determined on that 
 course with regard to Great Britain, which led 
 to American independence. If gentlemen were 
 not predetermined to fix this restriction on Mis- 
 souri, and would take the trouble to mount up 
 to first principles, they would find that it was 
 not a mere question of power, growing out of 
 the construction of the constitution, but that 
 there was another law, paramount to all writ- 
 ten rules and regulations, that operated on and 
 controlled the question it was the law of 
 man ; it was his eternal and indefeasible right 
 to self-government. It was an idle calculation 
 to believe that the State of Missouri would lose 
 sight of this law of man in adjusting their con- 
 stitution or contending for their rights. It was 
 true that the people of Missouri had been a long 
 time in pupilage and wardship, but they had 
 never been in bondage. Although derived 
 from Spain, the citizens were not the poor 
 remnant of Spanish despotism the great por- 
 tion of them had been in a land of liberty ; 
 they are your relations, your frtends, your 
 brothers; each State in the Union had some 
 interest there; and they were freemen, who 
 knew how to appreciate, maintain, and defend 
 their rights. A maxim might with great pro- 
 priety be here applied ; it was, that whenever 
 illegal or improper objects were to be attained, 
 that they drove the supporters of them to im- 
 proper and illegal means to effect the object. 
 The Parliament of Great Britain, although 
 deemed omnipotent, never had, in reference to 
 the colonies, attempted any thing that would 
 bear a comparison with this restriction, though 
 the powers of Congress were express, limited, 
 and defined. The force of precedent had been 
 illustrated in the course of this debate. Let 
 this restriction prevail, and then States beware ! 
 for it was thus that a tyrant, about to subju- 
 gate the liberties of a people, selected an ob- 
 scure individual, whose fate would excite no 
 alarm, and, in his destruction, fixed an example, 
 to which, in turn, the most lordly were taught 
 to bow. And thus Congress selected a distant
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 559 
 
 FEBRUARY, 1820.] 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 and feeble Territory, whose murmurs could be 
 but indistinctly heard, just o'er the verge of 
 Heaven ; and in the sacrifice of its rights, and 
 prostration of its authority, established a pre- 
 cedent that saps the foundation of State au- 
 thority, and produces consolidation, or, in the 
 end, disunion. 
 
 Mr. S. remarked that he had much more to 
 say, but, from indisposition and exhaustion, was 
 unable to proceed ; the committee were also 
 fatigued ; the question of expedience and other 
 topics he had left entirely untouched ; but, from 
 the labored and able investigation the subject 
 had received, he was willing to trust the rights, 
 the happiness, the fate of Missouri, with the 
 House. Her present prosperity and future 
 greatness depended on the decision ; if gentle- 
 men could take the power, he entreated them 
 not to exercise it; the affections of the people 
 of Missouri had been put to many severe trials 
 in the course of eighteen years, but they could 
 not endure forever; and he appealed to gen- 
 tlemen's unquestionable knowledge of right and 
 native love of justice, not to add this restric- 
 tion to the list of grievances of that people. 
 
 Mr. MEIGS, of New York, spoke for some tune 
 against restriction. 
 
 Mr. ADAMS, of Massachusetts, made a few re- 
 marks in favor of the restriction. 
 
 Mr. TUCKER, of Virginia, said he should not 
 have ventured to trespass further on the time of 
 the committee, if his objections to the proposed 
 amendment, particularly as to its expediency, 
 had been anticipated by those who had gone 
 before him in the debate. There is, indeed, 
 said he, Mr. Chairman, something peculiar in 
 every man's views of the subject, who exercises 
 his own powers of reflection, and it is only by 
 looking at it under these different phases that 
 we can form a just estimate of its bearings and 
 dimensions. I am the more desirous of speak- 
 ing on the policy of the proposed restriction, 
 because a distinguished member from Pennsyl- 
 vania (Mr. SERGEANT) has said that Virginia 
 had no interest in this question. Sir, I think 
 I can show, to every unprejudiced mind, that 
 it threatens, not only the peace and welfare of 
 Virginia, in common with all the slaveholding 
 States, but their very political existence. 
 
 Mr. T. then spoke at great length in support 
 of the positions he had taken. 
 
 When Mr. T. had concluded 
 
 Mr. SMITH, of Maryland, rose and observed, 
 that a large number of his constituents had ex- 
 pressed their opinion in opposition to the opin- 
 ion which he was known to entertain on this 
 subject, and it might be presumed that he de- 
 sired to deliver his reasons for the vote which 
 he should give. But, Mr. S. said, the public 
 business was suffering by the protraction of the 
 debate; the members are weary of it; every 
 one's opinion was made up on it ; and he was 
 unwilling to consume the time of the commit- 
 tee by any remarks on the question. He there- 
 fore forbore, and he hoped the question would 
 be taken. 
 
 Mr. WALKER, of North Carolina, rose then to 
 address the committee on the question ; but the 
 question was called for so clamorously and so 
 perseveringly, that Mr. W. could proceed no 
 farther than to move that the committee rise. 
 
 The committee refused to rise, by almost a 
 unanimous vote. 
 
 Mr. BEECHER, of Ohio, then stated that it was 
 his wish to be heard on the question ; and, if 
 not allowed an opportunity of speaking in com- 
 mittee, he should do so in the House, unless 
 prevented by force ; and he moved that the 
 committee should then rise. 
 
 This motion was lost by a very large ma- 
 jority. 
 
 Mr. SMITH, of North Carolina, said the course 
 he was about to propose was unusual, and per- 
 haps without precedent that was, to call the 
 previous question in Committee of the "Whole ; 
 but, as he conceived the motion would be sus- 
 tained by the rules and orders of the House, 
 and to put an end to any further debate on the 
 amendment, he moved for the previous ques- 
 tion thereon. 
 
 The Chair conceived that the motion was not 
 in order. 
 
 Mr. RANDOLPH asked leave of the mover of 
 this course, to suggest to him a less invidious 
 mode of getting at his object. If the commit- 
 tee should consent to rise, and the House would 
 refuse it leave to sit again, the question would 
 then be in the House ; and that was the only 
 way, Mr. R. said, that the committee, worn 
 down by what was called a discussion, could be 
 relieved from it. He hoped, wherever possi- 
 ble, that the previous question should be dis- 
 pensed with ; but if some mode were not de- 
 vised of getting clear of this debate, he believed 
 he should become reconciled to it though a 
 man convinced against his will was of the same 
 opinion still. 
 
 Mr. CLAY (Speaker) observed, that the pre- 
 vious question would not effect the object of 
 the gentleman who moved it ; because its effect 
 would be to put aside the question on the 
 amendment altogether ; and though that might 
 be a very happy effect, yet it wcs not, he pre- 
 sumed, desired by the committee, and he thought 
 it fair to warn gentlemen of an effect that he 
 supposed was not anticipated. 
 
 Mr. SMITH, of North Carolina, though he had 
 felt himself at entire liberty to make a motion, 
 intended to stop the debate, inasmuch as he had 
 not troubled the committee with a speech on 
 the subject ; yet, as the effect would be what 
 had been stated by the Speaker, he would with- 
 draw his motion. 
 
 The question was then taken on Mr. TAY- 
 LOR'S proposed restriction, and agreed to, by 
 from 12 to 18 votes. 
 
 Mr. TAYLOR then moved that the committee 
 rise, as he presumed it was not prepared to go 
 into the various details of the bill this evening, 
 several of which were important, and would 
 give rise to many questions. 
 
 This motion was opposed by Mr. SCOTT and
 
 560 
 
 ABKIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 Elaine and Missouri. 
 
 [FEBRUARY, 1820. 
 
 Mr. STROTHER, and supported by Mr. SERGEANT. 
 It, however, finally prevailed, and 
 
 The committee obtained leave, ayes 90, to sit 
 again ; and, about five o'clock, the House ad- 
 journed. 
 
 SATITBDAY, February 26. 
 The Missouri Bill Compromise. 
 
 The order of the day being announced from 
 the Chair, being the unfinished business of yes- 
 terday 
 
 Mr. HILL renewed the motion which he made 
 yesterday, that the Committee of the Whole be 
 discharged from the further consideration of the 
 Missouri bill ; but the motion was not sustained 
 by a majority of the House. 
 
 The House then resolved itself into a Com- 
 mittee of the Whole, on the said bill. 
 
 Mr. STOBBS, of New York, moved to amend 
 the bill by inserting, in the 4th section, (imme- 
 diately preceding the restrictive amendment 
 adopted yesterday,) the following proviso : 
 
 " That in all that tract of country ceded by France 
 to the United States, under the name of Louisiana, 
 which lies north of thirty-six degrees and thirty 
 minutes north latitude, excepting only such part 
 thereof as is included within the limits of the State con- 
 templated by this act, there shall be neither slavery 
 nor involuntary servitude, otherwise than in the pun- 
 ishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have been 
 duly convicted : Provided, always, That any person 
 escaping into the same, from whom labor or service 
 is lawfully claimed in any State or Territory of the 
 United States, such fugitive may be lawfully re- 
 claimed, and conveyed to the person claiming his or 
 her labor or service as aforesaid." 
 
 Mr. STORRS supported his amendment in a 
 speech of considerable length ; embracing, inci- 
 dentally, in the range of his remarks, an exam- 
 ination of the right of imposing the slavery re- 
 striction 011 Missouri. 
 
 Mr. RANDOLPH next rose, and spoke more 
 than four hours against the amendment, and on 
 the topics connected with it, the subject of re- 
 striction, &c. When he had concluded, (about 
 half-past four o'clock,) an ineffectual motion 
 was made for the committee to rise. 
 
 Mr. BEECHER, of Ohio, then took the floor, 
 and proceeded a short time in a speech on the 
 subject, when he gave way for a motion for the 
 committee to rise, which prevailed, and about 
 five* o'clock the House adjourned. 
 
 MONDAY, February 28. 
 Maine and Missouri. 
 
 A message was received from the Senate, by 
 their secretary, announcing that the Senate in- 
 sist on their amendments to the bill for the 
 admission of Maine into the Union, which had 
 been disagreed to by this House. 
 
 Mr. TAYLOR moved that the House insist on 
 its disagreement to the said amendments. 
 
 Mr. COBB inquired of the Chair whether the 
 question could be divided so as to be taken 
 
 separately on each principle embraced in the 
 amendments. 
 
 Mr. LOWNDES remarked, in substance, that it 
 appeared to him there would be much diili- 
 culty in coming to any conclusion on these 
 amendments in which the two Houses would 
 concur ; that he thought therefore that it would 
 be better to lay them aside until this House had 
 matured and finally acted on the bill now be- 
 fore it, for the admission of Missouri, and as* 
 certained how it was received by the Senate, 
 &c. ; with this view he moved that the amend- 
 ments be laid on the table. , 
 
 On this question the House divided, and the 
 motion was negatived yeas 74, nays 85. 
 
 Mr. CDLPEPER, then, after some remarks to 
 show the propriety and necessity of mutual for- 
 bearance on a question so important and deli- 
 cate ; and from the hope, that, by acting con- 
 clusively on the bill now before the House and 
 sending it to the Senate, all difficulty would be 
 gotten over, &c. moved that the amendments 
 be postponed until to-morrow. 
 
 This motion was opposed by Mr. HOLMES, 
 and Mr. WHITMAN, who were averse to delay- 
 ing a final decision on these amendments with 
 which the admission of Maine was connected, 
 and which they wished to separate from it as 
 promptly as possible. 
 
 The motion to postpone the amendments was 
 negatived without a count. 
 
 The main question then recurring, it was 80 
 divided, on motion of Mr. BUTLER, of Louisiana, 
 as to be first taken on insisting on the disagree- 
 ment of this House to the first eight sections, 
 (connecting with the Maine bill provisions for 
 the admission of Missouri,) and was decided, by 
 yeas and nays, as follows : 
 
 YEAS. Messrs. Adams, Allen of New York, Bate- 
 man, Beecher, Boden, Brush, Buffum, Butler of New 
 Hampshire, Campbell, Case, Clagett, Cook, Crafts, 
 Cushman, Darlington, Dennison, Dewitt, Dickinson, 
 Dowse, Eddy, Edwards of Connecticut, Edwards of 
 Pennsylvania, Fay, Folger, Foot, Ford. Forrest, Ful- 
 ler, Gross of New York, Gross of Pennsylvania, Guyon, 
 Hackley, Hall of New York, Hazard, Hemphill, Hen- 
 dricks, Herrick, Hibshman, Heister, Hill, liolmes, 
 Hostetter, Kendall, Kinsey, Lathrop, Lincoln, Linn, 
 Livermore, Lyman, Maclay, Mallary, Marchand, 
 Mason, Meech, Meigs, R. Moore, S. Moore, Mono 11, 
 Morton, Mosely, Murray, Nelson of Massachusetts, 
 Nelson of Virginia, Parker of Massachusetts, Pat- 
 terson, Phelps, Philson, Pitcher, Plumer, Rich, Rich- 
 ards, Richmond, Rogers, Ross, Russ, Sampson, Ser- 
 geant, Silsbee, Sloan, Smith of New Jersey, Southard, 
 Stevens, Storrs, Street, Strong of Vermont, Strong of 
 New York, Tarr, Taylor, Tomlinson, Tompkins, 
 Tracy, Upham, Van Rensselaer, Wallace, Wendover, 
 Whitman, and Wood 97. 
 
 NAYS. Messrs. Abbot, Alexander, Allen of Ten- 
 nessee, Anderson, Archer of Maryland, Archer of 
 Virginia, Baldwin. Ball, Barbour, Bloomfield, Bre- 
 vard, Brown, Bryan, Burton, Burwell, Butler of 
 Louisiana, Cannon, Cobb, Cocke, Crawford, Cul- 
 breth, Culpeper, Cuthbert, Davidson, Earle, Edwards 
 of North Carolina, Ervin, Fisher, Floyd, Fullerton, 
 Garnett, Hardin, Hooks, Johnson, Jones of Virgiuia,
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 561 
 
 FEBRUARY, 1820.] 
 
 The Missouri Sill Restriction on the State. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 Jones of Tennessee Kent, Little, Lowndes, McCoy, 
 McCreary, McLean of Kentucky, Mercer, Metcalf, 
 Neale, Newton, Overstreet, Parker of Virginia, 
 Pinckney, Pindall, Quarles, Randolph, Rankin, Reed, 
 Rhea, Rin<;gold, Robertson, Settle, Shaw, Simkins, 
 Slocumb, Smith of Maryland, B. Smith of Virginia, 
 A. Smyth of Virginia, Smith of North Carolina, 
 Strother, Swearingen, Terrell, Trimble, Tucker of 
 Virginia, Tucker of South Carolina, Tyler, Walker 
 of North Carolina, Warfield, Williams of Virginia, 
 and Williams of North Carolina 76. 
 
 The question was then stated on insisting on 
 the disagreement of the House to the remain- 
 ing amendments of the Senate, (being the 9th 
 section, embracing the compromise principle.) 
 
 Mr. LOWXDES wished to remark, before this 
 question was taken, that, although he should 
 always be ready to vote for such a proposition, 
 substantially, when presented to him, combined 
 with the free admission of Missouri; yet, as 
 the amendment relative to Missouri had been 
 disagreed to, it would be useless to retain this 
 amendment in connection with the Maine bill 
 alone, and, as he should therefore now vote 
 against retaining it, he wished his motive to be 
 understood. 
 
 Mr. MCCBEARY made a remark or two to the 
 same effect ; when 
 
 The question was taken on insisting on the 
 disagreement of the House to the 9th section 
 of the Senate's amendments, and carried yeas 
 160, nays 14. 
 
 So the House insisted on its disagreement to 
 the whole of the Senate's amendments to the 
 Maine bill ; and the Clerk was directed to ac- 
 quaint the Senate therewith. 
 
 A message from the Senate informed the 
 House that the Senate ask a conference on the 
 subject-matter of the disagreeing votes of the 
 two Houses, on the amendments of the Senate 
 to the bill, entitled " An act for the admission 
 of the State of Maine into the Union," and have 
 appointed managers at the said conference on 
 their part. 
 
 The Missouri Bill. 
 
 The House then again went into Committee 
 of the Whole, (Mr. COBB in the chair,) on the 
 Missouri bill -Mr. STOEES'S proposition to in- 
 sert therein the clause to exclude slavery from 
 the territory of the United States west of the 
 Mississippi, and north of thirty-six degrees 
 thirty minutes north latitude, (excepting the 
 proposed State of Missouri,) being still under 
 consideration. 
 
 Mr. BEECHBR resumed and concluded the 
 speech which he commenced on Saturday, 
 against the amendment, and in defence of the 
 right of Congress to impose the slavery restric- 
 tion, heretofore discussed. 
 
 Mr. liANDOLi'ii again rose, and spoke some 
 time against the amendment, and in reply to 
 some of the arguments of Mr. BEECHEK. 
 
 Mr MALLART, of Vermont, spoke some time 
 in explanation of the reasons which would in- 
 duce him to vote against the amendment, though 
 VOL. VI. 36 
 
 he was in favor of restriction on the territories 
 west of the Mississippi, &c. 
 
 Mr. STORES next addressed the committee, in 
 a short but earnest speech, in support of his 
 amendment. 
 
 Mr. LIVERMORE made a few remarks against 
 the amendment. 
 
 Mr. BALDWIN spoke a short time in favor of 
 the amendment, and in reply to a point or two 
 of Mr. BEEOHER'S remarks. 
 
 The question was then taken on Mr. STOBBS'S 
 amendment, and decided in the negative 
 ayes 33. 
 
 The committee then proceeded to fill up the 
 details of the bill. 
 
 Mr. TAYLOR moved an amendment thereto, 
 going to strike out all that part providing the 
 apportionment of delegates to the convention 
 among the several counties, and substituting 
 therefor, in substance, a provision leaving the 
 apportionment to the General Assembly of 
 the Territory, according to the free population 
 thereof. 
 
 Mr. RANDOLPH rose to offer a little amend- 
 ment to the amendment, which he supposed 
 had dropped out of it by accident : it was the 
 word white a matter, he observed, of some im- 
 portance yet to those on the south side, as they 
 said and proceeded to extend his remarks on 
 the subject; when 
 
 Mr. TAYLOR accepted the amendment with 
 pleasure. He had omitted it, because it was 
 sufficiently expressed in subsequent parts, and 
 he had not deemed it important here. 
 
 Considerable discussion ensued on Mr. TAY- 
 LOR'S amendment, in which it was opposed by 
 Messrs. SCOTT, WHITMAN, and CLAY, and was 
 supported by the mover and Mr. LIVERMORE ; 
 and 
 
 The question being taken thereon, was de- 
 cided in the negative, by a large majority. 
 
 Mr. ALLEN, of Massachusetts, then moved to 
 amend the third section of the bill, by striking 
 out of the clause which designates the kind of 
 persons who shall vote for delegates to the con- 
 vention of the State, the word white, so as to 
 extend the privilege of voting to all "free male 
 citizens ; " and spoke at some length in sup- 
 port of his motion, and in explanation of has 
 opinions on other points which had been intro- 
 duced in the debate of the bill. 
 
 Mr. RANDOLPH rose in opposition to this 
 amendment, and spoke about an hour and a 
 half on this motion, and other topics which he 
 embraced in its consideration. 
 
 Some proceedings took place on a point of 
 order which was made ; after which the ques- 
 tion was put on Mr. ALLEN'S motion, and a di- 
 vision required, when it appeared that but one 
 member (the mover of the amendment) rose in 
 its support. 
 
 After filling the blanks in the bill, according 
 to the motions of Mr. SCOTT, of Missouri, 
 
 Mr. TAYLOR moved an amendment, [one 
 which he had offered on the first day that the 
 bill was taken up, and then withdrawn,] by
 
 562 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 The Missouri Bill Restriction on the State. 
 
 [FEBRUARY, 1820. 
 
 adding to the last section the following clause : 
 " And if the same [the constitution] shall be ap- 
 proved by Congress at their next session after 
 the receipt thereof, the said territory shall be 
 admitted into the Union as a State upon the 
 same footing as the original States." 
 
 This motion was advocated by the mover, 
 and earnestly opposed by Messrs. SCOTT, CLAY, 
 and MERCER ; and, after some remarks by Mr. 
 BUTLER, of Louisiana, touching the case of 
 Louisiana, referred to in the debate, 
 
 The question was taken on Mr. TAYLOR'S 
 motion, and negatived ayes 75, noes 84. 
 
 Mr. STORRS then offered an amendment, in 
 effect to transfer the restrictive amendment al- 
 ready adopted, to the sixth section of the bill, 
 (which embraces those provisions in the nature 
 of compact,) and so modify it as to make it a 
 recommendation for the free acceptance or re- 
 jection of the convention of Missouri, as an 
 article of compact, to exclude slavery, instead 
 of enjoining it as an absolute condition of their 
 admission. 
 
 Mr. CLAY seconded the motion, and, with the 
 mover, zealously urged the adoption of the 
 amendment. It was opposed as zealously by 
 Messrs. TAYLOR, SERGEANT, and GROSS, of New 
 York. 
 
 The debate had continued some time, with 
 much animation ; when, in consequence of the 
 doubts expressed whether the amendment, in 
 its present shape, was in order, Mr. STORRS 
 withdrew it. 
 
 Mr. CLAY renewed the amendment in sub- 
 stance, but so changing the manner of inserting 
 it in the bill as to avoid the objection as to the 
 point of order.* 
 
 The debate was renewed On the proposition, 
 and continued with undiminished zeal, by Mr. 
 CLAY, in its support, and by Messrs. TAYLOR, 
 SERGEANT, EANDOLPH, and COOK, against it. 
 
 The question being put, the committee divid- 
 ed, and the amendment was negatived, as fol- 
 lows : For the amendment 82, against it 92. 
 
 No other amendment being offered, about 
 half past nine o'clock the committee (having 
 rejected several motions, in the course of the 
 evening, to rise and report progress) rose and 
 reported the bill to the House. 
 
 TUESDAY, February 29. 
 
 Maine Bill 
 The House took up, and proceeded to consider, 
 
 * None of Mr. Clay's speeches on the Missouri question 
 were reported, and he did not vote upon the adoption of 
 the compromise which he could not do, being Speaker of 
 the House, and the vote not a tie. But his course during 
 the whole question is fully seen in the brief notices taken 
 of it against the restriction, and for th compromise but 
 not taking a prominent lead in either measure. It was 
 Afterwards, and when the constitution formed by Missouri 
 was resisted on account of the free negro and mulatto 
 clause, and which revived the original question with all its 
 portentous consequences, that Mr. Clay took the led which 
 .earned lor him the title of Pacificator. 
 
 the message from the Senate asking a conference 
 upon the subject-matter of the disagreeing votes 
 of the two Houses on the amendments proposed 
 by the Senate to the bill, entitled " An act for 
 the admission of the State of Maine into the 
 Union ;" whereupon, 
 
 Resolved, That this House do agree to the 
 conference asked by the Senate upon the sub- 
 ject-matter of the disagreeing votes of the two 
 Houses on the amendments depending to the 
 bill aforesaid, and that managers be appointed 
 to the same on their part. 
 
 Ordered, That Mr. HOLMES, Mr. TAYLOR, Mr. 
 LOWNDES, Mr. PARKER, of Massachusetts, and 
 Mr. KINSEY, be the managers at the said con- 
 ference on the part of this House. 
 
 Missouri Bill. 
 
 The House took up, and proceeded to consider, 
 the amendments reported by the Committee of 
 the Whole to the bill to authorize the people of 
 the Territory of Missouri to form a constitution 
 and State government, and for the admission of 
 such State into the Union on an equal footing 
 with the original States ; and, the said amend- 
 ments being read, were concurred in by the 
 House, with the exception of the following : 
 
 " And shall ordain and establish, that there shall 
 be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the 
 said State, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes 
 whereof the party shall have been duly convicted : 
 Provided, always, That any person escaping within 
 the same, from whom labor or service is lawfully 
 claimed in any other State, such fugitive may be 
 lawfully reclaimed, and conveyed to the person 
 claiming his or her labor or service as aforesaid ; 
 Provided, nevertheless, That the said provision shall 
 not be construed to alter the condition or civil rights 
 of any person now held to service or labor in the said 
 Territory." 
 
 The question was then stated to concur in the 
 said amendment ; when, 
 
 Mr. STORRS moved to amend the same by 
 striking out these words: "And shall ordain 
 and establish .that;" and, in lieu thereof, to 
 insert the following, to wit : 
 
 " And be it further enacted, That the following 
 propositions be, and the same are hereby, offered to 
 the said convention, for their free acceptance or re- 
 jection, to be incorporated into the constitution of 
 the said State, as articles of compact between the 
 said State and the United States, viz : That there be 
 neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said 
 State, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes 
 whereof the party shall have been duly convicted ; 
 Provided, always, That any person escaping within 
 the same from whom labor or service is lawfully 
 claimed in any other State, such fugitive may be 
 lawfully reclaimed, and conveyed to the person claim- 
 ing his or her labor or service as aforesaid ; Provided, 
 nevertheless, That the said provision shall not be con- 
 strued to alter the condition or civil rights of any 
 person now held to service or labor in the said Terri- 
 tory." 
 
 Mr. KHEA spoke near an hour against the re- 
 striction.
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 563 
 
 FEBRUARY, 1820.] 
 
 The Missouri B ill Restriction on the State. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 Mr. WALKER, of North Carolina, spoke a short 
 time on the same side. 
 
 Mr. FOBD, of New York, spoke half an hoar 
 in answer to the remarks of several gentlemen 
 -who had opposed the restriction. 
 
 Mr. JOHNSON, of Virginia, replied briefly to 
 Mr. F., and in explanation of remarks which he 
 had before made. 
 
 Mr. NELSON, of Virginia, next rose, and en- 
 tered into a general examination of the restric- 
 tion in the proposed case ; to show that Con- 
 gress possessed no right to impose it. 
 
 Mr. RANDOLPH spoke some time against Mr. 
 STORE s's amendment. 
 
 Mr. SMITH, of Maryland, followed, and ad- 
 dressed the House at considerable length against 
 the right of restriction, &c. 
 
 Mr. FOEREST, of Pennsylvania, spoke as fol- 
 lows: 
 
 Mr. Speaker : I rise to give my reasons why 
 I shall vote for the restriction and against the 
 amendment offered to it, or, in other words, 
 more in unison with my feelings, why I shall 
 vote against the extension of slavery beyond 
 the bounds of the old United States. I rise 
 with unfeigned deference to those who have 
 gone before me, whose abilities are so pre-emi- 
 nent, whose research has been so profound, and 
 whose powers and eloquence have been so im- 
 pressive on the subject, that very little is left 
 for me to say. I have possessed myself of sun- 
 dry notes from the constitution and other doc- 
 uments, to aid me in iny feeble attempt, lest I 
 should be embarrassed, not being accustomed 
 to public speaking, and having but small hopes, 
 and less expectation, of being able to cast a sin- 
 gle ray of new light on the subject. I shall 
 commence by declaring that the constitution, 
 so far as slavery may be inferred from it, is 
 nothing but the creature of compromise, which 
 I can testify, on a retrospect of my feelings at 
 the time of its adoption, or rather when it was 
 promulgated for the consideration of the public. 
 It was a compromise to prevent disunion ; it 
 was a dereliction of first principles upon which 
 the independence of our country was achieved ; 
 it was an acquiescence in "the bondage of those 
 of our fellow-men in whose services their pos- 
 sessors conceived they had a property. It was 
 a compromise fop the sake of peace, and con- 
 fined wholly to the then United States, and not 
 extended to the territory possessed or to be 
 acquired. 
 
 [The argumentative part of his speech was then 
 gone into, and after it was finished, Mr. F. went on 
 to say:] 
 
 I will relievo the committee from further at- 
 tention, after a very few remarks on observa- 
 tions that have been made by members opposed 
 to the amendment. The member from Virginia, 
 who is not now in his place, but who I have 
 in my eye, when on the floor dealt out denun- 
 ciations of disunion, massacre, civil war, horror, 
 and blood, exclaiming that, if the restriction 
 should be carried, this would be the darkest day 
 
 our country ever saw. Here I must differ with 
 the member. No; the morning of the 26th 
 day of December, 1776, let me tell the youth, 
 whose father was a fellow-soldier of mine, a 
 Revolutionary compatriot in the cause of liberty, 
 was the darkest time our country ever saw. It 
 was then WASHINGTON led his patriot band of 
 freemen to the battle of Trenton, the forlorn 
 hope of the independence of his country. It 
 was then he commanded the rifle corps under 
 Captains Washington and Monroe to drive in 
 the Hessian pickets. Methinks I see the strip- 
 lings skipping in obedience. The action be- 
 came general, and WASHINGTON, at their head, 
 pouring forth his patriotic exhortation, in words 
 that will ever be remembered by me, and ought 
 to be impressed on the minds of every friend to 
 liberty: "That the darkest time of night was 
 just before day ;" which was soon verified by 
 the surrender of the Hessians, an event that 
 gave a preponderance to the invisible balance 
 held by the hand of Him who weighs the fate 
 of nations. It was that event that laid the 
 foundation of our country's independence, and 
 to which we are indebted for our seats at this 
 day, in this splendid hall, once more engaged hi 
 the cause of liberty. When WASHINGTON led 
 on his little patriot band, to them he was as a 
 modern Moses ; he went before them as a pillar 
 of smoke by day, and a column of fire by night; 
 his sympathy in their distress and sufferings 
 allayed their hunger and quenched their thirst. 
 They followed him as the modern Israelites, 
 the Israelites of the day, with their urim and 
 thummim on then* breasts, the insignia of their 
 cause inscribed on escutcheons of brass, fixed on 
 their bayonets and sword-belts liberty or death 
 united we stand, divided we fall 'tis for 
 posterity we die. Posterity! what, posterity 
 perpetuate slavery ! How shall I express my- 
 self ? Oh pour un mantle pour couvrir Us faces 
 de ceux qui sont les fih de mes compatriots, 
 who with me in battle, fell, whose death I then re- 
 gretted as premature and unfortunate, snatched, 
 as I then thought, from a participation in the 
 blessings of a happy independence, in the full 
 enjoyment of every civil and religious liberty. 
 But now I have occasion to rejoice ; yes, rejoice 
 overmuch, that they were not, like me, per- 
 mitted to live to see posterity outgrow the re- 
 membrance of the patriotic virtues of their 
 fathers, by an act for the extension of slavery. 
 
 It has been a source of very considerable pain 
 to me, and an afflicting exercise of mind, to hear 
 members on one side of the House, or those 
 who are opposed to restriction, use such lan- 
 guage against their fellow-members on the 
 other side, as does not comport with their dig- 
 nified standing on this floor. Denunciation, 
 sarcasm, and insinuation, serve to irritate and 
 excite warmth with some, but with me they 
 only produce sorrow, that the exemplary and 
 conciliatory language of Abraham, the elder, to 
 Lot the younger brother, did not pervade our 
 feelings : " Let there be no strife between thee 
 and me, between thy herdsmen and mine ; are.
 
 564 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 The Missouri Bill Restriction on the State. 
 
 [FEBBUART, 1820. 
 
 we not brethren ?" I shall notice an allusion 
 to me by a member when on the floor, who 
 was pleased to characterize the extremes of my 
 life, by portraying the previous part in all the 
 habiliments and trappings of a soldier in uniform 
 clothes and epaulettes. The friend must have 
 had but a very imperfect knowledge of the 
 Revolutionary Army, if he supposed that they 
 were as neatly dressed and equipped as the 
 officers of the present day. No, it waa the 
 inability of Congress to furnish the means to 
 either feed, pay, or clothe the army, that re- 
 duced them to starvation, and to the necessity 
 of cutting up their only blankets to make a coat 
 and overalls ; and as to rank, it could not be 
 distinguished for the want of epaulettes. I was 
 in hopes the little service I rendered to my 
 country would not have been sufficient to have 
 brought me into notice at this day ; it is a part 
 of my life I wish to forget, being opposed to 
 war, believing it to be unlawful in the sight of 
 God. But, if the extension of slavery grows 
 out of the question before the committee, I 
 shall think the small share I have had in the 
 Revolution was the blackest part of my life. 
 
 My plainness of dress and manners were also 
 noticed and complimented, as belonging to the 
 society of Friends, otherwise called Quakers. I 
 trust I am a member of the church militant, and 
 in spiritual unison with friends, whose charac- 
 ter is peace and good will to all men ; and I am 
 authorized to say, that I would cheerfully give 
 np the Territory to the inhabitants to free their 
 fellow-men, to avert what has been threatened, 
 but which I cannot think will ever be realized. 
 However, I cannot do an evil that good may 
 come out of it. 
 
 I now shall conclude, with expressions of re- 
 spect for the members from Virginia and Ken- 
 tucky, who were pleased to compliment the 
 State of which I am a humble Representative, 
 by ascribing its dignified standing in the Union 
 to the exemplary conduct of the people called 
 Quakers. Would to God we were all Quakers; 
 there would be less strife, more harmony and 
 brotherly love among us ; and, if we were to 
 follow their precepts and emulate their virtues, 
 we should do as they do ; they build all their 
 churches without a lottery; they do not sell 
 their pews to the highest bidder; but sit on 
 benches, master and man ; they maintain their 
 own poor, and pay their tax assessed for the 
 maintenance of the poor of the township they 
 live in ; they believe God to be a spirit, and 
 worship in spirit and truth. 
 
 Mr. PARKER, of Virginia, occupied the floor 
 about half an hour, on the other side. "When 
 Mr. P. concluded 
 
 The question to agree to the amendment pro- 
 posed by Mr. STOKES, was put, and decided in 
 the negative yeas 82, nays 98. 
 
 Mr. SCOTT then offered an amendment to the 
 restrictive amendment, having for its object, in 
 substance, to prevent the operation of the re- 
 striction either on the slaves now in Missouri or 
 on their increase. 
 
 This proposition was advocated by Mr. CAMP- 
 BELL of Ohio ; but, 
 
 Mr. SCOTT, at the suggestion of several of his 
 friends, withdrew his amendment. 
 
 The question was then taken on concurring in 
 the restrictive amendment, adopted in Commit- 
 tee of the Whole, on the motion of Mr. TAYLOR, 
 and decided in the affirmative, by yeas and nays, 
 as follows: 
 
 YEAS. Messrs. Adams, Allen of Massachusetts, 
 Allen of New York, Baker, Bateman, Beech er, Boden, 
 Brush, Bnflum, Butler of New Hampshire, Campbell, 
 Case, Clagett, Clark, Cook, Crafts, Cushman, Dar- 
 lington, Dennison, Dewitt, Dickinson, Dowse, Eddy, 
 Edwards of Connecticut, Edwards of Pennsylvania, 
 Fay, Folger, Ford, Forrest, Fuller, Gross of New 
 York, Gross of Pennsylvania, Guyon, Hackley, Hall 
 of New York, Hazard, Hemphill, Hendricks, Herrick, 
 Hibshman, Heister, Hostetter, Kendall, Kinsey, Kins- 
 ley, Lathrop, Lincoln, Linn, Livermore, Lyman, 
 Maclay, Mallary, Marchand, Meech, R. Moore, S. 
 Moore, Monell, Morton, Mosely, Murray, Nelson of 
 Massachusetts, Parker of Massachusetts, Patterson, 
 Phelps, Philson, Pitcher, Plumer, Rich, Richards, 
 Richmond, Rogers, Ross, Russ, Sampson, Sergeant, 
 Silsbee, Sloan, Smith of New Jersey, Southard, Street, 
 Stevens, Strong of Vermont, Strong of New York, 
 Tarr, Taylor, Tomlinson, Tompkins, Tracy, Upham, 
 Van Rensselaer, Wallace, Wendover, Whitman, and 
 Wood 94. 
 
 NAYS. Messrs. Abbot, Alexander, Allen of Ten- 
 nessee, Anderson, Archer of Maryland, Archer of Vir- 
 ginia, Baldwin, Ball, Barbour, Bloomfield, Brevard, 
 Brown, Bryan, Burton, Burwell, Butler of Louisiana, 
 Cannon, Cobb, Cocke, Crawford, Crowell, Culbreth, 
 Culpeper, Cuthbert, Davidson, Earle, Edwards of 
 North Carolina, Ervin, Fisher, Floyd, Foot, Fullerton, 
 Garnett, Hall of North Carolina, Hardin, Hill, Holmes, 
 Hooks, Johnson, Jones of Virginia, Jones of Tennes- 
 see, Kent, Little, Lowndes, McCoy, McCreary, 
 McLane of Delaware, McLean of Kentucky, Mason, 
 Meigs, Mercer, Metcalf, Neale, Nelson of Virginia, 
 Newton, Overstreet, Parker of Virginia, Pinckney, 
 Pindall, Quarles, Randolph, Rankin, Reed, Rhea, 
 Ringgold, Robertson, Settle, Shaw, Simkins, Slocumb, 
 Smith of Maryland, B. Smith of Virginia, A. Smyth 
 of Virginia, Smith of North Carolina, Storrs, Strother, 
 Swearingen, Terrell, Trimble, Tucker of Virginia, 
 Tucker of South Carolina, Tyler, Walker of North 
 Carolina, Warfield, Williams of Virginia, and Wil- 
 liams of North Carolina 86. 
 
 So the House concurred in the restriction. 
 
 Mr. TAYLOR then renewed a motion which he 
 had made unsuccessfully in committee, to amend 
 the last section of the bill, by striking out the 
 words " and the said States, when formed, shall 
 be admitted into the Union on an equal footing 
 with the original States," and inserting in lieu 
 thereof the following : " and if the same (the 
 constitution) shall be approved by Congress, 
 the said Territory shall be admitted into the 
 Union as a State, upon an equal footing with 
 the original States." 
 
 This question was briefly supported by the 
 mover, and was opposed by Messrs. SCOTT, 
 LOWNDES, MERCER, FLOYD, and HEXDRICKS- 
 and the question being taken thereon, it was de- 
 cided in the negative, by yeas 49, and nays 125.
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 565 
 
 MARCH, 1820.] 
 
 Death of David Walker. 
 
 [H. OF 
 
 The question recurring on ordering the bill to 
 be engrossed and read a third time, 
 
 Mr. STORKS moved to amend the bill, by add- 
 ing thereto a new section, providing for the ex- 
 clusion of slavery from all the Territories of the 
 United States west of the Mississippi and north 
 of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes of north 
 latitude, excepting the proposed State of Mis- 
 souri (the amendment commonly called the 
 compromise.) 
 
 Mr. RANDOLPH spoke a short time against 
 this amendment. 
 
 Mr. FOOT moved to amend the amendment by 
 striking out the words " thirty -six degrees thirty 
 minutes north latitude," so as to leave the pro- 
 vision applicable to all the Territories of the 
 United States. 
 
 Mr. CLARK made a few remarks against the 
 propriety of introducing the amendment offered 
 by Mr. STORRS in this bill. 
 
 Mr. RANDOLPH stated much at large, the 
 reasons why he should vote against the com- 
 promise. 
 
 Mr. FOOT explained the object of his motion, 
 which was, chiefly to attempt an accommoda- 
 tion of conflicting opinions on this subject, of 
 stripping the question of the constitutional diffi- 
 culty, and to test the sincerity of those who had 
 maintained the restriction. 
 
 Mr. COBB spoke at considerable length, and 
 very warmly, against all restriction whatever, 
 as tending to universal emancipation. 
 
 Mr. STORKS rose and stated that, from the 
 consideration that his proposition might create 
 delay in the passage of the bill, by drawing out 
 a long discussion, and thus, by procrastinating 
 any result from the conference between the 
 two Houses, operate to delay the admission of 
 Maine beyond the 4th of March, the time to 
 which she had been limited by the parent State 
 he would withdraw his proposition. 
 
 The question was then at length taken, on 
 ordering the bill to be engrossed, and read a 
 third time, and decided in the affirmative by 
 yeas and nays, as follows : 
 
 YEAS. Messrs. Adams, Allen of New York, An- 
 derson, Baker, Bateman, Beecher, Boden, Brush, 
 Buffum, Bntler of New Hampshire, Campbell, Case, 
 Clagett, Clark, Cook, Crafts, Cushman, Darlington, 
 Dennison, Dewitt, Dickinson, Dowse, Eddy, Edwards 
 of Connecticut, Edwards of Pennsylvania, Fay, Fol- 
 ger, Ford, Forrest, Fuller, Gross of New York, Gross 
 of Pennsylvania, Guyon, Hackley, Hall of New York, 
 Heniphill, Hendricks, llerrick, Hibshman, Heister, 
 Hill, Hostetter, Kendall, Kinsey, Kinsley, Lathrop, 
 Lincoln, Linn, Lyman, Maclay, Mallary, Marchand, 
 Meech, R. Moore, S. Moore, Monell, Morton, Mose- 
 ly, Murray, Nelson of Massachusetts, Parker of 
 Massachusetts, Patterson, Phelps, Philson, Pitcher, 
 Plumer, Rich, Richards, Richmond, Rogers, Ross, 
 Russ, Sampson, Sergeant, Silsbee, Sloan, Smith of 
 New Jersey, Southard, Stevens, Street, Strong of 
 Vermont, Strong of New York, Tarr, Taylor, Tom- 
 linson, Tompkins, Tracy, Upham, Van Rensselaer, 
 Wallace, Wendover, Whitman, and Wood 93. 
 
 NAYS. Messrs. Abbot, Alexander, Allen of Tenn., 
 Archer of Maryland, Archer of Virginia, Baldwin, 
 
 Ball, Barbonr, Bloomfield, Brevard, Brown, Bryan, 
 Burton, Burwell, Butler of Louisiana, Cannon, Cobb, 
 Cocke, Ciawford, Crowell, Culbreth, Culpeper, Cuth- 
 bert, Davidson, Earle, Edwards of North Carolina, 
 Ervin, Fisher, Floyd, Foot, Fullerton, Garnett, Hall 
 of North Carolina, Hardin, Holmes, Hooks, Johnson, 
 Jones of Virginia, Jones of Tennessee, Kent, Little, 
 Livermore, Lowndes, McCoy, McCreary, McLane of 
 Delaware, McLean of Kentucky, Mason, Meigs, Mer- 
 cer, Metcalf, Neale, Nelson of Virginia, Newton, 
 Overstreet, Parker of Virginia, Pinckney, Pindall, 
 Quarles, Randolph, Rankin, Reed, Rhea, Ringgold, 
 Robertson, Settle, Shaw, Simkins, Slocumb, Smith of 
 Maryland, B. Smith of Virginia, A. Smyth of Virgi- 
 nia, Smith of North Carolina, Storrs, Strotber, Swear- 
 ingen, Trimble, Tucker of Virginia, Tucker of South 
 Carolina, Tyler, Walker of North Carolina, Warfield, 
 Williams of Virginia, and Williams of North Carolina 
 84. 
 
 The bill was then ordered to be read a third 
 time to-morrow ; and a little after 8 o'clock, the 
 House adjourned. 
 
 WEDNESDAY, March 1. ' 
 Death of David Walker. 
 
 Mr. Qr/ARLEs, of Kentucky, rose, he said, with 
 feelings which he could not express, and with a 
 melancholy very seldom experienced by him, to 
 announce to the House the distressing intelli- 
 gence of the death of one of its body; my friend 
 and colleague Major DAVID WALKER, with 
 Christian fortitude, about eight o'clock this 
 morning, exchanged, said Mr. Q., a world of 
 cares, of toils and difficulties, for, I hope, a 
 mansion of bliss. 
 
 I offer, said Mr. Q., for consideration, res- 
 olutions comporting with the wish of the de- 
 ceased. While living, my colleague, by pro- 
 fession and practice, in private and public life, 
 was a plain, unaffected man. He, from educa- 
 tion, had an abhorrence of pomp and parade. 
 He desired that the body that was clad with 
 mourning should weep with mental distress. 
 He had seen numerous carriages, filled with 
 persons attending funerals, at this and other 
 places, moving with solemnity to the burial 
 ground, and returning from it with no evi- 
 dences of sorrow. And to prevent a similar 
 spectacle, connected with his remains, did he 
 make the request contained in the resolutions I 
 now offer. The Representatives from Ken- 
 tucky, the relatives of the deceased, and also 
 those gentlemen who lived with him, and 
 whose kindness was generously afforded him in 
 his sickness, have been consulted with regard 
 to the propriety of the course which is now- 
 proposed, and have approved it. I wish that 
 this body will consider the departure from the 
 usual course of proceeding on former occasions 
 of this kind, as arising from none other than 
 the purest motives the most sincere respect to 
 our colleague and in this House a desire to 
 carry into execution the dying wish of one of 
 its body. I hope that I shall have the kind in- 
 dulgence of my brother members, in permitting 
 the repeated wishes of my colleague to be car-
 
 566 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OP R.1 
 
 Death of David Walker. 
 
 [MARCH, 1820. 
 
 ried into effect, conformably to the spirit of the 
 resolutions now proposed. 
 
 Mr. Q then submitted the following resolu- 
 tions : 
 
 Resolved, unanimously, That a committee be ap- 
 pointed to take order for superintending the funeral 
 of DAVID WALKER, deceased, late a Representative 
 from the State of Kentucky. 
 
 Resolved, That the said DAVID WALKER having 
 communicated to the SPEAKER of this House, and 
 the honorable JAMES BARBOUR, of the Senate, shortly 
 before his death, his wish that he might be buried 
 without pomp or parade, attended by a few only of 
 his friends, in compliance with his wish this House 
 will, on this occasion, not conform to the practice 
 which has heretofore prevailed, of adjourning, to at- 
 tend the funeral of a deceased member. 
 
 Resolved, further, That, in conformity with the spirit 
 of the same wish of the deceased, the members of 
 this House will depart from the usage of wearing 
 crape for one month, with the exception of those who 
 may voluntarily choose to conform to said usage. 
 
 Mr. EANDOLPH said it was from a very dif- 
 ferent sentiment indeed than that of disrespect 
 to their departed brother who had gone to his 
 account, that he rose to say any thing on this 
 melancholy occasion. There is no man in this 
 body, said Mr. E., in whose eyes, at this time 
 may it be so at all times ! the wretched 
 strife and contention of ambition appears so 
 contemptible, or at least more low and con- 
 temptible, than in the eyes of him who now 
 addresses you. Sir, I cannot consent to con- 
 tinue that strife under existing circumstances ; 
 1 will, as far as in me lies, conform to the let- 
 ter and the spirit of the request of the de- 
 ceased. But, while I conform to the letter and 
 spirit of that request and, sir, it is such a 
 one as I should wish made in my own be- 
 half, under similar circumstances* I cannot 
 consent to protract the discussion of the most 
 agitating and invidious question which was 
 ever presented to the Congress of the United 
 States since the institution of this Government. 
 I do not mean to cavil about the point that a 
 motion not to adjourn is never in order, al- 
 though a motion to adjourn is always in order 
 far be such a spirit from me at all times, but 
 more especially at the present time. But, said 
 Mr. R., I wish to adhere to precedents set in 
 good times, on such mournful occasions, in this 
 
 * Of this Mr. Randolph gave the appropriate evidence six 
 years afterwards, on an occasion when the probabilities ot 
 death -were sufficiently strong to make him prepare for the 
 event He placed a draft for $1,000 in the hands of a, friend, 
 to have his body carried home, and buried at his own ex- 
 penseforbidding all parade and pageantry. What was 
 said and done upon this occasion of the death of Mr. "Walk- 
 er, contrasted with what is now said and done on the death 
 of a member, is a pregnant instance of the tendency of the 
 Government to slide from its foundations in all its work- 
 ings. Mr. "Walker was, what his dying request showed 
 him to be, a man of native dignity of mind ; and his last act 
 was one of devotion to duty, having himself brought dying 
 into the House to give his vote on the portentous Missouri 
 question. 
 
 House. And, if precedents are valuable on 
 any occasion, they are to be adhered to in 
 those decorous and solemn rites which all peo- 
 ple, even the most savage, pay to the last sad 
 relics of departed humanity, and in which the 
 infringement of established custom strikes as a 
 jarring discord upon the heart. The first death 
 which took place of a member of this House 
 and I ought well to remember it for it was 
 one of my nearest relatives, the only near one 
 left on the maternal side it took place in New 
 York, in the month of June, 1790, when Con- 
 gress sat in that city the House resolved that 
 the delegation of Virginia then present (con- 
 sisting, when full, of only ten members) should 
 be a committee to see performed the last sad 
 offices for the deceased. The next day they 
 " resolved, unanimously, that the members of 
 this House, from a sincere desire of showing 
 every mark of respect due to the memory of 
 Tbeodorick Bland, deceased, late a member 
 thereof, will go in mourning for him one month, 
 by the usual mode of wearing crape on the left 
 arm. 1 ' As the member in question was, if not 
 in affluent, yet in independent circumstances, 
 it was ordered that a sum equal to his travel- 
 ling expenses, had he lived to return to Virgi- 
 nia, should be allowed for the expense of re- 
 moving him to his last sad home in this world. 
 I mean, sir, the travelling allowance was viewed 
 as a fund to which the deceased member's ex- 
 ecutors might be entitled, and therefore appli- 
 cable, under the direction of his colleagues, to 
 the rites of sepulture. His executors might, 
 if they pleased, have removed the body to the 
 family burial ground. The funeral was neither 
 pompous nor expensive ; it was, what it ought 
 to have been, decent Christian burial. Other 
 cases had occurred, Mr. K. continued, which he 
 remembered, in Philadelphia; two particularly, 
 of members from North Carolina. On those 
 occasions, a particular friend of his, who has 
 been a member of Congress from the time of 
 the adoption of the constitution by North Car- 
 olina, was appointed on the committee to make 
 the necessary arrangements for interment, in 
 the case of Mr. Burgess, of Edenton, he be- 
 lieved, and in that of Mr. Bryan, of Newbern, 
 he was sure, in conjunction with a colleague of 
 his, (Mr. Thomas Blount,) since also gone 
 where all flesh must go. On that occasion this 
 rule was also observed. During the first ses- 
 sion of Congress here, (the last of Mr. Ad- 
 ams's administration,) this House lost one of 
 its most valuable members, in the person of a 
 gentleman from Georgia, (Mr. Jones.) In this 
 case the rule was still adhered to. But, at a 
 succeeding session, the first under the new ad- 
 ministration, and the only bad example set at 
 the time Mr. K. regretted it the more, as he 
 felt his full share of all responsibility incurred 
 at that time on the death of the delegate from 
 the Territory of Mississippi, (Mr. Hunter,) the 
 rule was departed from ; then, for the first 
 time, was the practice adopted of providing a 
 funeral at the public expense, be that expense
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 567 
 
 MARCH, 1820.] 
 
 The Missouri Bill Compromise. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 what it might; and that rule, under which 
 gross abuses have been practised, has continued 
 ever since to be observed, or rather to be 
 abused ; and this without any change in the 
 accustomed form of attending the funeral and 
 wearing crape for a month. Why not, then, in 
 this case, said Mr. R., comply w'ith the letter 
 and spirit of the request of the deceased, with- 
 out departing from the established form, and 
 yet get back, if I may so express myself, to 
 first principles, on this melancholy occasion ? 
 Mr. R. adverted to the funeral of a former Vice 
 President. To what man does the cause of 
 American Independence owe more, with one 
 single exception, than to George Clinton ? 
 None ; none, sir. If any man's remains might 
 claim a funeral at the public expense, surely it 
 is those of him whose death bathed a nation in 
 tears. Next to that man, or as near as any, in 
 the cause of the Revolution, stood George Clin- 
 ton. But a funeral at the public expense ought 
 to be considered as the highest public honor 
 which the nation could bestow. Ought it, 
 then, to be considered a matter of course, that, 
 whenever a member of either House of Con- 
 gress, or a Territorial Delegate, or a Vice Pres- 
 ident, or even a President of the United States, 
 shall leave this bustling, sorry world, we shall 
 follow him (perhaps nothing loath) to the 
 grave, and the sumptuous funeral be defrayed 
 at the public charge ? It was not the money 
 price of which he spoke. Recollect the case 
 of the late William Pitt. What was the dis- 
 tinction taken on that occasion ? And by 
 whom was a public funeral of that great states- 
 man, who for more than twenty years had 
 filled the first place in the eyes of Europe, op- 
 posed ? By a man whom I may call, and will 
 call, ultimus Anglorum by William Windham ; 
 by the favorite disciple of Edmund Burke, the 
 fourth but not the least star in the great con- 
 stellation of English statesmen that is set for 
 ever. It was this he would pay the debts of 
 this eminent man ; his great and disinterested 
 public services deserved it at the hands of the 
 nation ; but he would give no unsuccessful 
 statesman, and such he considered Mr. Pitt to 
 have been, a funeral at the public expense. 
 Mr. R. hoped the House would, in the present 
 case, go on in the usual course ; and that, while 
 it complied with the established form, it would 
 at the same time comply in such a manner as 
 to fulfil the letter and spirit of the request of 
 
 The SPEAKER rose and observed that, as he 
 was referred to in the resolutions, he would 
 ask leave of the House to state what had passed 
 between the deceased and himself on the sub- 
 ject. The SPKAKBB then briefly recapitulated 
 the conversations which had taken place be- 
 tween himself and the deceased, which corrob- 
 orated and supported the statement contained 
 in the resolution. 
 
 A few remarks were subjoined by Mr. CLARK 
 and Mr. CULPEPEE, in approbation of the wishes 
 of the deceased, when the question was taken 
 
 on each resolution separately, (a division of the 
 question having been required by Mr. WALKEB, 
 of North Carolina,) and they were severally 
 agreed to, nem. con. 
 
 A committee was appointed accordingly, con- 
 sisting of the entire delegation from Kentucky, 
 with the exception of Mr. CLAY, (Speaker.) and 
 with the addition of Messrs. BARBOUR, SHAW, 
 TAYLOR, and CUTHBEBT. 
 
 On motion of Mr. RAXDOLPH, the House 
 agreed that when it adjourned, it would adjourn 
 to twelve o'clock to-morrow. 
 
 Mr. R. then moved an adjournment, but tho 
 motion was not agreed to. 
 
 The Missouri Bill. 
 
 The engrossed bill to authorize the people of 
 the Missouri Territory to form a constitution 
 and State government, and for the admission 
 of such State into the Union, upon an equal 
 footing with the original States, was read the 
 third time, and the question stated, " Shall the 
 bill pass?" 
 
 Mr. RANDOLPH rose, and spoke more than 
 three hours against the passage of the bill, on 
 the ground of the unconstitutional and unjust 
 restrictions which it imposed on the people of 
 Missouri, as a condition of their admission into 
 the Union, &c. When Mr. R. had concluded, 
 
 Mr. HOLMES called for the previous ques- 
 tion. 
 
 The call being sustained by the House, the 
 previous question was accordingly stated, u Shall 
 the main question be now put? " which being 
 agreed to, the question was taken on passing 
 the bill, and decided in the affirmative yeas 
 91, nays 82. 
 
 So the bill was passed, and sent to the Sen- 
 ate for concurrence ; and the House adjourned. 
 
 THURSDAY, March 2. 
 
 JAMES WOODSON BATES appeared, produced 
 his credentials, was qualified, and took his seat 
 as the Delegate from the Territory of Arkan- 
 sas. 
 
 The Missouri Bill Compromise. 
 
 The message received from the Senate an- 
 nounced that they had passed the Missouri bill, 
 with an amendment ; which amendment was, 
 in substance, to strike out the slavery restric- 
 tion, and insert, in lieu thereof, the clause (Mr. 
 THOMAS'S and Mr. STORBS'S original proposition) 
 to exclude slavery frotn all the territory of the 
 United States west of the Mississippi, north of 
 36 30' north latitude, except within the pro- 
 posed State of Missouri. 
 
 On motion of Mr. HOLMES, this message was 
 laid on the table long enough to give him an. 
 opportunity to make a report from the com- 
 mittee of conference ; which report is as fol- 
 lows: 
 
 Mr. HOLMES, from the managers appointed on the 
 part of this House, to attend a conference with the 
 managers appointed on the part of the Senate, upon 
 the subject-matter of the disagreeing Totes of the
 
 568 
 
 ABKIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 The Missouri Bill Compromise. 
 
 1820. 
 
 two Houses on the amendments proposed by the 
 Senate to the bill of this House, entitled " An act 
 providing for the admission of the State of Maine 
 into the Union," made the following report : 
 
 1. That they recommend to the Senate to recede 
 from their amendments to the said bill. 
 
 2. That they recommend to the two Houses to 
 agree to strike out the fourth section of the bill from 
 the House of Representatives, now pending in the 
 Senate, entitled " An act to authorize the people of 
 Missouri to form a constitution and State govern- 
 ment, and for the admission of such State into the 
 Union on an equal footing with the original States," 
 the following proviso, in the following words : "And 
 shall ordain and establish that there shall be neither 
 slavery nor involuntary servitude, otherwise than in 
 the punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall 
 have been duly convicted : Provided, always, That 
 any person escaping into the same, from whom labor 
 or service is lawfully claimed in any other State, 
 such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed, and con- 
 veyed to the person claiming his or her labor or ser- 
 vice as aforesaid: Provided, nevertheless, That the 
 said provision shall not be construed to alter the con- 
 dition or civil rights of any person now held to ser- 
 vice or labor in the said Territory." 
 
 And that the following provision be added to 
 the bill: 
 
 SEC. 8. And be it further enacted, That, in all that 
 territory ceded by France to the United States, under 
 the name of "Louisiana," which lies north of thirty- 
 six degrees and thirty minutes north latitude, not 
 included within the limits of the State contemplated 
 by this act, slavery and involuntary servitude, other- 
 wise than in the punishment of crimes whereof the 
 party shall have been duly convicted, shall be, and is 
 hereby, forever prohibited: Provided, always, That 
 any person escaping into the same, from whom labor 
 or service is lawfully claimed in any other State, or 
 Territory of the United States, such fugitive may be 
 lawfully reclaimed, and conveyed to the person 
 claiming his or her labor or service as aforesaid. 
 
 The report was read, and ordered to lie on 
 the table. 
 
 Mr. BEEOIIEB then moved to print the re- 
 port. 
 
 This motion was opposed by Mr. LOWNDES, 
 on the ground that it would imply a determi- 
 nation in the House to delay a decision of the 
 subject to-day, which he had hoped the House 
 was fully prepared for. 
 
 Some conversation passed on this motion be- 
 tween Mr. TATLOE and Mr. LOWNDES, on the 
 propriety of proceeding to act in this House, 
 on the recommendation f the committee, be- 
 fore the Senate had given the pledge required 
 of them of first adopting the report by receding 
 from the amendments to the Maine bill, in 
 which Mr. TAYLOK opposed such proceeding, 
 and Mr. LOWNDES was in favor of it ; inasmuch 
 as it would be wrong 'to put in jeopardy a sat- 
 isfactory settlement of this question, from an 
 adherence to a mere point of etiquette and or- 
 der; that the House could not fear that the 
 Senate would adopt the recommendation to re- 
 cede from their amendments, as the committee 
 of conference was unanimous in their report, 
 
 with the exception of one member from this 
 House, (Mr. TAYLOK,) and became us further, 
 as the disposition of the Senate to admit Maine 
 could not be doubted, they would have no mo- 
 tive to adhere to their amendments if this House 
 should adopt the report, &c. 
 
 A long debate took place on the question of 
 printing, or rather on the question whether 
 this House should act on the second and third 
 propositions of the committee of conference, 
 before the Senate had acted on the first. Those 
 against acting immediately, and in favor of the 
 printing, were Messrs. TAYLOR, LIVEKMORE, and 
 WHITMAN ; and those who opposed the print- 
 ing, were Messrs. LOWNDES, HOLMES, KIXSEY, 
 STOKES, RANDOLPH, BEOWN. STKOTHEK, CAMP- 
 BELL, and PABKEK, of Virginia. 
 
 The debate had continued about three hours, 
 when Mr. BEECHEK withdrew his motion. 
 
 The House then resumed the consideration 
 of the amendments of the Senate to the Mis- 
 souri bill. 
 
 The question was divided so as first to be 
 taken on striking out the restriction. 
 
 Mr. LOWNDES spoke briefly in support of the 
 compromise recommended by the committee of 
 conference, and urged with great earnestness 
 the propriety of a decision which would restore 
 tranquillity to the country which was demand- 
 ed by every consideration of discretion, of mod- 
 eration, of wisdom, and of virtue. 
 
 Mr. HOLMES followed in a short speech, near- 
 ly to the same effect. 
 
 Mr. ADAMS, of Massachusetts, spoke at some 
 length in favor of the restriction, and against a 
 compromise. 
 
 Mr. KINSEY, of New Jersey, spoke as fol- 
 lows: 
 
 Mr. Speaker, a period has now arrived when 
 it becomes necessary to close this protracted 
 debate, and, as I shall vote for .the compromise 
 offered by the Senate, it is proper to state my 
 reasons for so doing. We have arrived at an 
 awful period in the history of our empire, when 
 it behooves every member of this House now 
 to pause and consider that on the next step we 
 take depends the fate of unborn millions. I 
 firmly believe that on the question now before 
 us rests the highest interests of the whole hu- 
 man family. Now, sir, is it to be tested, 
 whether this grand and hitherto successful ex- 
 periment of free government is to continue, or, 
 after more than forty years' enjoyment of the 
 choicest blessings of Heaven under its adminis- 
 tration, we are to break asunder on a dispute 
 concerning the division of territory. Gentle- 
 men of the majority have treated the idea of a 
 disunion with ridicule ; but, to my mind, it 
 presents itself in all the horrid, gloomy features 
 of reality ; and when we unfold the volume of 
 past ages, and, in the history of man, trace the 
 rise and fall of governments, we find trifles, 
 light as air compared to this, dissolving the 
 most powerful confederacies, and overturning 
 extensive empires. If we inquire what causes 
 operated to destroy the Amphictyonic league
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 569 
 
 MARCH, 1820.] 
 
 The Missouri Sill Compromise. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 or dissolve the German Confederacy, in almost 
 every case, we find questions of territorial ju- 
 risdiction. And what, for past ages, has del- 
 uged Europe in blood? Disputes concerning 
 territorial government. On questions of this 
 high and mighty import, it behooves us to ap- 
 proach with the most awful considerations. 
 What at . this period is matter of conjecture, 
 may, in a short time, become real history. It 
 is not a question like that heretofore, in which 
 a diversity of opinion commingled in the same 
 society where a division of sentiment, on sub- 
 jects political, spread itself over the whole 
 Union ; but, on this question, the States are al- 
 most equally divided. And what is the case 
 now before us? Opinions from which every 
 gentleman, a few months past, would have re- 
 coiled back with horror, as treason to imagine, 
 are now unhesitatingly threatened ; that which 
 had no ideal existence, engendering as this dis- 
 cussion progresses, assumes a positive shape, 
 and, mixing with this unpropitious debate, pre- 
 sents itself in all the dreadful appearances of 
 reality. May God, in mercy, inspire us with a 
 conciliatory spirit, to disperse its fury and dis- 
 pel its terrible consequences. 
 
 On this question, which for near six weeks 
 has agitated and .convulsed this House, I have 
 voted with the majority. I voted the same at 
 the last session. But I am convinced, should 
 we persist to reject the olive branch now of- 
 fered, the most disastrous consequences will 
 follow. Those convictions are confirmed by 
 that acerbity of expression arising from the 
 most irritated feelings, wrought upon by what 
 our Southern brethren conceive unkind, unjust, 
 determined perseverance of the majority : and 
 to those I now beg leave to address myself. Do 
 our Southern brethren demand an equal divi- 
 sion of this wide-spread, fertile region; this 
 common property, purchased with the common 
 funds of the nation? No ; they have agreed to 
 fix an irrevocable boundary, beyond which 
 slavery shall never pass ; thereby surrendering 
 to the claims of humanity and the non-slave- 
 holding States, to the enterprising agriculturist 
 of the North, the Middle and Eastern States, 
 nine-tenths of the country hi question.* In 
 rejecting so reasonable a proposition, we must 
 have strong and powerful reasons to justify our 
 refusal; and notwithstanding you may plead 
 your conscientious scruples, be it remembered 
 you must shortly account to that august and 
 stern tribunal impartial history and the strict 
 scrutiny of public opinion. Can you plead con- 
 science in bar to such a compromise ? If so, 
 
 * The parallel of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes would 
 divide the ancient province of Louisiana about equally, but 
 during the pendency of the Missouri question a new boun- 
 dary with Spain was agreed upon, which cut off nearly the 
 whole lower half of that province, leaving to the United 
 States only the Territory of Arkansas, and about as much 
 more for an Indian Territory. The annexation of Texas re- 
 covered the amputated part of the province, and made the 
 division between the free and the slave States about equal. 
 
 how reconcile votes you have, on similar ques- 
 tions, already given ? 
 
 Mr. STEVENS, of Connecticut, said: Mr. 
 Speaker, in this question of compromise now 
 to be decided, I am more fortunate, I now have 
 the floor, and must avail myself of this first 
 opportunity to state explicitly, that I have 
 listened with pain to the very long, protracted 
 debate, that has been had on this unfortunate 
 question ; I call it unfortunate, sir, because it 
 has drawn forth the worst passions of man in 
 the course of the discussion. I have heard 
 gentlemen, and I must in candor say gentle- 
 men on both sides of the question, boast of sec- 
 tional prowess, and of sectional achievements ; 
 and remind gentlemen from opposite sections 
 of the Union, that they had not so fought and 
 so conquered ; or left such conclusion irresisti- 
 bly to follow. 
 
 If the deadliest enemy this country has, or 
 ever had, could dictate language the most likely 
 to destroy your glory, prosperity, and happi- 
 ness, would it not be precisely what has been 
 so profusely used in this debate sectional 
 vaunting ? Most undoubtedly it would. If the 
 fell Spirit of Discord, the prime mover of se- 
 dition and rebellion in the heavenly realms, 
 should rack his hellish invention for the same 
 malicious purpose, he would undoubtedly pull 
 the cord of sectional prowess ; he would mag- 
 nify the valorous deeds of each particular State 
 or party division, and distort or obliterate all 
 the rest. The arch planner of the first sedition 
 and rebellion must for ever despair of improv- 
 ing on the sad invention. 
 
 If gentlemen are in favor of any compromise, 
 it is a fit tune to discuss that subject, and see if 
 any can be hit on that will give general satis- 
 faction. 
 
 Few gentlemen have risen in debate on this 
 question, without deeply lamenting (and I think 
 with great reason) the existence of parties, de- 
 signated by geographical lines and boundaries. 
 I also deprecate it, as being a division of the 
 Union into parties so equal in number, wealth, 
 intelligence, and extent of territory. Indeed, 
 sir, there is no view of this 'unhappy division 
 of our country, but must be sickening to the 
 patriot, and in direct violation of the dictate 
 of wisdom, and the last, though not least, im- 
 portant advice of the Father and Friend of his 
 Country. He forbids the use of the words 
 Northern and Southern, Atlantic and Western, 
 as descriptive of the various parts of your 
 country. 
 
 But, sir, we have now arrived at a point at 
 which every gentleman agrees something must 
 be done. A precipice lies before us, at which 
 perdition is inevitable. Gentlemen on both 
 sides of this question, and hi both Houses, hi 
 1 doors and out of doors, have evinced a deter- 
 j mination that augurs ill of the high destinies 
 I of this country ! And who does not tremble 
 | for the consequences? 
 
 I do not here speak of that feeling which re- 
 sults from an apprehension of personal danger.
 
 570 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 The Missouri Bill Compromise. 
 
 [MARCH, 1820. 
 
 No, sir; I speak of that feeling which agitates 
 the soul of every patriot when his country is in 
 danger. I speak of that feeling, without a sus- 
 ceptibility of which, a man is no ornament to 
 any country. I wish not to be misunderstood, 
 sir. I don't pretend to say that in just five 
 calendar months your Union will be at an end ; 
 your constitution destroyed; your proud tro- 
 phies, won in the most valiant combat, profan- 
 ed ; glories of half a century, gained by your- 
 selves and your departed friends, and unequalled 
 in the history of any country or people on the 
 face of the earth, made the sport of an envying 
 world ; and all this in a sacrilegious contest, at 
 the end of which no wise man would give a 
 pea-straw for his choice on which side to be 
 found, as the victors would have lost all, and 
 the vanquished have nothing left to excite 
 envy. 
 
 But, sir, I do say, and for the verity of the 
 remark, cite the lamentable history of our own 
 time, that the result of a failure to compromise 
 at this time, in the way now proposed, or in 
 some other way satisfactory to both, would be 
 to create ruthless hatred, irradicable jealousy, 
 and a total forgetfulness of the ardor of patriot- 
 ism, to which, as it has heretofore existed, we 
 owe, under Providence, more solid national 
 glory and social happiness, than ever before 
 was possessed by any people, nation, kindred, 
 or tongue, under Heaven. 
 
 Mr. MERGER followed on the same side, with 
 great earnestness ; and had spoken about half 
 an hour, when he was compelled by indispo- 
 sition to resume his seat. 
 
 The previous question was then called ; and, 
 the House having sustained the call by 103 
 votes, the main question was put on concurring 
 with the Senate in striking out of the bill the 
 slavery restriction on the State of Missouri, 
 and decided in the affirmative yeas 90, nays 
 87, as follows : 
 
 YEAS. Messrs. Abbot, Alexander, Allen of Ten- 
 nessee, Anderson, Archer of Maryland, Archer of 
 Virginia, Baldwin, Barbonr, Bayly, Bloomfield, Bre- 
 vard, Brown, Bryan, Burton, Burwell, Butler of Lou- 
 isiana, Cannon, Cobb, Cocke, Crawford, Crowell, 
 Culbreth, Culpeper, Cnthbert, Davidson, Earle, Eddy, 
 Edwards of North Carolina, Erwin, Fisher, Floyd, 
 Foot, Fullerton, Garnett, Hall of North Carolina, 
 Hardin, Hill, Holmes, Hooks, Johnson, Jones of 
 Virginia, Jones of Tennessee, Kent, Kiusey, Little, 
 Lowndes, McCoy, McCreary, McLane of Delaware, 
 McLean of Kentucky, Mason, Meigs, Mercer, Met- 
 calf, Neale, Nelson of Virginia, Newton, Overstreet, 
 Parker of Virginia, Pinckney, Pindall, Quarles, Ran- 
 dolph, Rankin, Reed, Rhea, Ringgold, Robertson, 
 Settle, Shaw, Simkins, Slocumb, Smith of New Jer- 
 sey, Smith of Maryland, B. Smith of Virginia, A. 
 Smyth of Virginia, Smith of North Carolina, Stevens, 
 Storrs, Strother, Swearingen, Terrell, Trimble, Tucker 
 of Virginia, Tucker of South Carolina, Tyler, Walker 
 of North Carolina, Warfield, Williams of Virginia, 
 and Williams of North Carolina 90. 
 
 NAYS. Messrs. Adams, Allen of Massachusetts, 
 Allen of New York, Baker, Bateman, Beecher, 
 Boden, Brush, Buffum, Butler of New Hampshire, 
 
 Campbell, Clagett, Clark, Cook, Crafts, Cushman, 
 Darlington, Dennison, Dewitt, Dickinson, Dowse, 
 Edwards of Pennsylvania, Fay, Folger, Ford, For- 
 rest, Fuller, Gross of New York, Gross of Pennsyl- 
 vania, Guyon, Hackley, Hall of New York, Hazard, 
 Hemphill, Hendricks, Herrick, Hibshman, Heister, 
 Hostetter, Kendall, Kinsley, Lathrop, Lincoln, Linn, 
 Livermore, Lyman, Maclay, Mallary, Marchand, 
 Meech, R. Moore, S. Moore, Monell, Morton, Mosely, 
 Murray, Nelson of Massachusetts, Parker of Massa- 
 chusetts, Patterson, Phelps, Philson, Pitcher, Plu- 
 mer, Rich, Richards, Richmond, Rogers, Ross, Russ, 
 Sampson, Sergeant, Silsbee, Sloan, Southard, Street, 
 Strong of Vermont, Strong of New York, Tarr, Tay- 
 lor, Tomlinson, Tracy, Upham, Van Rensselaer, 
 Wallace, Wendover, Whitman, Wood 87. 
 
 The question was then stated on the second 
 amendment of the Senate, when 
 
 Mr. TAYLOE moved to amend the amendment 
 by striking out the words " thirty-six degrees 
 thirty minutes north latitude," and inserting a 
 line which would exclude slavery from all the 
 territory West of the Mississippi, except Lou- 
 isiana, Missouri, and Arkansas. 
 
 The previous question was again demanded, 
 and again sustained by a majority of the House. 
 The effect of the previous question being to ex- 
 clude the question on the amendment, and to 
 bring it back to the main question 
 
 The main question was taken on concurring 
 with the Senate in inserting in the bill, in lieu 
 of the State restriction, the clause inhibiting 
 slavery in the territory north of thirty -six de- 
 grees thirty minutes north latitude, and was 
 decided in the affirmative yeas 134, nays 42, 
 as follows : 
 
 YEAS. Messrs. Allen of New York, Allen of Ten- 
 nessee, Anderson, Archer of Maryland, Baker, Bald- 
 win, Bateman, Bayly, Beecher, Bloomfield, Boden, 
 Brevard, Brown, Brush, Bryan, Butler of New 
 Hampshire, Campbell, Cannon, Case, Clagett, Clark, 
 Cocke, Cook, Crafts, Crawford, Crowell, Culbreth, 
 Culpeper, Cnshman, Cuthbert, Darlington, Davidson, 
 Dennison, Dewitt, Dickinson, Dowse, Earle, Eddy, 
 Edwards of Pennsylvania, Fay, Fisher, Floyd, Foot, 
 Ford, Forrest, Fuller, Fullerton, Gross of Pennsyl- 
 vania, Guyon, Hackley, Hall of New York, Hardin, 
 Hazard, Hemphill, Hendricks, Herrick, Hibshman, 
 Heister, Hill, Holmes, Hostetter, Kendall, Kent, Kin- 
 sey, Kinsley, Lathrop, Little, Lincoln, Linn, Liver- 
 more, Lowndes, Lyman, Maclay, McCreary, McLane 
 of Delaware, McLean of Kentucky, Mallary, Mar- 
 chand, Mason, Meigs, Mercer, R. Moore, S. Moore, 
 Monell, Morton, Mosely, Murray, Nelson of Massa- 
 chusetts, Nelson of Virginia, Parker of Massachusetts, 
 Patterson, Philson, Pitcher, Plumer, Quarles, Ran- 
 kin, Rich, Richards, Richmond, Ringgold, Kobert- 
 son, Rogers, Ross, Russ, Sampson, Sergeant, Settle, 
 Shaw, Silsbee, Sloan, Smith of New Jersey, Smith 
 of Maryland, Smith of North Carolina, Southard, 
 Stevens, Storrs, Street, Strong of Vermont, Strong of 
 New York, Strother, Tarr, Taylor, Tomlinson, Tomp 
 kins, Tracy, Trimble, Tucker of South Carolina, 
 Upham, Van Rensselaer, Wallace, Warfield, Wendo- 
 ver, Williams of North Carolina, and Wood 134. 
 
 NAYS. Messrs. Abbot, Adams, Alexander, Allen 
 of Massachusetts, Archer of Virginia, Barbour, Buf- 
 fum, Burton, Burwoll, Butler of Louisiana, Cobb,
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 571 
 
 MARCH, 1820.] 
 
 Journal of ike Old Congress. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 Edwards of North Carolina, Ervin, Folger, Garnett, 
 Gross of New York, Hall of North Carolina, Hooks, 
 Johnson, Jones of Virginia, Jones of Tennessee, 
 McCoy, Metcalf, Neale, Newton, Overstreet, Parker 
 of Virginia, Pinckney, PindalJ, Randolph, Reed, 
 Rhea, Simkins, Slocumb, B. Smith of Virginia, A. 
 Smyth of Virginia, Swearingen, Terrell, Tucker of 
 Virginia, Tyler, Walker of North Carolina, and 
 Williams of Virginia 42. 
 
 The amendment to the title to add the words 
 " and to prohibit slavery in certain Territories," 
 was then also concurred in. And so, all the 
 amendments being concurred in, the bill was 
 pasged by the two Houses. 
 
 FRIDAY, March 3. 
 
 The Journal of the proceedings of the House 
 on yesterday being read 
 
 Mr. RANDOLPH rose and intimated an inten- 
 tion now to move the House to reconsider their 
 vote of yesterday, by which they concurred 
 with the Senate in striking the restriction from 
 the Missouri bill. 
 
 The SPEAKER declared the motion out of 
 order until the ordinary business of the morn- 
 ing, as prescribed by the rules of the House, 
 should be disposed of. From which opinion of 
 the Chair, Mr. RANDOLPH appealed. 
 
 The question being taken on the correctness 
 of the decision, it was affirmed by the House. 
 
 The House then proceeded in receiving and 
 referring petitions ; when, petitions being called 
 for from the members from Virginia 
 
 Mr. RANDOLPH moved that the House retain 
 in their possession the Missouri bill, until the 
 period should arrive when, according to rules 
 of the House, a motion to reconsider the vote 
 of yesterday on concurring in the first amend- 
 ment proposed by the Senate to the bill afore- 
 said, should be in order. 
 
 The SPEAKER declared this motion out of 
 order, for the reason assigned on the first ap- 
 plication of Mr. RANDOLPH on this day. 
 
 Question of Privilege. 
 
 Mr. RANDOLPH, being in the majority on 
 that question, moved the House now to recon- 
 sider their vote of yesterday, in which they 
 concurred in the first amendment proposed by 
 the Senate to the bill, which was to strike out 
 tbe slavery restriction. 
 
 Mr. ARCHER, of Virginia, seconded the motion. 
 
 The SPEAKER, having ascertained the fact, 
 stated to the House that the proceedings of 
 the House on that bill yesterday, had been 
 communicated to the Senate, by the Clerk, 
 and that the bill not being in possession of 
 the House, the motion to reconsider could not 
 be entertained. 
 
 Whereupon, Mr. RANDOLPH submitted the 
 following resolution : 
 
 Resolved, That, in carrying the bill, entitled "An 
 act to authorize the people of the Territory of Mis- 
 souri to form a constitution and State government, 
 and for the admission of such State into the Union 
 on an equal footing with the original States," after 
 
 a member from Virginia had given notice of his in- 
 tention to move a reconsideration of the question 
 decided last evening, in which the said member, viz : 
 Mr. Randolph, voted in the majority on one of the 
 amendments of the Senate thereto, the Clerk is guilty 
 of a breach of the privileges of a member of this 
 House under the rules thereof. 
 
 And the question being put whether the 
 House would now consider the said resolution ; it 
 was decided in the negative yeas 61, nays 71. 
 
 Mr. RANDOLPH then submitted the following 
 proposition, which lies on the table : 
 
 " That so much of the thirty-seventh rule as al- 
 lows a reconsideration of any question by motion of 
 any member of the majority on such question, on 
 the day succeeding that on which such question be 
 taken, be expunged." 
 
 On motion of Mr. GROSS, of New York 
 Ordered, That when the House adjourns, it 
 will adjourn to meet again on Monday next. 
 
 FRIDAY, March 10. 
 Journal of the Old Congress. 
 Mr. STROTHER rose and said, that he thought 
 it indispensably his duty to call up a motion he 
 had made some time before ; that certainly the 
 time had arrived, when no reason could longer 
 exist for refusing to publish the Secret Journal 
 of the Old Congress ; that, in making this mo- 
 tion, he did not mean to allude to any particular 
 measures or the actors in them. All he should 
 say on that subject was, that whatever they 
 contained should be known to the people ; that, 
 if it appeared from them, there were subjects of 
 great national concern agitated, the consequen- 
 ces of which would have been of the highest 
 importance, and there were men who, on those 
 occasions, have rendered great services to their 
 country by their exertions in defending their 
 rights, Mr. S. said it ought to be known, that 
 every man might have that credit with his 
 country he is entitled to. If, on the contrary, 
 there were men who, in their opinion, had 
 acted wrong, or wished to sacrifice any of the 
 interests belonging to the Union, and which 
 they did not consider as peculiarly favorable to 
 the States they represented, but which might 
 be injurious to them if there were such men 
 still alive, and who might possibly be brought 
 forward as candidates for office, was it not 
 equally proper that the whole of their public 
 conduct should also be known ; or how can the 
 public judge, while the veil of secrecy is still 
 thrown over it ? Mr. S. thought that it was 
 highly proper that nothing which was of im- 
 portance to the country, and which had been 
 previously agitated in our public councils at 
 that distant day, should be kept from the public 
 eye. He adverted to the strange appearance it 
 might have that the Secret Journal of Congress 
 should bo published during the Revolutionary 
 war, when the secrets might be considered as 
 of more delicacy and importance than in time 
 of peace, when there was reason to suppose
 
 572 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 Death of Commodore Decatur. 
 
 [MAKCH, 1820. 
 
 none such, or at least none of equal importance, 
 could have existed. 
 
 Mr. S. made many other remarks on the sub- 
 ject, tending to prove the extreme impropriety 
 of any longer withholding from the public a view 
 of the Secret Journal, which he contended 
 would cost but very little, and did not consist 
 of more than sixty or eighty pages, and were 
 all transcribed and ready for publication ; to 
 prove which he read a letter he held in his 
 hand, from Mr. Secretary Adams, to that effect. 
 
 Mr. S. then moved to take up the resolution 
 he had himself moved, for the publication of 
 the Secret Journal. 
 
 After he had closed, some desultory conver- 
 sation took place, which, showing that many 
 members would vote against it 
 
 Mr. 0. PINCKNEY said that he hoped the mo- 
 tion would prevail ; that it was difficult to see 
 what reasons could exist against it ; that if the 
 Secret Journal of the Old Congress, from 1775 
 to 1783, (the conclusion of the peace,) were 
 ordered to be published, why not these? In 
 the former, it might have been much more im- 
 proper than in the latter, because the whole of 
 the Secret Journals contained the secret pro- 
 ceedings of Congress during the war, in which 
 there may have been many private negotiations 
 with different States in Europe, which those 
 States might not wish to have exposed. That was 
 the time, also, when spies, and private emissaries 
 and agents were necessary, and, in many cases, 
 indispensable, some of whom might be alive, or 
 their families, who would not wish it known 
 that their friends had been engaged in practices 
 generally not deemed honorable. But from the 
 year 1783 to 1789, the commencement of the 
 new Government, no such secret could exist. 
 He understood, from information which came 
 from the Secretary of State, that the whole of 
 the remainder did not contain more than sixty 
 or eighty pages not the size of many of the 
 voluminous documents published this session 
 the expense, therefore, would be but small. As 
 to the contents, Mr. P. said, he was only in 
 Congress about half the time from 1783 to 
 1789 ; but, during that time, an event occurred 
 which must be recorded on the Secret Journal, 
 which, in his judgment, alone made it necessary 
 that this part of the Journal should be published. 
 It was a long time since it had occurred, and 
 therefore what he stated would of course be to 
 the best of his recollection. If there should be 
 any mistakes, he would be willing to correct 
 them ; it was an event of great importance, in 
 his opinion, in the civil history of this country, 
 and to which he had alluded, in his observa- 
 tions on the Missouri bill, but which he would 
 now more particularly state, as he had heard 
 that what he had said before must have been 
 misunderstood. 
 
 Mr. P. said, that, in 1785-'6, he believed '6, 
 two or three years after the peace, Spain being 
 very anxious on the subject, sent out Don Diego 
 de Gardoqui, as her Minister, to this country, 
 with instructions to offer to the United States 
 
 a treaty of commerce, which she said was an 
 advantageous one, if we would, in the same 
 treaty, consent to give up the navigation of that 
 part of the Mississippi which ran through the 
 Spanish dominions, for twenty-five years. Mr. 
 John Jay was the Secretary of Foreign Affairs. 
 The treaty, according to the then routine of 
 business, was referred to him to report his opin- 
 ion, and, to the best of his remembrance, he 
 recommended its adoption. Seven, being all 
 Eastern and Northern States, did vote for it : 
 but owing to the Confederation requiring nine 
 States as necessary to form a treaty, it was de- 
 feated. Mr. P. said that, if any part of the 
 public business of this country, in which he had 
 any agency, gave him more pleasure than 
 another, it was the agency he had in association 
 with the distinguished gentlemen now high in 
 office in Washington, in preventing it. He be- 
 lieved he might venture to say, it was owing to 
 them and another, now gone, that the whole of 
 the Western country was saved to us ; that the 
 Mississippi still flows through American lands, 
 and that her members here so honorably fill 
 their seats. And having, as he observed on the 
 Missouri question, and, he said, let him here 
 repeat it, contributed, at that distant day, to 
 save the parent, he felt great pleasure on the 
 late great occasion, in contributing his humble 
 efforts to save her children. 
 The resolution was taken np and passed. 
 
 THURSDAY, March 23. 
 
 As soon as the sitting was opened 
 
 Mr. KANDOLPH rose, and, after some feeling 
 remarks, expressive of the grief with which he 
 was filled, by the recent melancholy occurrence, 
 of the death of that distinguished naval officer, 
 Commodore Decatur, which he rather alluded 
 to than announced, called the attention of the 
 House to sundry resolutions, the import of 
 which was, that, when it adjourns, it will ad- 
 journ to meet again on Saturday; that it will 
 attend the funeral of the late Commodore De- 
 catur on to-morrow ; and that its members will, 
 in respect to the memory of the deceased, wear 
 crape on the left arm for the remainder of this 
 session. 
 
 Mr. TAYLOR, of New York, required a division 
 of the question on those resolutions, to take it 
 separately on each. 
 
 Mr. KANDOLPH intimated that, if there was 
 the least objection to the resolutions as moved, 
 he should withdraw them. 
 
 Mr. TAYLOE, of New York, said that, in op- 
 posing this motion, he felt it due to himself to 
 state, that, in respect for the memory and public 
 services of the deceased, he yielded to no mem- 
 ber of this House not even to the honorable 
 gentleman from Virginia. But it is with the 
 most painful regret (said Mr. T.) I am con- 
 strained to say, that he died in the violation of 
 the laws of God and his country. I therefore 
 cannot consent, however deeply his loss is de- 
 plored by this House, in common with the na-
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 673 
 
 MARCH, 1820.] 
 
 Importation of Slaves. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 tion, to vote the distinguished and unusual hon- 
 ors proposed by these resolutions. 
 
 Mr. RANDOLPH then withdrew the resolves he 
 had offered, and moved that the House do now 
 adjourn negatived. 
 
 MONDAY, March 27. 
 
 Message from the President Non-ratification 
 of the Spanish (Florida Cession) Treaty In- 
 terposition of the Great Powers Forbearance 
 of President Monroe. 
 
 The following Message was received from the 
 PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES : 
 To the House of Representatives of the United States : 
 I transmit to Congress an extract of a letter from 
 the Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States at 
 St. Petersburg, of the 1st of November last, on the 
 subject of our relations with Spain, indicating the 
 sentiments of the Emperor of Russia respecting the 
 non-ratification, by His Catholic Majesty, of the 
 treaty lately concluded between the United States 
 and Spain, and the strong interest which His Impe- 
 rial Majesty takes in promoting the ratification of 
 that treaty. Of this friendly disposition, the most 
 satisfactory assurance has been since given directly 
 to this Government by the Minister of Russia residing 
 here. 
 
 I transmit, also, to Congress, an extract of a letter 
 from the Minister Plenipotentiary of the United 
 States, at Madrid, of a later date than those hereto- 
 fore communicated ; by which it appears that, at the 
 instance of the Charge des Affaires of the Emperor 
 of Russia, a new pledge had been given by the Span- 
 ish Government, that the Minister who had been 
 lately appointed to the United States should set out 
 on his mission without delay, with full powers to 
 settle all differences in a manner satisfactory to the 
 parties. 
 
 I have further to state that the Governments of 
 France and Great Britain continue to manifest the 
 sentiments heretofore communicated respecting the 
 non-ratification of the treaty by Spain, and to inter- 
 pose their good offices to promote its ratification. 
 
 It is proper to add that the Governments of France 
 and Russia have expressed an earnest desire that the 
 United States would take no step, for the present, on 
 the principle of reprisal, which might possibly tend to 
 disturb the peace between the United States and 
 Spain. There is good cause to presume, from the 
 delicate manner in which this sentiment has been 
 conveyed, that it is founded in a belief, as well as a 
 desire, that our just objects may be accomplished 
 without the hazard of such an extremity. 
 
 On full consideration of all these circumstances, I 
 have thought it my duty to submit to Congress 
 whether it will not be advisable to postpone a deci- 
 sion on the questions now depending with Spain, un- 
 til the next session. The distress of that nation, at 
 this juncture, affords a motive for this forbearance, 
 which cannot fail to be duly appreciated. Under 
 such circumstances, the attention of the Spanish 
 Government may be diverted from its foreign con- 
 cerns, and the arrival of a Minister here be longer 
 delayed. I am the more induced to suggest this 
 course of proceeding from a knowledge that, while 
 we shall thereby make a just return to the powers 
 whose good offices have been acknowledged, and in- 
 crease, by a new and signal proof of moderation, our 
 
 claims on Spain, our attitude in regard to her will 
 not be less favorable at the next session than it is at 
 the present.* 
 
 JAMES MONROE. 
 WASHINGTON, March 27, 1820. 
 
 The Message and accompanying documents 
 were referred to the Committee on Foreign 
 Affairs. 
 
 FBIDAY, March 31. 
 Importation of Slaves. 
 
 The bill for the relief of Delisle, Dudley, and 
 Van Cleef, being read a third time, and the 
 question stated on its passage 
 
 [This is a case in which the forfeiture has 
 been incurred by the importation of six do- 
 mestic servants (slaves) by a captain of a vessel 
 from a foreign port he being officially assured 
 by the Consul of the United States resident 
 there, in writing, that there was nothing in the 
 laws of the United States forbidding the im- 
 portation of family slaves, by a person import- 
 ing himself into the United States. The bill 
 proposes a remission of the forfeiture thus in- 
 curred without any intent to violate the law.] 
 
 Mr. FOOT, of Connecticut, said, the extreme 
 anxiety and impatience of gentlemen to pass 
 the bill under consideration had surprised him. 
 Six weeks, said he, have been spent on a subject 
 involving no principle which can compare, in 
 point of importance, with this bill. The Mis- 
 souri question did not involve the question of 
 freedom or slavery, but merely whether slaves 
 now in the country might be permitted to re- 
 side in the proposed new State ; and whether 
 Congress or Missouri possessed the power to de- 
 cide. But, sir, we are called upon by this bill 
 to remit a penalty incurred for a violation of 
 our laws " to prohibit the importation of slaves 
 into our country " a law of all others which in 
 my opinion should be rigidly enforced and most 
 sacredly regarded. And, sir, I am astonished 
 to hear gentlemen, who, on the Missouri ques- 
 tion, which not only agitated this House, but 
 the whole country, to its base, and threatened 
 a dissolution of the Union ; and gentlemen too, 
 
 * This interposition of the three great powers, (Great 
 Britain, Russia, and France,) to prevent a rupture between 
 the United States and Spain, and to procure from the latter 
 the ratification of the Florida Cession Treaty, (concluded 
 the year before,) is such high evidence of good will towards 
 the United States, and of desire to preserve peace among 
 nations, that it cannot be too well remembered or too much 
 valued by the American people. The recommendation of 
 Mr. Monroe to Congress, founded upon this interposition, is 
 also most honorable to him, both as a statesman and a just 
 man ; and it is pleasant and gratifying to reflect that this 
 generous interposition and wise forbearance had their full 
 effect the delayed ratification being soon after given, and 
 Spain and the United States left at peace and good will 
 And the names of the sovereigns thus obeying such en- 
 lightened and philanthropic impulse, deserve also to be re- 
 membered, and are here given : Alexander the First, Em- 
 peror of Russia; George the Fourth, of Great Britain, then 
 Prince Regent ; and Louis the Eighteenth, of France.
 
 574 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OP THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 The Spanish Treaty. 
 
 [APRIL, 1820. 
 
 who, on that occasion, denounced all as the 
 friends of slavery who honestly differed with 
 them in opinion on the constitutional power of 
 Congress; yes, sir, and who boldly declared 
 that, fearless of all consequences, they would 
 impose the restriction ; that these gentlemen 
 should now be the advocates for a virtual re- 
 peal of the only law which prohibits the im- 
 portation of slaves ! Sir, if you pass this bill, 
 you open your ports immediately to the impor- 
 tation of slaves, without number, under the head 
 of domestics. 
 
 I entreat gentlemen to pause, if indeed, as 
 they profess, they are disposed to prevent the 
 slave trade. Go, sir, with me to Martinique, 
 and witness the attempts made by citizens of 
 the United States to smuggle slaves into the 
 United States under this pretence! If they 
 may be admitted as domestics, every vessel will 
 be full-freighted with these domestic servants, 
 and the slave will be as free as before the pas- 
 sage of your law. 
 
 But, say the gentlemen, this petitioner is in- 
 nocent he was ignorant of your laws. If so, I 
 would ask, why did he apply to the commer- 
 cial agent, to inquire whether domestic slaves 
 might safely be brought ? Look, sir, at the let- 
 ter of the commercial agent to this petitioner, 
 and say, if you can, that the petitioner was 
 ignorant of our laws? No, sir, the petitioner 
 knew our law he, sir, knew it was in violation 
 of that law and if, sir, after this, he was dis- 
 posed to trust the chance of escape or evasion 
 of that law, which, of all others, should be most 
 rigorously enforced, I shall never give my vote 
 for his relief. 
 
 Pass this bill, sir, and you may employ your 
 armies and navies in vain to break up this most 
 inhuman and barbarous traffic. 
 
 The question on indefinite postponement was 
 at length decided in the negative 89 to 67". 
 
 A doubt was then suggested by Mr. BARBOUR, 
 whether Congress possessed the power to remit 
 that portion of the forfeiture which by law ac- 
 crues to the informers or prosecutors of the 
 alleged offence, and whether the bill therefore 
 did not, in this respect, require a limitation to 
 that portion of the penalty which accrued to the 
 United States. 
 
 Hereupon further debate took place ; and a 
 motion was made by Mr. PIXDALL to recommit 
 the bill, with instructions so to amend it as to 
 remit only that portion of the forfeiture which 
 has accrued to the use of the United States ; 
 which motion was decided affirmatively by a 
 vote of 64 to 52. 
 
 MONDAY, April 3. 
 Fugitive /Slaves. 
 
 Mr. PINDALL, of Virginia, offered for consid- 
 eration the following resolution, in support of 
 which he made some remarks, referring to the 
 current report that an act of the description 
 therein referred to had recently passed the 
 Legislature of Pennsylvania. 
 
 Resolved, That the Secretary of the Treasury be 
 instructed to procure and transmit to this House, as 
 soon as practicable, a copy of such late act or acts of 
 the Pennsylvania Legislature as prohibit or restrain 
 the justices, aldermen, or other magistrates or officers 
 of that State from interposing in the apprehension or 
 surrender of fugitive slaves, [or from carrying into 
 effect the act of Congress, entitled "An act respecting 
 fugitives from justice and persons escaping from the 
 service of their masters," passed on the 12th of Feb- 
 ruary, 1793.] 
 
 Mr. MACLAY, of Pennsylvania, suggested that, 
 if the object of the motion was only to obtain a 
 copy of the act, the latter clause of the resolve 
 was unnecessary, and he wished to see it ex- 
 punged, because he did not think that any act 
 had passed the Legislature prohibiting the State 
 officers from carrying into effect the act of 
 Congress. 
 
 To obviate this objection, Mr. PINDALL con- 
 sented to modify his motion so as to omit the 
 clause within brackets, at the close of the above 
 resolve. 
 
 The resolve was then amended, on motion, by 
 adding to the end of the resolution the words 
 following : '' Provided any such act or acts shall 
 have been passed." 
 
 Mr. S. MOORE then moved to lay the resolu - 
 tion on the table ; which motion was opposed 
 by Mr. STROTHER, and it was negatived, and the 
 resolution was agreed to. 
 
 Remission of Forfeiture. 
 The bill for the relief of Delisle, Dudley, and 
 Van Cleef, providing for the remission of a for- 
 feiture incurred by an accidental importation of 
 six slaves, in the brig Sally, was read a third 
 ;ime ; and the yeas and nays on its passage being 
 required by Mr. TRACY, stood For the bill 85, 
 against the bill 73. 
 
 The Spanish Treaty. 
 
 The House having resolved itself into a Com- 
 mittee of the Whole on the state of the Union, 
 and the following resolutions, submitted some 
 days ago by Mr. CLAY, (Speaker,) being under 
 consideration : 
 
 1. Resolved, That the Constitution of the United 
 States vests in Congress the power to dispose of the 
 ;erritory belonging to them, and that no treaty, pur- 
 jorting to alienate any portion thereof, is valid with- 
 ut the concurrence of Congress. 
 
 2. Resolved, That the equivalent proposed to be 
 jiven by Spain, to the United States, in the treaty, 
 ioncluded between them, on the 22d day of February, 
 1819, for that part of Louisiana lying west of the 
 
 Sabine, was inadequate ; and that it would be inex- 
 >edient to make a transfer thereof to any foreign 
 >ower, or renew the aforesaid treaty : 
 
 Mr. CLAY said, that, whilst he felt very grate- 
 ul to the House for the prompt and respectful 
 manner in which they had allowed him to en- 
 ,er upon the discussion of the resolutions which 
 le had the honor of submitting to their notice, 
 he must at the same time frankly say, that he 
 ;hought their character and consideration, in 
 ,he councils of this country, were concerned in
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 575 
 
 APRIL, 1820.] 
 
 The, Spanish Treaty. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 not letting the present session pass off without 
 deliberating upon our affairs with Spain. In 
 coming to the present session of Congress, it 
 had been his anxious wish to be able to concur 
 with the Executive branch of Government in 
 the measures which it might conceive itself 
 called on to recommend on that subject, for two 
 reasons, qf which the first, relating personally 
 to himself, he would not trouble the committee 
 with further noticing. The other was, that it 
 appeared to him to be always desirable, in re- 
 spect to the foreign action of this Government, 
 that there should be a perfect coincidence in opin- 
 ion between its several co-ordinate branches. 
 In time, however, of peace, it might be allow- 
 able to those who are charged with the public 
 interests, to entertain and express their views, 
 although there might be some discordance be- 
 tween them. In a season of war, there should 
 be no division in the public councils ; but a 
 united and vigorous exertion to bring the war 
 to an honorable conclusion. For his part, when- 
 ever that calamity may befall his country, he 
 would entertain but one wish, and that is, that 
 success might crown our struggle, and the war 
 be gloriously and honorably terminated. He 
 would never refuse to share in the joys incident 
 to the victory of our arms, nor to participate in 
 the griefs of defeat and discomfiture. He con- 
 curred entirely in the sentiment once expressed 
 by that illustrious hero, whose recent melan- 
 choly fall we all so sincerely deplore, that for- 
 tune may attend our country in whatever war 
 it may be involved. 
 
 There were two systems of policy, he said, of 
 which our Government had had the choice. 
 The first was, by appealing to the justice and 
 affections of Spain, to employ all those persua- 
 sives which could arise out of abstinence from 
 any direct countenance to the cause of South 
 America, and the observance of a strict neutral- 
 ity. The other was, by appealing to her justice 
 also, and to her fears, to prevail upon her to 
 redress the injuries of which we complain her 
 fears, by a recognition of the independent gov- 
 ernments of South America, and leaving her in 
 a state of uncertainty as to the further step we 
 might take in respect to those governments. 
 The unratified treaty was the result of the first 
 system. It could riot be positively affirmed 
 what effect the other system would have pro- 
 duced ; but he verily believed that, whilst it 
 rendered justice to those governments, and 
 would have better comported with that mag- 
 nanimous policy which ought to have charac- 
 terized our own, it would have more success- 
 fully tended to an amicable and satisfactory 
 arrangement of our differences with Spain. 
 
 The first system has so far failed. At the 
 commencement of the session, the President re- 
 commended an enforcement of the provisions 
 of the treaty. After three months' delibera- 
 tion, the Committee of Foreign Affairs, not 
 being able to concur with him, has made us a 
 report recommending the seizure of Florida, in 
 the nature of a reprisal Now, the President 
 
 recommends our postponement of the subject 
 until the next session. It has been his (Mr. C.'s) 
 intention, whenever the Committee of Foreign 
 Affairs should engage the House to act upon 
 their bill, to offer, as a substitute for it, the 
 system which he thought it became this country 
 to adopt, of which the occupation of Texas, as 
 our own, would have been a part, and the re- 
 cognition of the independent governments of 
 South America another. If he did not now 
 bring forward this system, it was because the 
 committee proposed to withdraw their bill, and 
 because he knew too much of the temper of the 
 House and of the Executive, to think that it 
 was advisable to bring it forward. He hoped 
 that some suitable opportunity might occur, 
 during the session, for considering the propriety 
 of recognizing the independent governments of 
 South America. 
 
 Whatever Mr. C. might think of the discretion 
 which was evinced in recommending the post- 
 ponement of the bill of the Committee of Foreign 
 Relations, he could not think that the reasons 
 assigned by the President for that recommenda- 
 tion were entitled to the weight which he had 
 given them. Mr. C. thought that the House was 
 called upon, by a high sense of duty, seriously 
 to animadvert upon some of those reasons. He 
 believed it was the first example, in the annals 
 of the country, in which a course of policy, re- 
 specting one foreign power, which we must sup- 
 pose had been deliberately considered, has been 
 recommended to be abandoned, in a domestic 
 communication from one to another co-ordinate 
 branch of the Government, upon the avowed 
 ground of the interposition of other foreign 
 powers. And what was the nature of this in- 
 terposition ? It was evidenced by a cargo of 
 scraps gathered up from this Charge d' Affaires, 
 and that of loose conversations held with this 
 foreign Minister and that perhaps mere levee 
 conversations, without a commitment in writing, 
 in a solitary instance, of any of the foreign par- 
 ties concerned, except only in the case of his 
 Imperial Majesty ; and" what was the character 
 of his commitment we shall presently see. But 
 Mr. C. said, he must enter his solemn protest 
 against this and every other species of foreign 
 interference in our matters with Spain. What 
 have they to do with them ? Would they not 
 repel, as officious and insulting intrusions, any 
 interference on our part in their concerns with, 
 other foreign States ? Would his Imperial Ma- 
 jesty have listened with complacency to our re- 
 monstrances against the vast acquisitions which 
 he has recently made ? He has lately crammed 
 his enormous maw with Finland and with the 
 spoils of Poland, and, whilst the difficult process 
 of digestion is going on, he throws himself upon 
 a couch, and cries out don't, don't disturb my 
 repose 1 
 
 He charges his Minister here to plead the 
 cause of peace and concord! The American 
 " Government is too enlightened " (ah ! sir, how 
 sweet this unction is, which is poured down our 
 backs) to take hasty steps. And his Imperial
 
 576 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 The Spanish Treaty. 
 
 1820. 
 
 Majesty's minister here is required to engage 
 (Mr. C. said he hoped that the original expres- 
 sion was less strong, but he believed that the 
 French word engage bore the same meaning) 
 the American Government, &c. Nevertheless, 
 the Emperor does not interpose in this discus- 
 sion. No ! not he. He makes above all " no 
 pretension to exercise an influence in the coun- 
 cils of a foreign power." Not the slightest. 
 And yet, at the very instant when he is pro- 
 testing against the imputation of this influence, 
 his interposition is proving effectual ! His Im- 
 perial Majesty lias at least manifested so far, in 
 this particular, his capacity to govern his Em- 
 pire, by the selection of a sagacious Minister. 
 For if Count Nesselrode had never written 
 another paragraph, the extract from his dis- 
 patch to Mr. Poletica, which has been trans- 
 mitted to this House, would demonstrate that 
 he merited the confidence of his master. It was 
 quite refreshing to read such State papers after 
 perusing those (he was sorry to say it; he 
 wished there was a veil broad and thick enough 
 to conceal them forever) which this treaty had 
 produced on the part of our own Government. 
 
 Conversations between my Lord Castlereagh 
 and our Minister at London had also been com- 
 municated to this House. Nothing from, the 
 hand of his Lordship is produced ; no I he does 
 not commit himself in that way. The sense in 
 which our Minister understood him, and the 
 purport of certain parts of despatches from the 
 British Government to its Minister at Madrid, 
 which he deigned to read to our Minister, are 
 alone communicated to us. Now we know very 
 well how diplomatists, when it is their pleasure 
 to do so, can wrap themselves up in mystery. 
 No man more than my Lord Castlereagh, who 
 is also an able Minister, possessing much greater 
 talents than are allowed to him generally in this 
 country, can successfully express himself in am- 
 biguous language, when he chooses to employ it. 
 Mr. C. recollected himself once to have wit- 
 nessed this facility, on the part of his Lordship. 
 The case was this. When Bonaparte made his 
 escape from Elba and invaded France, a great 
 part of Europe believed that it was with the 
 connivance of the British Ministry. The oppo- 
 sition charged them, in Parliament, with it, and 
 they were interrogated to know what measures 
 of precaution they had taken against such an 
 event. Lord Castlereagh replied by stating that 
 there was an understanding with a certain naval 
 officer of high rank, commanding in the adjacent 
 seas, that he was to act on certain contingencies. 
 Now, Mr. Chairman, if you can make any thing 
 intelligible out of this reply, you will have much 
 more success than the English opposition had. 
 
 The allowance of interference by foreign 
 powers in the affairs of our Government, not 
 pertaining to themselves, is against the counsels 
 of our wisest politicians those of Washington, 
 Jefferson, and, he would add, also, those of the 
 present Chief Magistrate ; for, pending this very- 
 Spanish negotiation, the offer of the mediation 
 of foreign States was declined, upon the true 
 
 ground that Europe had her system, and we 
 ours ; and that it was not compatible with our 
 policy to entangle ourselves in the labyrinths of 
 hers. But a mediation is far preferable to the 
 species of interference on which it had been his 
 reluctant duty to comment. The mediator is a 
 judge, placed on high, his conscience his guide, 
 the world the spectators, and posterity his judge. 
 His position is one, therefore, of the greatest 
 responsibility. But what responsibility is there 
 attached to this sort of irregular drawing-room, 
 intriguing interposition ? He could see no mo- 
 tive for governing or influencing our policy, in 
 regard to Spain, furnished in any of the com- 
 munications which respected the disposition of 
 foreign powers. He regretted, for his part, that 
 they had been at all consulted. There was 
 nothing in the character of the power of Spain ; 
 nothing in the beneficial nature of the stipula- 
 tions of the treaty to us, which warranted us in 
 seeking the aid of foreign powers, if in any case 
 whatever that aid was desirable. He was far 
 from saying that, in the foreign action of this 
 Government, it might not be prudent to keep 
 a watchful eye upon the probable conduct of 
 foreign powers. That might be a material cir- 
 cumstance to be taken into consideration. But 
 he never would avow to our own people never 
 promulgate to foreign powers, that their wishes 
 and interference were the controlling cause of 
 our policy. Such promulgation would lead to 
 the most alarming consequences. It was to in- 
 vite further interposition. It might, in process 
 of time, create in the bosom of our country a 
 Kussian faction, a British faction, a French fac- 
 tion. Every nation ought to be jealous of this 
 species of interference, whatever was its form 
 of government. But of all forms of government 
 the united testimony of all history admonishes a 
 republic to be most guarded against it. From 
 the moment that Philip intermeddled in the 
 affairs of Greece, the liberty of Greece was 
 doomed to inevitable destruction. 
 
 Suppose, said Mr. C., we could see the com- 
 munications which have passed between his 
 Imperial Majesty and the British Government 
 respectively, and Spain, in regard to the United 
 States ; what do you imagine would be their 
 character ? Do you suppose that the same lan- 
 guage has been held to Spain and to us ? Do 
 you not, on the contrary, believe that sentiments 
 have been expressed to her, consoling to her 
 pride ? That we have been represented, per- 
 haps, as an ambitious republic, seeking to ag- 
 grandize ourselves at her expense ? 
 
 In the other ground taken by the President, 
 the present distressed condition of Spain, for 
 his recommendation of forbearance to act during 
 the present session, Mr. C. was sorry also to say 
 that it did not appear to him to be solid. He 
 could well conceive how the weakness of your 
 aggressor might, when he was withholding from 
 you justice, form a motive for your pressing 
 your equitable demands upon him ; but he could 
 not accord in the wisdom of that policy which 
 would wait his recovery of strength, so as to
 
 DEBATES OF CONGKESS. 
 
 577 
 
 APRIL, 1820.] 
 
 The Spanish Treaty, 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 enable him successfully to resist those demands. 
 Nor would it comport with the practice of our 
 own Government heretofore. Did we not, in 
 1811, when the present monarch of Spain was 
 an ignoble captive, and the people of the Penin- 
 sula were contending for the inestimable privi- 
 lege of self-government, seize and occupy that 
 part of Louisiana which is situated between the 
 Mississippi and the Perdido ? "What must the 
 people of Spain think of that policy which would 
 not spare them, and which commiserates alone 
 an unworthy prince, who ignominiously surren- 
 dered himself to his enemy ; a vile despot, of 
 whom I cannot speak in appropriate language 
 without departing from the respect due to this 
 House or to myself? What must the people of 
 South America think of this sympathy for Fer- 
 dinand, at a moment when they, as well as the 
 people of the Peninsula themselves, (if we are 
 to believe the late accounts, and God send they 
 may be true,) are struggling for liberty ? 
 
 Again : When we declared our late just war 
 against Great Britain, did we wait for a moment 
 when she was free from embarrassment and dis- 
 tress ; or did we not rather wisely select a period 
 when there was the greatest probability of giv- 
 ing success to our arms ? What was the com- 
 plaint in England ; what the language of fac- 
 tion here? Was it not that we had cruelly 
 proclaimed the war at a time when she was 
 struggling for the liberties of the world ? How 
 truly, let the sequel and the voice of impartial 
 history tell. 
 
 Whilst he could not, therefore, Mr. 0. said, 
 persuade himself that the reasons assigned by 
 the President for postponing the subject of our 
 Spanish affairs until another session, were en- 
 titled to all the weight which he seemed to 
 think belonged to them, he did not, neverthe- 
 less, regret that the particular project recom- 
 mended by the Committee of Foreign Relations 
 was thus to be disposed of; for it was war, war, 
 attempted to be disguised. And if we went to 
 war, he thought it should have no other limit 
 than indemnity for the past, and security for the 
 future. He had no idea of the wisdom of that 
 measure of hostility which would bind us, whilst 
 the other party is left free. 
 
 Before he proceeded to consider the particu- 
 lar propositions which the resolutions contained 
 which he had had the honor of submitting, it 
 was material to determine the actual posture of 
 our relations to Spain. He considered it too 
 clear to need discussion, that the treaty was at 
 an end ; that it contained, in its present state, 
 no obligation whatever upon us, and no obliga- 
 tion whatever on the part of Spain. It was as 
 if it had never been. We are remitted back to 
 the state of our rights and our demands which 
 existed prior to the conclusion of the treaty, 
 with this only difference, that, instead of being 
 merged in, or weakened by the treaty, they 
 have acquired all the additional force which 
 the intervening time and the faithlessness of 
 Spain can communicate to them. Standing on 
 this position, he should not deem it necessary 
 VOL. VL 37 
 
 to interfere with the treaty-making power, if a 
 fixed and persevering purpose had not been in- 
 dicated by it, to obtain the revival of the treaty. 
 Now, he thought it a bad treaty. The interest 
 of the country, as it appeared to him, forbade 
 its renewal. Being gone, it was perfectly in- 
 comprehensible to him why so much solicitude 
 was manifested to restore it. Yet it is clung to 
 with the same sort of frantic affection with 
 which the bereaved mother hugs her dead in- 
 fant in the vain hope of bringing it back to life. 
 
 Has the House of Representatives a right to 
 express its opinion upon the arrangement made 
 in that treaty ? The President, by asking Con- 
 gress to carry it into effect, has given us juris- 
 diction of the subject, if we had it not before. 
 We derive from that circumstance the right to 
 consider first, if there be a treaty ; secondly, 
 if we ought to carry it into effect ; and, thirdly, 
 if there be no treaty, whether it be expedient to 
 assert our rights, independent of the treaty. It 
 will not be contended that we are restricted to 
 that specific mode of redress which the Presi- 
 dent intimated in his opening Message. 
 
 The first resolution which he had presented, 
 asserted that the constitution vests in the Con- 
 gress of the United States the power to dispose 
 of the territory belonging to them ; and that 
 no treaty, purporting to alienate any portion 
 thereof, is valid, without the concurrence of 
 Congress. 
 
 The proposition which it asserts was, he 
 thought, sufficiently maintained by barely read- 
 ing the clause in the constitution on which it 
 rests : " The Congress shall have power to dis- 
 pose of, &c., the territory, or other property, 
 belonging to the United States." 
 
 It was far from his wish to renew at large a 
 discussion of the treaty-making power. The 
 Constitution of the United States had not de- 
 fined the precise limits of that power, because, 
 from the nature of it, they could not be pre- 
 scribed. It appeared to him, however, that no 
 safe American statesman would assign to it a 
 boundless scope. He presumed, for example, 
 that it would not be contended that, in a Gov- 
 ernment which was itself limited, there was a 
 functionary without limit. The first great bound 
 to the power in question, he apprehended, was 
 that no treaty could constitutionally transcend 
 the very objects and purposes of the Govern- 
 ment itself. He thought, also, that, wherever 
 there were specific grants of power to Con- 
 gress, they limited or controlled, or, he would 
 rather say, modified the exercise of the general 
 grant of the treaty-making power, upon the 
 principle which was familiar to every one. He 
 did not insist that the treaty-making power 
 could not act upon the subjects committed to 
 the charge of Congress ; he merely contended 
 that the concurrence of Congress in its action 
 upon those subjects, was necessary. Nor would 
 he iiisi.st that the concurrence should precede 
 that action. It would be always most desirable 
 that it should precede it, if convenient, to 
 guard against the commitment of Congress, on
 
 578 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OP R.] 
 
 The Spanish Trtaty. 
 
 [APRIL, 1820. 
 
 the one hand, by the Executive, or, on the 
 other, what might seem to be a violation of the 
 faith of the country, pledged for the ratification 
 of the treaty. But he was perfectly aware 
 that it would be very often highly inconvenient 
 to deliberate, in a body so numerous as Con- 
 gress, on the nature of those terms on which 
 it might be proper to treat with foreign powers. 
 In the view of the subject which he had been 
 taking, there was a much higher degree of se- 
 curity to the interests of the country. For, 
 with all his respect for the President and Sen- 
 ate, it could not disparage the wisdom of their 
 councils to add to it that of this House also. 
 But if the concurrence of this House be not 
 necessary in the cases asserted ; if there be no 
 restriction upon the power he was considering, 
 it might draw to itself and absorb the whole of 
 the powers of Government. To contract alli- 
 ances, to stipulate for raising troops to be em- 
 ployed in a common war about to be waged, to 
 grant subsidies, even to introduce foreign troops 
 within the bosom of the country, were not un- 
 frequent instances of the exercise of this power ; 
 and if, in all such cases, the honor and faith of 
 the nation were committed, by the exclusive 
 act of the President and Senate, the melancholy 
 duty alone might be left to Congress of record- 
 ing the rum of the Republic. 
 
 The House of Representatives has uniformly 
 maintained its right to deliberate upon those 
 treaties in which their co-operation was asked 
 by the Executive. In the first case that oc- 
 curred in the progress of our Government, that 
 of the treaty commonly called Mr. Jay's Treaty, 
 after General Washington refused to commu- 
 nicate his instructions to that Minister, the 
 House asserted its right, by fifty odd votes to 
 thirty odd. In the last case that occurred, the 
 Convention of 1815, with Great Britain, al- 
 though it passed off upon what was called a 
 compromise, this House substantially obtained 
 ite object ; for, if that Convention operated as 
 a repeal of the laws with which it was incom- 
 patible, the act which passed was altogether un- 
 necessary. 
 
 Supposing, however, that no treaty which 
 undertakes to dispose of the territory of the 
 United States is valid without the concurrence 
 of Congress, it may be contended that such 
 treaty may constitutionally fix the limits of the 
 territories of the United States, where they are 
 disputed, without the co-operation of Congress. 
 He admitted it, when the fixation of the limits 
 simply was the object, as in the case of the 
 river St. Croix, or the more recent stipulation 
 in the Treaty of Ghent, or in that of the Treaty 
 with Spain in 1795. In all these cases, the 
 treaty-making power merely reduces to cer- 
 tainty that which was before unascertained. 
 It announces the fact ; it proclaims in a tangi- 
 ble form the existence of the boundary ; it does 
 not make a new boundary; it asserts only 
 where the new boundary was. But it cannot 
 under color of fixing a boundary previously ex- 
 isting, though not in fact marked, undertake to 
 
 cede away, without the concurrence of Con- 
 gress, whole provinces. If the subject be one 
 of a mixed character ; if it consists partly of 
 cession, and partly of the fixation of a prior 
 limit, he contended that the President must 
 come here for the consent of Congress. But in 
 the Florida Treaty it was not pretended that 
 the object was simply a declaration of where 
 the western limit of Louisiana was ; it was, on 
 the contrary, the case of an avowed cession of 
 territory from the United States to Spain. The 
 whole of the correspondence manifested that 
 the respective parties to the negotiation were 
 not engaged so much in an inquiry where the 
 limit of Louisiana was, as that they were ex- 
 changing overtures as to where it should be. 
 Hence we find various limits proposed and dis- 
 cussed. At one time the Mississippi is pro- 
 posed; then the Missouri; then a river dis- 
 charging itself into the gulf east of the Sabine ; 
 a vast desert is proposed to separate the terri- 
 tories of the two powers ; and finally the Sa- 
 bine, which neither of the parties had ever con- 
 tended was the ancient limit of Louisiana, is 
 adopted, and the boundary is extended from its 
 source by a line . perfectly new and arbitrary ; 
 and the treaty itself proclaims its purpose to be 
 a cession from the United States to Spain. 
 
 The second resolution comprehended three 
 propositions ; the first of which was, that the 
 equivalent granted by Spam to the United 
 States for the province of Texas was inadequate. 
 To determine this it was necessary to estimate 
 the value of what we gave and of what we re- 
 ceived. This involved an inquiry into our 
 claim to Texas. It was not his purpose to 
 enter at large into this subject. He presumed 
 the spectacle would not be presented of ques- 
 tioning, in this branch of the Government, our 
 title to Texas, which had been constantly main- 
 tained by the Executive, for more than fifteen 
 years past, under three several Administrations. 
 He was at the same time ready and prepared to 
 make out our title, if any one in this House 
 were fearless enough to controvert it. He 
 would for the present briefly state that the man 
 who is most familiar with the transactions of 
 this Government who so largely participated 
 in the formation of the constitution, and in all 
 that has been done under it ; who, besides the 
 eminent services that he has rendered his coun- 
 try, principally contributed to the acquisition 
 of Louisiana ; and who must be supposed, from 
 his various opportunities, best to know its 
 limits declared, fifteen years ago, that our 
 title to the Rio del Norte was as Avell founded 
 as it was to the island of New Orleans. 
 . [Here Mr. C. read an extract from a memoir 
 'presented in 1805, by Mr. Monroe and Mr. 
 Pinckney, to Mr. Cevallos, proving that the 
 boundary of Louisiana extended eastward to 
 the Perdido, and westward to the Rio del 
 Norte; in which they say: "The facts and 
 principles which justify this conclusion are so 
 satisfactory to their Government as to convince 
 it that the United States have not a better
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 579 
 
 APRIL, 1820.] 
 
 The Spanish Treaty. 
 
 [EL OF R. 
 
 right to the island of New Orleans, under the 
 cession referred to, than they have to the whole 
 district of territory thus described." 
 
 The title to the Perdido on the one side, and 
 to the Rio del Norte on the other, rested on the 
 same principle the priority of discovery and 
 occupation by France. Spain had first dis- 
 covered and made an establishment at Pensa- 
 cola France at Dauphin Island in the Bay of 
 Mobile. The intermediate space was unoccu- 
 pied ; and the principle observed among Euro- 
 pean nations having contiguous settlements 
 being that the unoccupied space between them 
 should be equally divided was applied to it, 
 and the Perdido thus became the common 
 boundary. So, west of the Mississippi, La Salle, 
 acting under France, in 1682 or 1683, first dis- 
 covered that river. In 1685, he made an estab- 
 lishment on the Bay of St. Bernard, west of 
 the Colorado, emptying into it. The nearest 
 Spanish settlement was Panuco, and the Rio 
 del Norte, about the midway line, became the 
 common boundary. 
 
 All accounts concurred in representing Texas 
 to be extremely valuable. Its superficial extent 
 was three or four times greater than that of 
 Florida. The climate was delicious ; the soil 
 fertile ; the margins of the rivers abounding in 
 live oak; and the country admitting of easy 
 settlement. It possessed, moreover, if he were 
 not misinformed, one of the finest ports on the 
 Gulf of Mexico. The productions of which it 
 was capable were suited to our wants. The 
 unfortunate captive of St. Helena wished for 
 ships, commerce, and colonies. We have them 
 all, if we do not wantonly throw them away. 
 The colonies of other countries are separated 
 from them by vast seas, requiring great expense 
 to protect them, and are held subject to a con- 
 stant risk of their being torn from their grasp. 
 Our colonies, on the contrary, are united to 
 and form a part of our continent ; and the same 
 Mississippi, from whose rich deposit the best of 
 them (Louisiana) has been formed, will transport 
 on her bosom the brave and patriotic men from 
 her tributary streams to defend and preserve 
 the next most valuable, the province of Texas. 
 
 We wanted Florida, or rather we sTuttt want 
 it, or, to speak yet more correctly, we want no- 
 body else to have it. We do not desire it for 
 immediate use. It fills a space in our imag- 
 ination, and we wish it to complete the arron- 
 dissement of our territory. It must certainly 
 come to us. The ripened fruit will not more 
 surely fall. Florida is enclosed in between 
 Alabama and Georgia, and cannot escape. 
 Texas may. Whether we get Florida now or 
 some five or ten years hence, is of no conse- 
 quence, provided no other power gets it ; and 
 if any other power should attempt to take it, 
 an existing act of Congress authorizes the Presi- 
 dent to prevent it. He was not disposed to dis- 
 parage Florida, but its intrinsic value was in- 
 comparably less than that of Texas. Almost 
 its sole value was military. The possession of 
 it would undoubtedly communicate some addi- 
 
 tional security to Louisiana and to the American 
 commerce in the Gulf of Mexico. But it was 
 not very essential to have it for protection to 
 Georgia and Alabama. There could be no at- 
 tack upon either of them, by a foreign power, 
 on the side of Florida. It now covered those 
 States. Annexed to the United States, and we 
 should have to extend our line of defence so as 
 to embrace Florida. Far from being, therefore, 
 a source of immediate profit, it would be the 
 occasion of considerable immediate expense. 
 The acquisition of it was certainly a fair object 
 of our policy ; and ought never to be lost sight 
 of. It was even a laudable ambition in any 
 Chief Magistrate to endeavor to illustrate the 
 epoch of his administration by such an acqui- 
 sition. It was less necessary, however, to fill 
 the measure of the honors of the present Chief 
 Magistrate than that of any other man, in con- 
 sequence of the large share which he had in 
 obtaining all Louisiana. But, whoever may 
 deserve the renown which may attend the in- 
 corporation of Florida into our Confederacy, it 
 is our business, as the representatives of the 
 people, who are to pay the price of it, to take 
 care, as far as we constitutionally can, that too 
 much is not given. He would not give Texas 
 for Florida in a naked exchange. We were 
 bound by the treaty to give not merely Texas, 
 but five millions of dollars also, and the excess 
 beyond that sum of all our claims upon Spain, 
 which have been variously estimated at from 
 fifteen to twenty millions of dollars. 
 
 The public is not generally apprised of an- 
 other large consideration which passed from us 
 to Spain, if an interpretation which he had 
 heard given to the treaty were just, and it was 
 certainly plausible. Subsequent to the transfer, 
 but before the delivery, of Louisiana from Spain 
 to France, the then Governor of New Orleans 
 (he believed his name was Gayoso) made a num- 
 ber of concessions upon the payment of an in- 
 considerable pecuniary consideration, amount- 
 ing to between nine hundred thousand and a 
 million of acres of land, similar to those re- 
 cently made at Madrid to the royal favorites. 
 This land is situated in Feliciana, and between 
 the Mississippi and the Amite, in the present 
 State of Louisiana. It was granted to persons 
 who possessed the very best information of the 
 country, and is no doubt, therefore, the choice 
 land. The United States have never recognized, 
 but have constantly denied the validity of these 
 concessions. It is contended by the parties 
 concerned that they are confirmed by the late 
 treaty. By the second article his Catholic 
 Majesty cedes to the United States, in full prop- 
 erty and sovereignty, all the territories which 
 belong to him, situated to the eastward of the 
 Mississippi, known by the name of East and 
 West Florida. And by the eighth article all 
 the grants of land made before the 24th of Jan- 
 uary, 1818, by his Catholic Majesty, or by his 
 lawful authorities, shall be ratified and con- 
 firmed, &c. Now, the grants in question, hav- 
 ing been made long prior to that day, are sup-
 
 580 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 The Spanish Treaty, 
 
 [APRIL, 1820. 
 
 posed to be confirmed. He understood, from a 
 person interested, that Don Onis had assured 
 him it was his intention to confirm them. 
 Whether the American negotiator had the same 
 intention or not, he (Mr. 0.) did not know. It 
 will not be pretended that the letter of Mr. 
 Adams, of the 12th of March, 1818, in which 
 he declines to treat any further with respect to 
 any part of the territory included within the 
 limits of the State of Louisiana, can control 
 the operation of the subsequent treaty. That 
 treaty must be interpreted by what is in it, and 
 not by what is out of it. The overtures which 
 passed between the parties respectively, prior 
 to the conclusion of the treaty, can neither re- 
 strict nor enlarge its meaning. Moreover, when 
 Mr. Madison occupied, in 1811, the country be- 
 tween the Mississippi and the Perdido, he de- 
 clared that, in our hands, it should be, as it has 
 been, subject to negotiation. 
 
 It results, then, that we have given for Flor- 
 ida, charged and incumbered as it is 
 
 1st. Unincumbered Texas ; 
 
 2d. Five millions of dollars ; 
 
 3d. A surrender of all our claims upon Spain, 
 not included in that five millions ; and, 
 
 4th. If the interpretation of the treaty which 
 he had stated were well founded, about a mil- 
 lion of acres of the best unseated land in the 
 State of Louisiana, worth perhaps ten millions 
 of dollars. 
 
 The first proposition contained in the second 
 resolution was thus, Mr. 0. thought, fully sus- 
 tained. The next was, that it was inexpedient 
 to cede Texas to any foreign power. Mr. C. 
 said he was opposed to the transfer of any part 
 of the territories of the United States to any 
 foreign power. They constituted, in his opin- 
 ion, a sacred inheritance of posterity, which we 
 ought to preserve unimpaired. He wished it 
 was, if it were not a fundamental and inviolable 
 law of the land, that they should be inalienable 
 to any foreign power. It was quite evident 
 that it was in the order of Providence ; that it 
 was an inevitable result of the principle of 
 population, that the whole of this continent, in- 
 cluding Texas, was to be peopled in process of 
 time. The question was, by whose race shall 
 it be peopled ? In our hands it will be peopled 
 by freemen, and the sons of freemen, carrying 
 with them our language, our laws, and our 
 liberties ; establishing on the prairies of Texas 
 temples dedicated to the simple and devout 
 modes of worship of God incident to our re- 
 ligion, and temples dedicated to that freedom 
 which we adore next to Him. In the hands of 
 others, it may become the habitation of despot- 
 ism and of slaves, subject to the vile dominion 
 of the inquisition and of superstition. He knew 
 that there were honest and enlightened men 
 who feared that our Confederacy was already 
 too large, and that there was danger of disrup- 
 tion arising out of the want of reciprocal co- 
 herence between its several parts. He hoped 
 and believed that the principle of representation, 
 and the formation of States, would preserve us 
 
 a united people. But if Texas, after being 
 peopled by us, and grappling with us, should, at 
 some distant day, break off, she will carry along 
 with her a noble crew, consisting of our chil- 
 dren's children. The difference between those 
 who might be disinclined to its annexation to 
 our Confederacy, and him, was, that their sys- 
 tem began where his might, possibly, in some 
 distant future day, terminate ; and that theirs 
 began with a foreign race, aliens to every thing 
 that we hold dear, and his ended with a race 
 partaking of all our qualities. 
 
 The last proposition which the second reso- 
 lution affirms, is, that it is inexpedient to renew 
 the treaty. If Spain had promptly ratified it, 
 bad as it is, he would have acquiesced in it. 
 After the protracted negotiation which it ter- 
 minated ; after the irritating and exasperating 
 correspondence which preceded it, he would 
 have taken the treaty as a man who has passed 
 a long and restless night, turning and tossing in 
 his bed, snatches at day an hour's disturbed re- 
 pose. But she would not ratify it ; she would 
 not consent to be bound by it, and she has 
 liberated us from it. Is it wise to renew the 
 negotiation, if it is to be recommenced by an- 
 nouncing to her at once our ultimatum ? Shall 
 we not give her the vantage ground ? In early 
 life he had sometimes indulged in a species of 
 amusement, which years and experience had 
 determined him to renounce, which, if the com- 
 mittee would allow him to use it, furnished him 
 with a figure Shall we enter on the game, 
 with our hand exposed to the adversary, whilst 
 he shuffles the cards to acquire more strength ? 
 What has lost us his ratification of the treaty ? 
 Incontestably our importunity to procure the 
 ratification, and the hopes which that oppor- 
 tunity inspired, that he could yet obtain more 
 from us. Let us undeceive him. Let us pro- 
 claim the acknowledged truth, that the treaty 
 is prejudicial to the interests of this country. 
 Are we not told, by the Secretary of State, in 
 the bold and confident assertion, that Don Onis 
 was authorized to grant us much more, and 
 that Spain dare not deny his instructions? 
 That the line of demarcation is far within his 
 limits ? If she would have then granted us 
 more, is her position now more favorable to her 
 in the negotiation ? In our relations to foreign 
 powers, it may be sometimes politic to sacrifice 
 a portion of our rights to secure the residue. 
 But is Spain such a power as that it becomes 
 us to sacrifice those rights ? Is she entitled to 
 it by her justice, by her observance of good 
 faith, or by her possible annoyance of us in the 
 event of war ? She will seek, as she has sought, 
 procrastination in the negotiation, taking the 
 treaty as the basis. She will dare to offend us, 
 as she has insulted us, by asking the disgrace- 
 ful stipulation that we shah 1 not recognize the 
 patriots. Let us put aside the treaty ; tell her 
 to grant us our rights, to their uttermost extent 
 And if she still palters, let us assert those rights 
 by whatever measures it is for the interest of 
 our country to adopt.
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 581 
 
 APRIL, 1820.] 
 
 The Spanish Treaty. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 If the treaty were abandoned ; if it were not 
 on the contrary signified, too distinctly, that 
 there was to be a continued and unremitting 
 endeavor to obtain its revival, he would not 
 think it advisable for this House to interpose. 
 But, with all the information in our possession, 
 and holding the opinions which he entertained, 
 he thought it the bonnden duty of the House 
 to adopt the resolutions. He had acquitted 
 himself of what he deemed a solemn duty, in 
 bringing up the subject. Others would dis- 
 charge theirs according to their own sense of 
 them. 
 
 Mr. LOWXDES followed Mr. CLAY in the de- 
 bate. Before entering into a discussion of the 
 merits of the propositions submitted by the 
 Speaker, he said, it appeared to him there was 
 a previous question to be settled, the deter- 
 mination of which might preclude a decision 
 of the main question on its merits. That ques- 
 tion was, whether the attempt, on the part of 
 this House, to take the conduct of negotiations 
 with foreign powers into its hands would not 
 be greatly prejudicial to the interests of the 
 country? It was worthy of inquiry, also, 
 whether it was consistent with prudence, or 
 with wisdom, to engage in the discussion of 
 propositions, the adoption of which would have 
 that effect ? 
 
 Mr. L. said he was far from considering the 
 two resolutions now before the committee as 
 of the same character. He was ready to admit 
 that the consideration of the question, how far 
 this House has a right to interpose in respect to 
 treaties of this theoretically abstract question 
 was not liable to the same objection as the 
 discussion of the second resolve ; but he should 
 consider the consumption of time in its dis- 
 cussion utterly useless and wasteful at this mo- 
 ment. 
 
 The gentleman from Kentucky had made a 
 remark, in relation to the late communication 
 of the President to Congress, which, Mr. L. 
 said, appeared to him to have arisen entirely 
 from misapprehension of the nature of that 
 communication. The gentleman considered the 
 Message as founded on the wishes of those for- 
 eign powers whose views on the subject our 
 Government had been apprised of. The best 
 attention which he had been able to bestow on 
 the subject, Mr. L. said, had led to conclusions 
 totally different from this. The papers accom- 
 panying the Message were such as ought to 
 have been communicated for the information of 
 Congress, but were not the only grounds of the 
 Message. Could any man read the Message 
 without seeing that the ground of delay recom- 
 mended by the President, is the probability, 
 of which evidence is furnished in part by com- 
 munications from the Ministers of foreign powers 
 directly and indirectly to our Government, that 
 the object of the United States may be accom- 
 plished without a resort to such measures as 
 has been recommended by a committee of this 
 House ? It would be an extravagance of inde- 
 pendence to say, not only that foreign nations 
 
 should not interpose in a controversy between 
 us and a foreign power, but that they should 
 not even be allowed to furnish us with facts 
 with that information without which there 
 was no wisdom in the conduct of foreign nego- 
 tiations. Mr. L. quoted the Message of the 
 President, to show that the only ground on 
 which a delay of coercive measures against 
 Spain was recommended, was, that there was 
 reason to believe that the object of the United 
 States might be attained without resorting to 
 them. Was it at all extraordinary that informa- 
 tion on this head should be obtained from for- 
 eign powers ? Was it at all extraordinary that 
 Spain should not develop her views to us, who 
 are the adverse party, yet should disclose them 
 to a power which is not a principal in the con- 
 troversy, but her ally and a mutual friend? 
 The Executive does not reject information from 
 any quarter, and, least of all, from a quarter 
 where it is most to be relied on. With regard 
 to foreign interference, he should repel, with as 
 much indignation as the gentleman from Ken- 
 tucky, any attempt to intermeddle in our internal 
 affairs. Yet, every man who would reflect on 
 the condition in which, in the lapse of time, the 
 United States may be placed, would see, that 
 there might be cases in which, with all our re- 
 pugnance to the interposition of foreign nations, 
 we may be induced, as to collisions with foreign 
 States, to consent to the arbitration of other 
 foreign States, not interested in the controversy. 
 Thus, such a provision had been made in regard 
 to certain cases embraced by the Treaty of 
 Ghent; and, at this very moment, one of the 
 questions arising between us and Great Britain 
 in regard to that treaty had been referred to 
 the arbitration of the Emperor of Russia, Ifj 
 as in the case provided for by the Treaty of 
 Ghent, the mediation of a foreign power may 
 be accepted with respect to questions of boun- 
 daries, may we not go so far as to say that there 
 may be cases in which we shall pay consider- 
 able deference to the opinions of a disinterested 
 foreign power where territorial acquisitions are 
 concerned ? 
 
 But, Mr. L. said, a remark of the gentleman 
 from Kentucky, apart from the main question 
 before the committee, seemed to require that 
 he should, before proceeding further, say some- 
 thing of the condition in which the Committee 
 of Foreign Relations, of which he was one, was 
 placed by the Message from the President. 
 Whether it was owing to insensibility or not, 
 Mr. L. said he did not feel that awkwardness 
 which the gentleman from Kentucky seemed to 
 suppose that committee must feel. When the 
 committee recommended the immediate occu- 
 pation of Florida, and when they withdrew 
 that recommendation, they acted on both occa- 
 sions from the same motive. With one infor- 
 mation one course might be correct, whilst with 
 other information a different course would be 
 proper. Though not satisfied that a different 
 course should be pursued from that recom- 
 mended by the committee, yet, a different
 
 582 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R] 
 
 The Spanish Treaty. 
 
 [APRIL, 1820. 
 
 course being recommended by circumstances 
 subsequently disclosed, indicating the feeling 
 of the nation and the sentiment of this House, 
 would a discussion of the subject have been 
 deemed by any gentleman advantageous to the 
 interests of the country ? Ought the commit- 
 tee to have urged a decision on their proposition, 
 when no possible advantage could have resulted 
 from it ? Must it not, on the contrary, have led 
 to a discussion which would be as injurious as 
 he would show that the present discussion 
 would be, should he not succeed in a motion 
 which he should make, as indiscreet as the gen- 
 tleman might think it, to prevent the further 
 discussion of it? 
 
 A strong objection, even to a discussion of 
 the resolutions of the Speaker, was, that, in re- 
 lation to both of them, no possible benefit 
 could arise from the discussion of them nay, 
 that a discussion, in such a manner as to lead 
 to a just decision of them, was impracticable. 
 He asked any gentleman to say whether it was 
 not apparent that the questions involved in 
 them could not now be freely discussed ? Under 
 the circumstances, it certainly was ; and, said 
 he, a discussion into which we enter manacled, 
 we ought not to enter at all. 
 
 With regard to the treaty-making power, Mr. 
 L. said he was willing to admit, that, in rela- 
 tion to those stipulations which apply to sub- 
 jects such as are among the enumerated powers 
 of Congress, the sanction of the Kepresentative 
 body to them was necessary. He had, how- 
 ever, no intention to enter into this general ar- 
 gument. If discussed, said he, it would force 
 us into an extent of discussion for which the 
 limits of the cession would be too narrow. It 
 would include not only all the discussions of 
 1795 and 1816, but would open new grounds. 
 The Speaker himself, he presumed, would not 
 be disposed to insist that this House has a pow- 
 er, in relation to a treaty stipulating for a ces- 
 sion of territory, which it has not in relation 
 to a stipulation for the payment of money. If 
 there be a power peculiarly ours, said Mr. L., it 
 is the power over the purse of the nation. If 
 it be contended that neither can territory be 
 ceded, nor money paid, without the consent of 
 this House, there is a question beyond that 
 again ; will you maintain that a claim, on our 
 part, for money or for territory, however well 
 founded, cannot be yielded ? Such cases were 
 peculiarly a subject for treaty stipulations. 
 The very treaty of which we are speaking con- 
 tains a renunciation of claims. In case of a 
 claim on your part, not recognized by the oppo- 
 site party, your rights may be renounced, by 
 treaty, for an equivalent, &c. Mr. L. said he 
 had no disposition to enter at large or system- 
 atically into the question respecting the treaty- 
 making power ; but the observation which he 
 had made connected itself with another. 
 
 Gentlemen conversant with the history of the 
 proceedings of Congress, might recollect the 
 ground taken by the gentleman who is now our 
 distinguished Minister in France ; that, in addi- 
 
 tion to those powers purely Executive, which 
 did not come in conflict with the powers of the 
 House of Representatives, Mr. Gallatin admit- 
 ted, in the great debate of 1795, there was an- 
 other and a resulting power which did belong 
 to the treaty-making authority. That, for ex- 
 ample, to a stipulation that any act should not 
 pass, the consent of the House of Represent- 
 atives was not necessary, because the President 
 and Senate, being branches of Congress, had it 
 in their power to enforce and fulfil the treaty, 
 by withholding their assent from any such act. 
 Apply that argument to the case of a renun- 
 ciation of a claim for money or for territory. 
 Not being in the possession either of our Gov- 
 ernment or of a foreign power, it could be re- 
 claimed or renounced only by negotiation or by 
 war, and to either course the consent of the 
 negotiating power was necessary, &c. In rela- 
 tion to questions of boundary, it was admitted 
 on all hands that the treaty-making authority 
 was competent to their adjustment ; its com- 
 petency must be equally admitted in relation to 
 all unadjusted claims. He submitted then to 
 the committee, whether there could be any 
 case of an adjustment of a claim to boundary, 
 which did not include a cession of supposed 
 right to territory by one or the other party. 
 You may establish points ; you may say there 
 a colony was planted here a man was ship- 
 wrecked ; you may assert that these points in- 
 clude the territory to which you have a right ; 
 but the lines of your boundary must, after all, 
 be adjusted by negotiation by reciprocal agree- 
 ment. Mr. L. said he should be sorry if it 
 should be inferred, from what he had said, that 
 he was of opinion that the ground assumed in 
 the resolution was decidedly erroneous. That 
 it asserted a power much greater than had 
 heretofore been claimed for the House of Rep- 
 resentatives, he was confident ; but he did not 
 mean to say that he had formed a decided opin- 
 ion different from that of the gentleman from 
 Kentucky on this point. He had thought of it 
 but for a day or two. It was, however, a ques- 
 tion into which he thought the House ought 
 not wantonly and uselessly to enter, espe- 
 cially as it had now no superfluous time on its 
 hands. 
 
 [Here, the hour being late, Mr. LOWXDES 
 complied with the wish of a gentleman near 
 him, and gave way for an adjournment. The 
 next day he resumed his remarks.] 
 
 Mr. L. did not, he repeated, intend to express 
 any opinion affirmatively or negatively on the 
 proposition contained in the first of the above 
 resolutions. But, he said, it touched a subject 
 so complicated and difficult as to make it neces- 
 sary, if acted on at all, that it should occupy 
 a much greater portion of time in the discus- 
 sion than could be spared at this period of the 
 session for the discussion of an abstract propo- 
 sition. There must be many gentlemen on this 
 floor who recollected the length and arduous 
 nature of the discussion of 1795 on this subject. 
 There were none who could not see that the
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 583 
 
 APRIL, 1820.] 
 
 The Spanish Treaty. 
 
 [H. or R. 
 
 resolution of the Speaker embraced a larger 
 object than was embraced by that of 1795. 
 The conclusion must be, that, if 'decided at all 
 by this House, it would be after a long discus- 
 sion. But, suppose the resolution went no fur- 
 ther than that of 1795 however strong might 
 be the opinion of a majority in favor of the 
 resolution of 1795 it could not be expected 
 but there would be some debate on such a 
 proposition. The smaller the minority, the 
 stronger the reason why their arguments should 
 be heard, and laid before the public. The resolu- 
 tion of 1795 remains on the journals, and there 
 could be no reason assigned, even did this reso- 
 lution go no further than that, for reaffirming 
 it. But this resolution goes much further than 
 that of 1795, or than the doctrines advanced 
 by any who took part in that discussion. It 
 was not then, as far as Mr. L. knew, contended 
 by any one, that in relation to territory claimed 
 by us, but not in our possession, a treaty for the 
 adjustment of the title would require the sanc- 
 tion of this House. Would it be prudent, said 
 he, by anticipation, when we know not of any 
 circumstances which make the decision of this 
 question necessary, to undertake to decide it ? 
 Is there any member of this committee who 
 supposes that the effect of a decision in favor 
 of this proposition will be to preclude a discus- 
 sion and decision of the question hereafter, 
 should the treaty be eventually ratified. Mr. 
 L. presumed not. Indeed, he said, were this 
 proposition to be discussed now for a week, it 
 would only serve to prepare the ground for an- 
 other discussion hereafter. 
 
 Whilst, however, he had no other objection 
 to the discussion of the first resolution, but 
 what arose from a regard to the economy of 
 time, he had much stronger objections to the 
 consideration and decision of the second. He 
 did not understand how any decision, or even 
 free discussion of that question, could take 
 place without endangering the important inter- 
 ests of the country. This he was sure the 
 Speaker would do as unwillingly as any man. 
 But, said he, pending the ratification of the 
 treaty by Spain, are we to enter into the ques- 
 tion of our title to the territory as far as the 
 Rio del Norte ? Would it be prudent to do so ? 
 Certainly not. Yet, if there was an unreserved 
 discussion, that must be the preliminary step. 
 Do you attach any consequence to a resolution 
 of this kind ? Do you expect it to have an in- 
 fluence at home, and to be respected abroad ; 
 and do you not begin by a laborious and care- 
 ful examination of your right to the territory in 
 question? Will you come to a formal and 
 solemn annunciation that you are fully entitled 
 to all this territory, without deliberately and 
 temperately examining the grounds on which 
 that right rests? If you determine that you 
 will write instructions to our negotiators ; that 
 we shall on this floor prescribe what the con- 
 ditions of a treaty for a settlement of limits 
 shall be, it becomes necessary that the title of 
 the respective parties shall be fully investigated. 
 
 Our open doors show that this is not the place 
 to discuss what we will ask in a negotiation 
 with a foreign power, and what we will be con- 
 tent to receive. It would be, to use the Speak- 
 er's figure, to display our open hand to our 
 adversary, his being concealed, as ours ought 
 to be. 
 
 It had been doubted, Mr. L. said, whether 
 the other branch of the Legislature has a right 
 to join in instructions given to our diplomatic 
 agents with regard to the terms of a treaty. 
 From convenience, at least, this power, given 
 to the Senate almost by the terms of the con- 
 stitution, had not, under the practical construc- 
 tion of that instrument, been latterly exercised 
 by the Senate, but the Executive had been 
 entirely charged with that duty and that re- 
 sponsibility. 
 
 Mr. L. enlarged npon the inconvenience of a 
 public discussion here of what, in an amicable 
 negotiation, we mean to insist on, and what we 
 mean to give np. He had no objection to say- 
 ing, for himself, what he wonld do on that head. 
 But, he said, if a discussion was to take place 
 on the formal proposition contained in this reso- 
 lution, unless the discussion was to be utterly 
 unmeaning, it would be necessary to examine 
 as well the validity of titles as the relative value 
 of territory, &c. It was unnecessary for him 
 to assign reasons why an inquiry into the va- 
 lidity of title would be injurious. They were 
 sufficiently obvious. With regard to the value 
 of the territory in question, if the members 
 were fully informed on the subject, it would yet 
 be needless to discuss it. But, he said, he be- 
 lieved the requisite information was not at 
 hand. For his part, although he had paid con- 
 siderable attention to the subject, and gathered 
 information from all sources accessible to him, 
 he had never heard, respecting the value of the 
 province of Texas, any estimate of its seaport 
 in any degree corresponding with that given by 
 the honorable gentleman from Kentucky. 
 
 If the House was called on to vote on this 
 resolution, it was above all desirable that they 
 should understand it. Mr. L. said he thought 
 he understood it. Its meaning clearly was, that 
 it was inexpedient to cede any part of the ter- 
 ritory which we have west of the Sabine. 
 Suppose our claim to that territory to be un- 
 doubted, said he, are we prepared t6 say, how- 
 ever worthless it may be, however great the 
 equivalent for it, that we will give up no part 
 of it for any territory, however essential or im- 
 portant to ns? Now, for myself, I am not 
 ready to say, that I am not willing to give up 
 any thing west of the Sabine for any consider- 
 ation whatever. If there be any territory of 
 doubtful value, I am not prepared to say that 
 there is in the rest of the world nothing of so 
 much value that I might not be induced to ex- 
 change the one for the other. 
 
 Mr. L. therefore was opposed to engaging in 
 this discussion, and because he considered the 
 second resolve to embrace an object adverse to 
 the interests of the country, as well as contrary
 
 584 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R] 
 
 The Spanish Treaty. 
 
 [APRIL, 1820. 
 
 to the spirit of the constitution. That this 
 House, according to the view of the Speaker, 
 might have some power in regard to treaties 
 for the cession or acquisition of territory, he 
 did not now mean to deny. But, whatever 
 that power was, he thought that a just view of 
 the principles of the constitution would neces- 
 sarily require that it should be a restraining, 
 and not a directing power. If, in progress of 
 time, this House should adopt the practice of 
 giving instruction to our Ministers, or, what is 
 the same thing, of determining beforehand, as 
 now proposed, what should be yielded and 
 what retained, the effeet would be to di- 
 vide the responsibility of the different depart- 
 ments of the Government, and destroy alto- 
 gether that of the treaty-making power. That 
 there was in this House a corrective power, to 
 restrain the treaty-making power in a course 
 not believed to be beneficial to the interests of 
 the country, he was ready to admit ; but, 
 whilst he admitted this, it was a power which, 
 he said, ought to be exercised with great dis- 
 cretion. Otherwise, instead of restraining the 
 Executive power, the effect would be, to in- 
 crease its power by diminishing its responsi- 
 bility. As a common rule of action, therefore, 
 he was in favor of leaving the powers of the 
 Government where the constitution had placed 
 them. 
 
 If any case could arise in which the Execu- 
 tive would pursue a policy so repugnant to the 
 true interests of the country as to justify the 
 interposition of this House, Mr. L. said, it would 
 be one the very reverse of that now under con- 
 sideration. It would hardly ever happen that 
 an Executive would be averse to enlarging the 
 boundaries of the nation, or be accused of a de- 
 sire to restrict them to too narrow a limit. In 
 the Executive branch of every Government, the 
 disposition is naturally favorable to the exten- 
 sion of territory and the enlargement of its pow- 
 er. He thought that we may safely intrust to 
 the Executive of this Government the charge of 
 supporting the rights of the country, and ex- 
 tending its territorial limits as far as justice and 
 sound policy will allow. 
 
 Mr. L. made some remarks to show that no 
 advantage could result from the adoption of 
 this resolve. If, indeed, it was proposed to em- 
 ploy force to support it, there might be some 
 ground. Otherwise, he contended, to pass them 
 would not only be useless, but injurious. 
 
 But, Mr. L. said, he would refrain from en- 
 tering into the general questions of policy 
 growing out of this resolution ; but, in relation 
 to the province of Texas, he would say that, if 
 Florida were not necessary to us, and therefore 
 a desirable acquisition, in exchange for any 
 claim we may be supposed to have to Texas, 
 he should not think it important to occupy 
 Texas at this time. If we have a just claim 
 to that province, the treaty being rejected, 
 it will be at any time in our power to en- 
 force it. Lying between us and Mexico, its 
 destiny must always essentially depend on, as 
 
 it is connected with, American interests. What- 
 ever claim we have to Texas, it is a claim which 
 we are able to support and enforce. This is an 
 opinion, said Mr. L., which the Speaker ap- 
 plies to Florida, and I to Texas. 
 
 Mr. L. asked the members of the committee 
 to cast their eye a little forward, and see if the 
 connection between Mexico and Spain should 
 be dissolved, what motive could Spain have for 
 desiring to retain the possession of the province 
 of Texas. What has been her object in ceding 
 Florida? To get in exchange a boundary, 
 well-defined, between Mexico and the United 
 States. To secure herself against (what she 
 believes, and what Mr. L. feared all the powers 
 of Europe believed) our ambition, she was will- 
 ing to cede Florida. But suppose the connec- 
 tion between Spain and Mexico to be dissolved ; 
 suppose all hope, on her part, of her resuming 
 the control of that country was destroyed; 
 what motive could she have for ceding Florida ? 
 Mr. L. said he had not adverted to this contin- 
 gency with a single view to her relinquish- 
 rnent of Florida to us, but with a view also to 
 the preponderance which a reduction to a single 
 island of the colonial possessions of Spain would 
 give to another power ; when Spain would no 
 longer be mistress of her own actions, but the 
 agent to serve the interests of another power. 
 And, if we relinquished now the acquisition of 
 Florida in order to gain Texas, that in the con- 
 tingency just adverted to, when Florida was 
 overflowed with Royalists, and the value of 
 Cuba increased, what possible motive could 
 Spain have, under such circumstances, for the 
 cession of Florida to us ? We must obtain it 
 then by force, or not at all. But it would al- 
 ways be as easy a matter as it may be now to 
 obtain Florida by force. It would be more 
 easy, he said, to obtain Canada by force, than 
 it would be to obtain Florida by force, if the 
 power to whom it belonged was determined to 
 hold it. It would be an error fatal to the best 
 interests of the country, to refuse to receive 
 Florida into our possession whilst we can. Mr. 
 L. did not say that it was so important an ac- 
 quisition that it ought not for any consideration 
 to be postponed for a day ; but, that a com- 
 bination of circumstances make that practical 
 now which may not be a year or two hence, he 
 thought was very clear. 
 
 Mr. L. concluded by saying, that he had had 
 no intention of entering into the general dis- 
 cussion of these resolves. Ho meant only to 
 show that they could not be discussed without 
 giving so much time to the subject as could not 
 be afforded at this time ; and that the discus- 
 sion would, moreover, be prejudicial to the pub- 
 lic interests. Under these circumstances, he 
 thought it his duty to move to lay the resolu- 
 tion on the table. 
 
 TUESDAY, April 4. 
 
 The Spanish Treaty. 
 
 The House then again resolved itself into a
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 585 
 
 APRIL, 1820.] 
 
 The Spanish Treaty. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 Committee of the "Whole on the resolutions sub- 
 mitted by Mr. CLAY, respecting the treaty- 
 making power, and particularly respecting the 
 Treaty with Spain, yet unratified by Spain. 
 
 Mr. LOWNDES concluded his remarks, going 
 to show why the resolutions should not be 
 acted on. His remarks are given entire in pre- 
 
 When Mr. LOWNDES finished, he moved to 
 lay the first resolve on the table. After some 
 conversation, in which Mr CLAY suggested that 
 the best course would be for the committee to 
 report the resolves to the House, and for the 
 gentleman then to move to postpone the re- 
 solves, or lay them on the table, on which mo- 
 tion the yeas and nays could be recorded, 
 Mr. L. consented to waive his motion for the 
 present. 
 
 Mr. ABCHER, of Virginia, said, that the with- 
 drawal of the motion of the gentleman from 
 South Carolina (Mr. LOWNDES) having removed 
 the obstacle to discussion of the resolutions 
 under consideration, he would proceed to sub- 
 mit his views of them to the committee. The 
 attention of this body, Mr. A. observed, was a 
 gpecies of joint stock concern, of which all its 
 members were equally participant in interest. 
 He now appeared, for the first time, to assert a 
 claim to any share, and he did not doubt that 
 the claim would meet with due allowance from 
 the courtesy of the committee, unless indeed 
 the fund on which it was addressed, had al- 
 ready been exhausted by the drafts which had 
 been made upon it. One recommendation this 
 claim would have, that it would not be an im- 
 moderate one. And Mr. A. believed that the 
 general remark in reference to demands upon 
 the public, that moderation in their amount 
 formed no unessential condition of their suc- 
 cess, had, in no instance, stronger application 
 than in relation to demands addressed to the 
 patience of the assembly. 
 
 Mr. A. adverted to the place which this sub- 
 ject of relations with Spain had recently occu- 
 pied in the public attention, and the universal 
 expectation that some measure expressive of 
 the sense of Congress would, before this period 
 of the session, have been adopted. The meas- 
 ure which, after long delay, the gentleman 
 from South Carolina (Mr. LOWNDES) had report- 
 ed from the Committee of Foreign Relations, 
 had been recently wrested from the considera- 
 tion of this House, in consequence of the sug- 
 gestion of a foreign potentate, who, Mr. A. be- 
 lieved, was pretty much in the habit of exert- 
 ing an operative influence in the affairs of other 
 States, with the same disclaimer, it was proba- 
 ble, in every instance, of an intention to do so, 
 which had been employed in relation to our- 
 selves. If the motion which the gentleman 
 from South Carolina had intimated an inten- 
 tion to renew, should prevail, a fate similar to 
 that which had attended his own proposition 
 would be reserved for the propositions now 
 under consideration. Mr. A. confessed that he 
 felt surprise at the intimation of resort to such 
 
 a course, both on account of the importance of 
 the subject and the character of the proceeding 
 itself the subject involving, as it did, the policy 
 of the alienation of perhaps the most valuable 
 portion, in proportion to its extent, of the terri- 
 tory of the Union, was surely well entitled to 
 consideration from its magnitude. In this re- 
 
 rt it was to be regarded as second only to 
 question which had been connected with 
 the discussion of the Missouri bill, to which 
 indeed it bore a strong character of affinity. 
 That question related to the propriety of the 
 transfer of the common territorial property 
 of the Union, to the exclusive benefit of the 
 population of one portion of it. The question 
 now presented involved a consideration of the 
 policy (which it was the purpose of the resolu- 
 tions to counteract) of the transfer of the most 
 valuable portion of this common property to a 
 foreign power. If a question involving a con- 
 sideration of great momentous character, had 
 no claim to the maturest deliberation of the 
 House, Mr. A. was unaware of any which could 
 be regarded as invested with such a claim. 
 The effect, too, of the success of the motion of 
 the gentleman from South Carolina ought not 
 to escape observation. It would be to preclude 
 all effective expression of the public sentiment 
 in relation to the policy of the ratification of 
 the Spanish treaty. The case had no resem- 
 blance to that of an ordinary postponement of a 
 subject, the consideration of which might, at a 
 succeeding session of Congress, be resumed. 
 Every person knew that, before the ensuing 
 session of Congress, the treaty would be rati- 
 fied. The Government of Spain could have no 
 other design in sending the Minister who was 
 known to have been despatched here. And 
 the determination which would operate with 
 our own Government to accept the ratification 
 (unless this determination should be arrested 
 by the expression of public sentiment in some 
 mode) could not be a subject of question. The 
 prevalence of the motion to lay the resolutions 
 on the table would then be decisive in relation 
 to the important interest conceived to be in- 
 volved in their adoption. By the policy of 
 avoiding conflict, the fruits of complete victory 
 would be achieved. 
 
 In contemplating this question, the attention 
 could not fail, Mr. A. said, to be attracted to 
 the extravagance of the pretensions of this 
 treaty-making power. In point of extent, the 
 power claimed to cover all the objects which 
 fall within the scope of international stipula- 
 tion, that is to say, all the objects of national 
 interest, which were not of essential municipal 
 character. This was the claim in point of ex- 
 tent of jurisdiction. In point of force of au- 
 thority, the power claimed the exertion not 
 only of a superseding, but a mandatory influ- 
 ence, over the legislative department, the di- 
 rect Representatives of the national authority, 
 in relation to all subjects of its exercise, whether 
 comprehended or not, within the delegation of 
 jurisdiction to that department of the Govern-
 
 586 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 The Spanish Treaty. 
 
 [APRIL, 1820. 
 
 ment. The claim was not only to exclude Con- 
 gress from all participation of control over sub- 
 jects specifically submitted to its control by the 
 constitution, but to bind it to an undeliberating 
 ministerial execution of the stipulations of the 
 President and Senate, in relation to these same 
 subjects, wherever they might require the in- 
 tervention of legislative details, and a resort to 
 municipal authority, for execution. The ex- 
 ertion of the power of the President and Senate 
 was said, by committing the public faith for its 
 stipulations, to bind the other departments of 
 the Government to an obligation of co-opera- 
 tion in the objects of those stipulations. Such 
 was the claim of this treaty-making power in 
 point of authority. The first remark, Mr. A. 
 said, which arose upon this statement of the 
 character of the power, related to its effect, 
 where the co-operation of legislative and exec- 
 utive authorities were admitted to be required, 
 to confound the appropriate functions of these 
 authorities. To the President and Senate were 
 assigned the exclusive faculty of exercising de- 
 liberation ; and on Congress was imposed the 
 unqualified duty of conforming to and effectuat- 
 ing, without any exercise of discretion, the re- 
 sults of that deliberation. 
 
 Such an assignation of functions would pre- 
 sent a case of political anomaly which was not 
 predicable of the character of the constitution. 
 The entire exclusion of Congress from authority 
 over the subjects assigned to the jurisdiction of 
 the treaty-making power, would involve no 
 political inconsistency. This was designed in 
 relation to all but a particular class of subjects. 
 But, if the operation of the legislative power 
 were admitted at all, it could only be admitted 
 in its proper character of power involving essen- 
 tially the exercise of discretion. The recogni- 
 tion, therefore, of the necessity for the co-ope- 
 ration of the authority of Congress in the 
 execution of treaty stipulations, was, in rela- 
 tion to all the subjects to which it extended, a 
 recognition of the legislative, as a part of, and 
 a check upon, the treaty-making power. 
 
 Mr. A. had been adverting to a statement of 
 the pretensions of this treaty-making power, as 
 furnishing evidence sufficient, to his mind, to 
 condemn them. If other evidence were want- 
 ed, it would be found in the discrepancy which 
 the power in the extension claimed for it, pre- 
 sented to the character of the general grant of 
 power contained in the constitution, and of the 
 more important particular powers which made 
 up the composition of that grant. It was to be 
 expected of every political system, and more 
 especially of a system sprung from men so illus- 
 trious for wisdom as the framers of our federal 
 form of polity, that it would be found present- 
 ing a general consistency of structure and ele- 
 ments. But the constitution was admitted to 
 convey but a limited grant of power. All its 
 more important component powers, the power 
 over the purse, over the sword, the power of 
 punishment, were limited by express restrictive 
 or qualifying provisions. The admission of the 
 
 treaty-making power, therefore, in the absolute, 
 unrestricted character it assumed to wear, would 
 be a violation of the whole consistency of the 
 constitution. 
 
 Mr. A. said that a person observing, with any 
 degree of attention, the progress of our Gov- 
 ernment, could not fail to be struck with the 
 conflict between many of the principles adopted 
 in the construction of the constitution, and its 
 true character and intendment. The framers 
 of this instrument had expended the resources 
 of an incomparable wisdom, in devising limita- 
 tions on the powers which it conveyed, and in 
 the contrivance of adequate safeguards against 
 the exercise of other powers. In the illusion 
 of a generous confidence, they had no doubt 
 conceived that these safeguards would be found 
 sufficient. But, in the current of the adminis- 
 tration of a constitutional government, there 
 was generated a reptile destructive or danger- 
 ous to the dams and mounds which were insti- 
 tuted to restrain it. The name of this reptile 
 was construction. Such was its fecundity, that 
 it was impossible to extinguish the race. Sucli 
 was its subtlety and activity of nature, that it 
 was difficult to counteract its operations. This 
 reptile had been at work in the mounds of our 
 constitution, nor was it a little to be feared that 
 the breaches had already been effected which 
 were destined, in future time, to give a general 
 admission to discretionary power. 
 
 The power of the President and Senate to 
 alienate territory, might, perhaps, be inferred 
 as a consequence of their power to acquire it 
 Mr. A. objected to the consequence as illogical, 
 and protested against the mode of construing 
 the powers of the Government by which it must 
 be derived. An incidental power would have 
 to be derived from an incidental power ; and 
 this first incident, the source of others, was it- 
 self supposed to be derived in a mode still more 
 unauthorized, not from any specific power, but 
 as a result of the general collective powers and 
 sovereign character of the Government. In 
 such a mode of derivation of power, it was ob- 
 vious that the efficacy of specification in the 
 grant of it, would be destroyed, and a political 
 constitution, as respected any purpose of limita- 
 tion on the exercise of power, be converted to 
 a name. It was inevitable, indeed, that every 
 political constitution should admit the exercise 
 of implied and incidental powers, as a result of 
 the compendious simplicity of an instrument of 
 this character. But the danger of abuse and 
 injury from this source was guarded, if not ob- 
 viated, by a mode of construction (the only one 
 which did not outrage a constitution of enume- 
 rated powers) which required that the power 
 made the source, as well as that which was 
 made the subject of derivation, should be speci- 
 fic ; and that the relation between them should 
 be essential and immediate. Principles the re- 
 verse of these appeared, however, to be obtain- 
 ing an ascendency. The operation of the mis- 
 chief was to be seen, indeed, at this time, only 
 in its commencement. But the end of this
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 587 
 
 APRIL, 1820.] 
 
 The Spanish Treaty. 
 
 OF R 
 
 thing, Mr. A. said, was death. The malady 
 might now present only an eruptive appearance 
 on the surface, but it would be found to be pro- 
 gressive to the heart of the constitution ; would 
 communicate eventually to the system, the un- 
 natural activity of despotism ; and of unnatural 
 action, if not arrested, whether in bodies politi- 
 cal or- physical, there was but one result, and 
 that result was dissolution. 
 
 Mr. A. could not abstain from remarking 
 (though the remark had no immediate relevancy 
 to the question) on the unlimited character of 
 the power of legislation, which was assumed in 
 onr Government, in relation to the national ter- 
 ritories. Authority was arrogated to legislate 
 on this subject at discretion, and an instance of 
 the fullest indulgence of it had occurred at the 
 present .session of Congress, (in the measure for 
 the interdiction of slavery in a portion of the 
 Territories.) Take this power of discretionary 
 regulation, in connection with the acknowl- 
 edged power to refuse admission of a Territory 
 into the Union, and what was the result ? A 
 power was arrogated to regulate discretionally, 
 and a power conceded to retain the Territories 
 at pleasure in subjection to the authority in- 
 vested with this power of discretionary regula- 
 tion. Let the extent and susceptibility of im- 
 portance of the Territories be considered, and 
 what was the spectacle which, under the prac- 
 tical operation of the doctrine asserted, our 
 Government might come to present? The 
 spectacle of an authority strictly limited within 
 its appropriate sphere of operation, exerting un- 
 limited powers in a coextensive collateral sphere 
 of operation. It would be a condition like that 
 of the Roman Kepublic in an advanced stage of 
 its progress, in which, characterized by tJie 
 forms of a limited Government at home, it 
 wielded without control the uncounted re- 
 sources and power of the provinces. To the 
 issue of this condition of things in that Repub- 
 lic it was not necessary to advert, nor to pursue 
 the train of reflection which it was calculated 
 to suggest. 
 
 The powers appertaining to the treaty- 
 making department, and those granted to Con- 
 gress over particular classes of subjects, present- 
 ing the appearance of conflict, the obje*ct of a 
 just constitution would be to reconcile them by 
 allowing to both, if possible, a due operation. 
 But this object could only be attained by the 
 mode which had been suggested, of allowing 
 them a concurrent operation over the subjects 
 which present the apparent occasion of conflict. 
 This construction was in consistency with all 
 received rules in relation to questions of this 
 sort. It was an established principle, which 
 had been adverted to, (by the Speaker,) that in 
 cases of the conflict of particular with general 
 expressions, the general must give way to the 
 particular expression. And why? Because 
 rules of construction being nothing more than 
 contrivances for the ascertainment of intention, 
 what was equivocal in a general, became ex- 
 plicit in a particular expression. The construc- 
 
 tion stated derived corroboration in the present 
 instance of its application, from a consideration 
 of the momentous character of the subjects of 
 power which it operated to detach from the 
 executive, to confide to the concurrent treaty- 
 making jurisdiction; and from a considera- 
 tion of the affinity which it tended to stamp on 
 the treaty-making power, to the general policy 
 and character of the constitution, and to the 
 peculiar character of the more important speci- 
 fic powers which it comprised. 
 
 There was one consideration upon the sub- 
 ject of this controversy, in relation to the ex- 
 tent of the treaty-making power, which ap- 
 peared to Mr. A. to be conclusive. It was 
 this, that the exclusive control claimed for the 
 power, was not pretended to extend to all the 
 subjects submitted to Congress by the constitu- 
 tion. There were several which this exclusive 
 control was admitted not to cover. The powers 
 to borrow money ; to make war ; to raise armies ; 
 to admit new States, were examples. But 
 where was the ground of distinction between 
 these subjects and those over which an exclu- 
 sive, superseding control was claimed ? It was 
 not to be found in the constitution. There 
 these several classes of subjects were placed on 
 the same exact footing. The powers conveyed 
 to Congress were all conveyed in the same 
 terms. The distinction was not to be found in 
 any peculiar importance of the abdicated sub- 
 jects. All were important. Was the distinc- 
 tion to be found in the supposed external rela- 
 tion of the class of arrogated subjects, rendering 
 them in a peculiar degree adapted to become 
 the objects of treaty stipulation? These sub- 
 jects were not distinguished by this character 
 in any greater degree than several of the abdi- 
 cated subjects ; of which' the powers of making 
 war and raising armies were instances. The 
 danger, too, with which the argument derived 
 from this principle of construction was fraught^ 
 ought not to escape observation. Let the prin- 
 ciple be admitted, and it would be only neces- 
 sary to give to exercises of power the form of 
 treaty stipulation, and any power might be ex- 
 ercised, and any object attained, by the Execu- 
 tive department, however remote from the 
 proper sphere of its control. Finally, if the 
 distinction between the jurisdiction arrogated, 
 and that renounced, by the treaty-making 
 power, were made to rest on the peculiar char- 
 acter of the treaty stipulations, as being sus- 
 ceptible of execution, independently of legisla- 
 tive aid, or as requiring that aid for their 
 execution, the answer was equally obvious with 
 those which had been stated to other supposed 
 principles of distinction. It was this, that there 
 were various snpposable cases of stipulation 
 having no dependence on legislative aid for ex- 
 ecution, which yet the consent of all men would 
 reject from the exclusive control of the treaty- 
 making power. One example, suggested by re- 
 cent occurrences, should be adduced. A new 
 State, provided its government were organized, 
 and the form republican, might be admitted
 
 588 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 The Spanish Treaty. 
 
 [APRIL, 1820. 
 
 into the Union without any necessary interven- 
 tion of legislative authority, by a treaty stipu- 
 lating that it should send two Senators and one 
 Representative to Congress. There was a re- 
 publican government now organized among the 
 blacks in the island of Hayti. If the doctrines 
 asserted in relation to the extent of the treaty- 
 making power were just, what was there to 
 hinder the admission of this Republic into the 
 Union, if the President and Senate were to be 
 of opinion to admit it ? Here was a case re- 
 quiring no intervention of legislative aid. Here 
 was a case, which, from its character of exter- 
 nal relation, fell within the class of the appro- 
 priate objects of treaty stipulation. It was 
 sufficient for the argument, that the case was a 
 possible one. Mr. A. did not affect to insinuate 
 that the realization ever could be thought of. 
 Considering, however, the value of West India 
 possessions, there was a possible composition of 
 the Executive department, in which the realiza- 
 tion was by no means inconceivable. Consti- 
 tutional doctrines, however, could not be sound, 
 which involved the possibility of such a conse- 
 quence. 
 
 There were several propositions asserted by 
 the resolution the disproportion of the equiva- 
 lent rendered by Spain for our concessions in 
 the treaty ; the general impolicy of the transfer 
 of the territory ceded on our part to any for- 
 eign power ; and the inexpediency as a conse- 
 quence of these, of the ratification of the treaty, 
 now that the option of our Government was 
 restored, to ratify or reject it. Was, then, the 
 equivalent stipulated to be rendered by them 
 disproportionate, and was it impolitic to make 
 a transfer to any foreign power of the territory 
 we had stipulated to cede? What were the 
 relative concessions of the contracting parties ? 
 On the side of the United States, five millions of 
 dollars to be paid, in part discharge of claims 
 of our citizens upon Spain ; the abandonment 
 of the residue of these claims ; of which, as they 
 stood in the same character, the allowance of 
 this part was, in effect, a recognition to the 
 amount of $15,000,000, as had been stated (by 
 the honorable Speaker;) the privilege to the 
 subjects of Spain, carrying on commerce with 
 the territory we were to acquire, of admission 
 into its ports on the same terms with our own 
 citizens, for the period of twelve years from the 
 ratification of the treaty ; and, finally, the ter- 
 ritory of Texas, which we stipulated to cede. 
 Placing out of view the other parts of this con- 
 cession, what was the character and value of 
 this territory of Texas ? The full value we were 
 not possessed of sufficient information, it was 
 probable, to enable us to appreciate. Enough, 
 however, was known to ascertain its superior- 
 ity in this respect to the province, as part of 
 the consideration of which it was proposed to 
 be transferred. In superficial extent, Texas 
 would not be denied to be several times larger 
 than Florida. In a general character of fer- 
 tility, the two countries, according to the ac- 
 counts which Mr. A. had received, admitted of 
 
 no comparison, so decided!} 
 on the side of the former of them. Placed in" a 
 near vicinity to South America, the province 
 asserted still more signally, to the character of 
 its productions, its affinity to the peculiar natu- 
 ral advantages which distinguish, in a manner 
 so remarkable, that most favored portion of the 
 earth. Productions of the highest value, and 
 supposed to be the most widely diversified, as 
 respected the soil and climate they required, 
 found here a point of neighborhood and union. 
 Corn, cotton, sugar, met a congenial soil, and 
 circumstances favorable to their production. 
 The climate was of extraordinary salubrity 
 the rivers various and large. And what was 
 the consideration for which we were to surren- 
 der a country such as this had been described ; 
 of immense extent, possessed of every natural 
 advantage, destined by the most signal evi- 
 dences to high political importance? Was it 
 for the sands of Florida? No, not for the 
 property, but for little more than the sover- 
 eignty of these sands. For, independently of 
 the grants to Alagon, and Vargas, and Punon 
 Rostro, which had been the subjects of recent 
 contestation, the largest and the most valuable 
 portion of the soil of Florida was known to have 
 been granted out. The recent contested grants 
 had only been of the residuary lands. In the 
 bargain which had been made we were to give 
 the sovereignty and nearly the whole, Mr. A. 
 presumed, of the soil of Texas, such as it had 
 been described, for little more, comparatively 
 speaking, than the sovereignty of Florida. Was 
 the bargain one which, in this obvious view 
 of its character, with perfect liberty to accept 
 or reject it, it would be expedient to confirm ? 
 But, great importance was attributed to Florida 
 in a military and political point of view. 
 
 Without any design of derogation from the 
 importance of Florida in this respect, did this 
 consideration, Mr. A. asked, render its acquisi- 
 tion at this time, and at the price of any dis- 
 proportionate equivalent, an object of reason- 
 able solicitude on our part ? He apprehended 
 that it did not. Whatever might be the advan- 
 tages presented by this country for purposes 
 of military or commercial annoyance, in the 
 hands t>f Spain, it could not be rendered sub- 
 servient to any such purposes against us. Spain 
 did not possess, nor had the faculty of acquiring 
 means and resources, military or naval, which 
 could be applied to such objects. Nor, if 
 she possessed, or could acquire them, could it 
 ever be her policy to avail herself of the posi- 
 tion of Florida, to employ them against this 
 country. 
 
 In proof of this, the single consideration was 
 sufficient, that the inevitable result of the pur- 
 suit of such a policy would be the loss of the 
 province in question, without the possibility of 
 indemnification. This result, it would be ad- 
 mitted, could not be prevented by any exertion 
 or contingency of events. The acquisition of 
 Florida was, therefore, an object of no consid- 
 erable importance as related to any view of
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 APRIL, 1820.] 
 
 The Spanish Treaty, 
 
 [H. OF K. 
 
 danger of its being used for purposes of annoy- 
 ance by Spain. The ground of apprehension 
 was as slight from any other quarter. The 
 Indian inhabitants would be in no great degree 
 more likely to give us disturbance, if the 
 country continued in the hands of Spain, than 
 if it were transferred to our own. Nor was 
 fear indeed to be indulged of disturbance from 
 this source, while the life or the memory of 
 Jackson among his Indian adversaries were 
 preserved. For danger, proceeding from any 
 European power other than Spain, we had 
 already made an adequate provision by a law 
 giving authority to the President to prevent 
 the occupation of Florida by a foreign power. 
 Mr. A. said that, in the policy of this law, he 
 entirely concurred. While he should be op- 
 posed to the occupation of the country by our- 
 selves, at least under present circumstances, 
 when he would be averse to any measure by 
 which the hazard of war might be incurred, he 
 should, at all times and under all circumstan- 
 ces, consider the prevention of the occupation 
 of Florida by any other foreign power than 
 Spain, as a measure of indisputable and unim- 
 peachable policy, on the part of this country. 
 It stood justified to his mind by considerations 
 admitted to be paramount to all others of de- 
 fence and preservation. No power could have 
 either interest or motive in the acquisition of 
 Florida, unconnected with views to our annoy- 
 ance, and a policy dictated by such views, it 
 was at all times as justifiable as it was neces- 
 sary to repel. Whatever, then, might be the 
 intrinsic importance of Florida in a political 
 point of view, its acquisition could not be con- 
 sidered as demanded of us at this time at the 
 price of any concession disproportioned to its 
 proper value. 
 
 But was this character of importance, in a 
 political view, confined to Florida ? Was Texas 
 of no consideration in this view? Let the 
 situation of this province, at the back of Louis- 
 iana, and the direction of the flow of its prin- 
 cipal rivers, be considered, and the important 
 an^d delicate relation which it sustained to New 
 Orleans, itself the most important position in 
 our country, would immediately be perceived. 
 Upon this view of the subject, interesting as it 
 was, Mr. A. forbore, from obvious considera- 
 tions, to enlarge. He would dismiss it, merely 
 accompanied with a hint at the capacity of 
 Texas to maintain a formidable population. 
 Considered in a mere political aspect, then, the 
 equivalent which we were to obtain for our 
 territorial concession in the treaty, appeared 
 to be little entitled to the preference which had 
 been allotted to it, and the ratification of the 
 treaty altogether unadvisable. 
 
 Mr. TRIMBLE, of Kentucky, said, that he had 
 risen to support both of the resolutions offered 
 by his colleague, the honorable SPEAKER. He 
 saw in the documents strong indications of in- 
 tention to accept the treaty, and, dissatisfied 
 as he was, he owed it as a duty to himself, to 
 the nation generally, and especially to that 
 
 part of it residing on the Western waters, to 
 enter his protest at large against the ratifica- 
 tion. The treaty, in his opinion, was one of 
 great interest to the nation ; presenting various 
 topics for discussion, most of which had been 
 precluded from debate by the cautious pru- 
 dence of his friend from South Carolina, (Mr. 
 LOWNDES.) He knew that the rules of the 
 House gave him a wide range, but he found 
 himself unexpectedly restricted by the solici- 
 tude of the Chairman of the Committee of 
 Foreign Eelations. He was sure that solicitude 
 was deeply felt, because it was strongly ex- 
 pressed, and being always ready to defer to his 
 talents and discretion, he would cheerfully con- 
 form to his wishes. He had no right, he said, 
 to complain of the course proposed; and he 
 would do his friend the justice to say, that, if 
 he did not advance with the boldness of Alex- 
 ander, he displayed in retreat, all the skill of 
 a Xenophon. He was in Parliament, what 
 Moreau and Montecuccoli were in the field ; he 
 carried every thing with him ; had left no spoil 
 for his pursuers ; no point exposed ; no barriers 
 undefended. The honor of the nation could 
 not be placed in better hands, or safer keeping ; 
 and no one could defend its interests with su- 
 perior ability. 
 
 The friends of the treaty, he said, had sought 
 occasion to proclaim its merits; its opposers, 
 until now, had not been heard. It was tune 
 the people should be heard ; it was time for 
 their Representatives to speak. The Western 
 people have but one market for their produce 
 one emporium for their commerce; and the 
 treaty leaves that one unprotected; leaves it 
 fearfully exposed. He did not believe that the 
 nation, if consulted, would ratify this treaty ; 
 he did not consider it a thing in esse ; a con- 
 tract in abeyance; it was, in his opinion, a 
 mere nullity ; and each party remitted back to 
 his original rights and claims. 
 
 Our relations with Spain, he said, required 
 the display of some energy, and for that reason 
 he had .prepared his mind to vote for reprisals; 
 not because the treaty was obligatory, but 
 because time and chance might change the 
 present posture of affairs, and bring more 
 trouble and m<ft-e danger. To avoid that, and 
 finish all at once, he would have acknowledged 
 the patriots, and have occupied Texas and the 
 Floridas. This would have brought the Castil- 
 ian to terms, or made one war, and not a triple 
 contest of it. Why strike for half the quarrel ? 
 If the army comes in as finisher of treaties, let 
 us have all the land, and hold it as we did 
 West Florida, subject to negotiation. He that 
 takes justice in his own hands, should take the 
 full measure of its claims. 
 
 Mr. T. did not intend to censure the officer 
 who conducted the negotiations on our part ; 
 he would say that the ratification was pressed 
 upon Spain with more zeal than judgment. 
 She was made to suspect that the treaty was 
 highly favorable to this country, because it was 
 warmly urged; whereas, in fact, the ad van-
 
 590 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R] 
 
 The, Spanish Treaty. 
 
 [APRIL, 
 
 tage was wholly on the side of Spain. It was 
 clear, from the documents, that Mr. Adams was 
 not able to barter laud with Don Onis ; he had 
 confided too much in Castilian honor, as to the 
 dates of the grants, and suffered the crafty 
 Spaniard to deceive him. He had been cir- 
 cumvented. This was no discompliment. It 
 was proof of fair-dealing on his part; and it 
 was more honorable to be the victim than the 
 agent, or the perpetrator of hypocrisy and 
 fraud. He said he had nothing to say against 
 the Executive in this matter ; and hoped that 
 no one would charge him with want of con- 
 fidence in. that Department. He would not 
 allow the supposition to be made; his confi- 
 dence in the President was unimpaired; and 
 this, of all subjects, was the one upon which it 
 was least likely to be diminished. He said he 
 had not -forgotten, it was impossible he should 
 forget, that a proposition was made thirty 
 years ago, in a secret session of Congress, to 
 surrender the Western country to Spain for 
 twenty-five years, and that its defeat was ow- 
 ing almost entirely to the resistance made by 
 our present Chief Magistrate. The question 
 then was " our right to navigate the Missis- 
 sippi;" the question now is, our right to the 
 country, Louisiana proper, and the positions 
 which protect and defend it. Eschewing war, 
 and loving peace, the President has made sac- 
 rifices to maintain it; liberality is found in 
 every clause of the treaty; forbearance in 
 every page of the message. Texas was thrown 
 in as a peace-offering to Spain ; she refused it ; 
 and we are not bound, in justice or in honor, 
 to offer it again. This nation will never con- 
 sent that it shall be offered or conceded. The 
 treaty has been sent to us by the President ; 
 the whole subject is before us ; we are in Com- 
 mittee of the Whole on the state of the Union, 
 and have a right to enter our protest and ob- 
 jections ; and he for one was ready to perform 
 his duty. He could see no danger in a broad 
 discussion ; but he would relieve the anxiety 
 of his friend (Mr. LOWNDES) at once, by omit- 
 ting all the topics which he wished to have 
 excluded. 
 
 He said it would be recollected that the Lou- 
 isiana Treaty amalgamated th* inhabitants of 
 that country with the people of the United 
 States ; that it gave them a common interest 
 in the Union ; an equal claim to its protection ; 
 a guarantee of " all the rights, advantages, and 
 immunities, of citizens of the States." To use 
 an Indian metaphor, the treaty of cession made 
 us all one man. The fact was well known that 
 some of the French inhabitants resided at that 
 date, and still continue to reside, in that part 
 of Texas then ceded to us, and now ceded to 
 Spain. Some of our own people had removed 
 there since the treaty of April 30, 1803; had 
 purchased lands of Frenchmen, holding grants 
 under the French Government, and stood upon 
 the soil as allodial freemen of the Union, claim- 
 ing its protection, and rendering it due homage 
 and all fealty. Now, sir, said he, I assert 
 
 roundly, I contend boldly, that there is no 
 power in the constitution under which you can 
 expatriate a citizen of the Union. I know that 
 a treaty is the supreme law of the land ; I ad- 
 mit that the treaty power is competent to 
 settle questions of boundary and limits ; but I 
 deny the existence of any power by which yon 
 can alienate a citizen denationalize a freeman. 
 What, sir! sell land to a citizen; take his 
 money ; and then sell him, and land, and lib- 
 erty, and all ! It is too monstrous to be en- 
 dured : it challenges resistance the moment it 
 is seen. Citizenship is not an article of mer- 
 chandise ; it is not negotiable. Political rights 
 in our Government are not subjects of barter 
 and exchange; they could not be sold under 
 hammer at political auction. Citizenship is in- 
 defeasible ; inalienable : it is a patrimony de- 
 scending to us from our ancestors, under entail, 
 and we must leave it to posterity unbroken. 
 Show me your power, said he, to cede citizens 
 with sovereignty, like serfs and vassals of the 
 soil. Show the power, or expunge the stipula- 
 tion from the treaty. Strike it out ; obliterate 
 it ; and leave the statute book untainted by the 
 precedents. There are some hundreds of our 
 citizens, by birth and adoption, expatriated by 
 this treaty. The fact was surely unknown to 
 the Secretary at that date. What reply could 
 you make to a petition and remonstrance from 
 these people? How would a committee report 
 upon the case? A skilful diplomatist might 
 boggle at the question. The stipulation would 
 never be sanctioned by the nation ; it required 
 a statesman of courage to affirm the power; 
 and to such he would leave the honor of de- 
 fending it. He would never envy the laurels 
 they might gather. 
 
 Mr. T. had objections to another article, an 
 excrescence in the treaty, which called loudly 
 for the knife and caustic. It grew out of the 
 subject of claims and spoliations. The demands 
 of our citizens are stated by some at ten mil- 
 lions of dollars ; by others at twenty. Ten is 
 below the minimum in aggregate. The eleventh 
 article of the treaty exonerates Spain from 
 these demands ; gives a full renunciation ; can- 
 cels the whole debt, and undertakes to make 
 satisfaction to our citizens to an amount not 
 exceeding five millions of dollars. Where, said 
 he, does the treaty-making power find authority 
 to expunge the claims of our citizens extin- 
 guish their right to demand the full amount 
 from Spain, and only pay them half the money ? 
 Barter their whole claims for soil and sover- 
 eignty ; for sand and sea- weed a barren scep- 
 tre and pay them but one moiety ! This is a 
 new mode of levying taxes, of raising contri- 
 butions; a letter of marque and reprisal on 
 ourselves ; a flat violation of the fifth article of 
 the amendments to the constitution, which de- 
 clares, that " private property shall not be ta- 
 ken for public purposes, without just compen- 
 sation." 
 
 His great objection to the treaty, one which, 
 in his opinion, was decisive, had not yet been
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 591 
 
 APRIL, 1820.] 
 
 The Spanish Treaty. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 pressed or amplified. The argument had chiefly 
 rested upon the treaty-making power, and the 
 power of this House ; and upon title and equiv- 
 alents. His friend from Virginia (Mr. ABCHEB) 
 had debated the question of power, with an 
 ability which did him honor. There, Mr. T. 
 would let it rest. The view which he would 
 take of the subject made it of little importance 
 whether the first resolution should be affirmed 
 or not. He would vote for the second, with 
 the utmost freedom. 
 
 Title and equivalents apart, ought this nation 
 to accept the limits settled by the treaty, and 
 surrender Texas ? 
 
 The boundary, in his opinion, was the main 
 question. Most of the other stipulations were 
 retroactive ; had reference only to the interests 
 of a few. But this is entirely prospective in its 
 operation. It concerns every citizen of the Ke- 
 public, and especially those of the West, whose 
 barriers were about to be surrendered; the 
 shield of whose commerce was about to be 
 broken, and the emporium of their trade ex- 
 posed to surreption and to plunder. It was of 
 no consequence, he said, whether we had title 
 or no title to the province in dispute. Not that 
 he intended to yield oar claim of title far from 
 it. He saw no room for doubt ; the argument 
 upon title was conclusive in our favor. That 
 gave us the " vantage ground ;" but he would 
 waive it entirely, because he intended to sustain 
 himself upon other facts and principles, and 
 would endeavor to show that the surrender of 
 Texas would be in every respect improvident 
 and dangerous. 
 
 This, he said, was a Treaty of Limits. The Fa- 
 ther of the Universe, in his peculier providence, 
 had given natural boundaries to every conti- 
 nent and kingdom permanent, physical, imper- 
 ishable barriers to every nation, to shield it from 
 invasion. Man, in his mad career of glory, his 
 thirst for dominion, had rejected as useless the 
 great and permanent boundaries of nature, and 
 sought out ideal, perishable limits of his own 
 creation. Look at the great profile of every 
 continent, and you find them partitioned by 
 the hand of Providence into portions and allot- 
 ments convenient for the purposes of social 
 happiness ; and those allotments are everywhere 
 protected by barriers and defences. Spain her- 
 self is an instance. She is bounded by two 
 seas and one mountain the Atlantic and Medi- 
 terranean, and the Pyrenees. Hundreds of 
 wars have arisen upon questions of ideal boun- 
 dary, and millions of human beings have been 
 slaughtered to beat back ambitious nations into 
 their natural limits. Compacts and paper 
 boundaries are men of straw in the hands of domi- 
 nation. It is physical barriers alone that check 
 encroachment, and give repose to feeble nations. 
 In Europe, questions of boundary are settled by 
 the law of accident, of conquest, of necessity, 
 of weakness by the law called " the balance of 
 power." Density of population, conflicting in- 
 terest, and long-established usages, preclude 
 all hope of voluntary change. Ours, on the 
 
 contrary, is a new world, sparsely settled, 
 (partly peopled, ) inhabited by nations in a state 
 of pupilage. We alone have risen from minority 
 to manhood. "We have fought one war for in- 
 dependence ; another for " free trade and sailors' 
 rights ;" and another must be fought for barriers 
 and boundaries, if you ratify this treaty. We 
 are acting on a new theatre, under new aus- 
 pices, and new principles. 
 
 What ought to be the confines of our Union ? 
 That was the great question confided to our 
 Minister. No public functionary ever held a 
 higher trust, or filled an office more responsible 
 the sacred trust of giving limits to the only 
 free nation in existence. Called as he was to 
 that high trust ; holding as he did in his hands 
 the destiny of millions ; animated, as he surely 
 was, by all the motives that could stimulate his 
 love of country, he should have spurned the 
 higgling policy of Kings, the truck and traffic 
 of European despots, and their ambidextrous 
 Ministers, and, mounting upwards to first prin- 
 ciples, demanded at once our natural limits, the 
 barriers of our country, and yielded with equal 
 promptitude all claims beyond them. Nations 
 are individuals in relation to each other ; and, 
 as self-defence is the first law of man, so is na- 
 tional defence the first law of society. The 
 boundaries of States and Kingdoms should be 
 settled with reference to their military defence 
 and maritime protection. Every nation should 
 possess the military positions which defend its 
 frontier, and the keys which protect the em- 
 poriums of its commerce. These barriers are 
 hostages for the peace of nations ; and no people 
 can neglect them with impunity, or surrender 
 them with safety. It is by acquiring these, in 
 tunes of peace, that preparation is best made 
 for war. These, said Mr. T., are maxims estab- 
 lished by experience and sanctioned by all his- 
 tory. Are they found in this treaty ? Do they 
 sanction its stipulations, or had they been for- 
 gotten in the lapse of diplomacy ? he was mis- 
 taken if they were not. He would conjure 
 gentlemen not to mislead themselves with 
 doubts about the title. We were purchasing 
 territory, and fixing limits. Title was nothing. 
 Boundary and barriers were every thing. 
 There lies the pith and marrow of the subject. 
 
 1st. Where are the natural limits and barriers 
 of the Kepublic? 
 
 2d. Was it in our power to obtain a cession 
 for those limits ? 
 
 3d. Were they necessary or desirable for 
 military purposes for protection and defence ? 
 
 4th. Were they wanted as safeguards to our 
 commerce and commercial depots ? 
 
 6th. If we transfer our claim, be it bad or 
 good, shadow or substance, may not some hos- 
 tile power, some jealous adversary, occupy 
 the province, and use it to assail New Orleans, 
 and destroy our Western commerce, or load it 
 with exactions? 
 
 These were inquiries of first magnitude, and 
 claim our cool deliberation. The Rio del Norte, 
 the Puerco, and the Apacb.ee Mountains, and
 
 592 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 The Spanish Treaty. 
 
 [APRIL, 1820. 
 
 Sierra Obscura, (dark mountains,) are our na- 
 tional limits, on that side of the confederacy. 
 Examine, if you please, a map of our country ; 
 compare it with that of other nations. Like 
 France, we are bounded by two seas and two 
 mountains the Atlantic and the lakes on those 
 sides, and by the mountains West and South. 
 The Kio del Norte is to us what the Rhine is to 
 France, and Texas is our low country our 
 Netherlands. Spain authorized her Minister to 
 cede all as far as the Eio del Norte ; wherefore 
 shall we surrender all beyond the Sabine ? The 
 Minister had full powers, and his secret instruc- 
 tions permitted him to cede much farther than 
 he did rumor says, a large portion of New 
 Spain; meaning "Louisiana, as it should be," 
 to the Eio del Norte. Why did we yield? 
 Why not adhere to every acre? The Spaniard 
 had fears, and our interests were set off against 
 his fears our barriers and defences, to save his 
 head. The commercial interests of eight States, 
 two Territories, parts of two States, and all 
 the transmontane regions surrendered, now 
 and forever, to save a Spaniard from potential 
 danger. 
 
 New Orleans, he said, was the only entrepot 
 for the commerce of the Mississippi and its 
 waters. No city, of ancient or modern times, 
 possessed the same advantages ; certainly none 
 of ours had equal prospects for the future. It 
 was destined to become the great emporium of 
 the new world. It was the heel of Achilles our 
 vulnerable point. Florida, Texas, and Cuba, 
 are the great military and naval positions which 
 defend the city and its commerce or threaten it 
 with invasion. It is particularly exposed to 
 combined operations to simultaneous attacks 
 by land and water. Let it be taken, and the 
 tree is belted ; the country above it will deaden 
 and decay. We have no other market. Our 
 produce will perish in our hands. Expose New 
 Orleans, and you expose our interests in the 
 same proportion. A place of such importance 
 should be guarded by positions which bid defi- 
 ance to assault. The three positions he had 
 named belong properly to our continent. Cuba, 
 said he, we shall never get ; and the treaty offers 
 to surrender Texas, leaving us Florida, the 
 weakest of the three, to defend the city. He 
 would say the weakest, because he should haz- 
 ard nothing in affirming that Orleans is most 
 vulnerable on its right flank on the side of 
 Texas ; and always would be so, until that prov- 
 ince is settled by our people. From Florida 
 and Cuba the line of attack upon New Orleans 
 is by water ; the land route from East Florida 
 being impracticable for any army of invasion. 
 The enemy would have to debark itself in the 
 face of defensive armies, an operation never de- 
 sirable, and almost always dangerous. But the 
 base of a campaign against Orleans, laid in Texas, 
 and aided by the fine horses of that country, 
 and the facilities of descent by the Eed Eiver 
 and Mississippi, would insure success ; and even 
 if defeated, the men and means of that defeat 
 would cost this country more than twice the 
 
 sum which would at this day purchase the 
 whole province. This line of attack unites all 
 the advantages of land and water movements. 
 A fleet could actively operate upon the Gulf, 
 and furnish the invading army with supplies, 
 by the rivers and bayous of the country. All 
 this was so clear to him, so palpable, that he mar- 
 velled greatly at those who could not see it. 
 He would ask, if New Orleans had nothing to 
 fear from a transfer of Texas to England? 
 Nothing from a coalition between England and 
 New Spain ? Nothing from the ambition of a 
 Creolian Emperor of Mexico, possessing the very 
 sinews of war, the mines and precious metals, 
 and stimulated by the love of domination ? 
 
 England, he said, had fought us two wars, 
 and committed the same errors in each. It was 
 not for him to expose her blunders; experience 
 would not be lost upon her ; she could feel for 
 a soft place as well as other nations. It is said 
 she urges Spain to ratify the treaty ; and it is 
 also said that she holds a secret treaty of cession 
 for the island of Cuba ; that has been denied. 
 Perhaps it is only a cession of Texas, in part 
 remuneration for subsidies furnished during the 
 war in the Peninsula against Napoleon and 
 King Joseph. Next to Cuba it is the most 
 important acquisition she could make upon our 
 borders; especially if she intends to fight us 
 another war. She would then hold the barriers of 
 our country on each flank on the North and South ; 
 and while we besiege Quebec she would plunder 
 Orleans. If she demands the province, can 
 Ferdinand refuse ? Where was he, and what 
 his condition, in February last? At Madrid, 
 surrounded by discord and confusion ; his coffers 
 empty ; his subjects mutinous ; and his army in 
 rebellion. Where is he now? Perhaps wing- 
 ing his aerial flight after his cousin the Duke of 
 Berri ; perhaps an exile from his native land, 
 living npon the bounty of the allies ; perhaps a 
 fugitive, houseless and friendless in his own 
 dominions; perhaps a tenant in his own dun- 
 geons, the companion of State criminals, the 
 victims of his mad policy. 
 
 Mr. T. rejoiced that he was a son of the new 
 world ; a citizen of a free government ; a com- 
 panion of freemen. Had his lot been cast else- 
 where, Ireland of choice should have been his 
 birthplace, the land of hospitality and heroes, 
 of patriots and martyrs ; and, next to Ireland, 
 France. The French, said he, are a brave and 
 generous people ; heroic, magnanimous, and 
 lofty ; their renown in arms will be remembered, 
 when the dynasties of the Bourbons and Napo- 
 leons are forgotten. They deserved to enjoy a 
 bright day of liberty, of which they saw only 
 the twilight. The holy alliance may persuade 
 Louis XVIII. to abolish the law of elections, 
 the freedom of the press, and the trial by jury, 
 and to revive the lettres de cachtt ; but the king 
 should beware. The spirit of freedom in France 
 is unbroken it only sleeps the ultras will ruin 
 him. Even now his power totters to its base. 
 But, as to his cousin Ferdinand, he dare not 
 send him subsidies. He dare not march an
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 593 
 
 APRIL, 1820.] 
 
 The Spanish Treaty. 
 
 [H. OF R 
 
 army into Spain. Frenchmen may fight to bnild 
 up a constitution, they will not fight to put one 
 down. What can Ferdinand do? Where can 
 he turn for succor ? What are his means to 
 purchase it? His colonies are torn away by 
 revolution, never to reunite. He has nothing 
 left but Cuba, and Porto Rico, and Texas. New 
 Spain is nothing, because Apodaca will be Em- 
 peror of Mexico, whenever time and chance 
 will favor him. Cuba is the brightest gem upon 
 the Crown ; that comes to the hammer last. 
 What has he left but Texas, which is available 
 to purchase subsidies ? Like other bankrupts, 
 he must surrender his effects, and England must 
 take Texas for a shilling in the pound. The 
 purchase would give her commercial advantages 
 and military strength. AVould she value it for 
 military purposes ? He could state a fact which 
 would serve him as an argument. No one, he 
 said, had forgotten the affair of the Chesapeake : 
 on that occasion the war-whoop resounded 
 through all parts of the Union ; England heard 
 it, and began to prepare for probable events. 
 
 He said, he had no intention to deceive him- 
 self or to mislead others. He had no complaint 
 to make against the Cabinet for having assented 
 to the treaty. He was sure the President in- 
 tended to do every thing he could in favor of 
 that section of the Union, consistent with his 
 general duties to the nation, and that it would 
 give him peculiar pleasure to put the finishing 
 touch to the great Mississippi question, in the 
 management of which he had been so conspicu- 
 ous from its origin to this day, and for which 
 distinguished services he deserved all the ap- 
 plause which the nation had awarded him. Mr. 
 T. knew well enough that members residing at 
 different parts of the Union might have differ- 
 ent views of the subject. It was his settled 
 opinion that Texas was worth more than Flori- 
 da, and he would express his sentiments with 
 the frankness of a freeman. It was worth more 
 for agricultural purposes ; for military defence ; 
 for maritime protection ; for a hostage of peace 
 between us and Mexico. As a colony of Eng- 
 land, we should find it a whip of scorpions. 
 With it we surrender the control of the Coman- 
 ches, the Lepans, the Tetans, and various tribes 
 of Indians who inhabit its plains and mountains ; 
 the most powerful and warlike Indians on the 
 continent numbering from ten to twenty-five 
 thousand warriors, of great muscular strength 
 and vigorous constitutions mounted upon the 
 finest horses in our country the Andalu>ian 
 blood crossed with Arabian. These wild men 
 are the unconquered descendants of Montezuma, 
 inhabiting the Switzerland of New Spain ; a 
 determined, vigilant, and crafty race fruitful 
 in stratagem, skilful inarms and horsemanship, 
 and fierce in battle. They are the Cossacks of 
 America; the Spartans of modern time-. I.< t 
 no man despise the children of the Sun ! 
 
 What if England should get the province, 
 
 subsidize the natives, and establish a line of 
 
 posts along our Southern border ? Is experience 
 
 lost upon us? Have we forgotten the rude 
 
 VOL. VI. 38 
 
 lessons of last war? Here we are, contesting 
 the point of honor about the Missouri expedi- 
 tion ; listening to wise counsellors, who teach 
 us the value of Northwestern posts ; of holding 
 checks upon the Indians in that quarter, and 
 counterchecks upon the influence of British 
 traders, and at the same time advise us to sur- 
 render Texas ; a country of rich soil and mild 
 climate, about one hundred leagues wide, and 
 extending more than seven hundred miles along 
 our Southern frontier ; exposing us, thought- 
 lessly and carelessly, to the vexations and dan- 
 gers of Indian warfare on that border, but care- 
 fully and promptly creating counterguards else- 
 where. Here we protect you against the ruth- 
 less savage ; there we expose you to his tender 
 mercies. The contrast struck him with amaze- 
 ment. France had a cordon of posts around us 
 while we were colonies; she had forts from 
 Quebec up the Lakes, and down the Ohio and 
 Mississippi to New Orleans. The effect was 
 not forgotten. In the war of '56, she brought 
 the Indians upon our frontier from Lake George 
 to the swamps of Florida. The blood of our 
 people was shed in copious streams ; thousands 
 of lives were sacrificed, and millions of money 
 spent in repelling the barbarous invaders. Eng- 
 land pursued the same policy during the Revo- 
 lution, and again the savages laid waste our 
 frontier from the Mohawk to the Oconee and 
 St. Mary's, in Georgia. 
 
 We had barely recovered from this blow,- 
 when the Mississippi question struck us with 
 consternation and dismay. He alluded, he said, 
 to the famous proposition to surrender the trans- 
 montane country to Spain. We shall find it 
 upon the secret journal ; the gentleman from 
 South Carolina (Mr. PIXOKNEY) had told us so 
 from his place in this House, and he was a 
 member of that Congress. We of the West 
 were to have been pruned off from the Tree of 
 Liberty ; our soil rented to a foreign despot ; 
 leased for a term of years ; ourselves threatened 
 with the insolence of Spanish power, and the 
 horrors of Spanish tyranny. Who would have 
 been our Viceroy or Captain General ? One of 
 our own countrymen? No, sir, a foreigner, 
 some royal parasite ; a myrmidon of power ; a 
 bloody and merciless Morillo, with the inquisition 
 at hia heels, to crush the spirit of independence 
 or drive us from the country ; our hardy, fear- 
 less woodsmen, after surmounting the perils of 
 migration, and subduing the Spartans of the 
 forest, must have bowed, silent and sullen, to 
 the yoke of Spain, or paid the forfeit of iv-i st- 
 ance in lingering torments to glut the ven- 
 geance of unholy altars ; and our heroic, enter- 
 prising females, after breasting the tomahawk, 
 and sivilpinir-knit'e of savage war, would have 
 been spared, only to witness the horror-breast- 
 ing scenes exhibited not long since in Valencia; 
 the blood of maiden innocence gushing from its 
 naked limbs, andtlripping from the torture and 
 the rack. That thunderbolt went by ; and now 
 another comes. Our barriers are surrendered 
 bartered away. The equivalent is nothing;
 
 594 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OK R.] 
 
 The Spanish Treaty. 
 
 [APRIL, 1820. 
 
 barric-rs have no equivalents ; they are above 
 its standard; they are the gift of God to na- 
 tions ; the shield and buckler of defence ; the 
 guards and counterchecks against invasion. 
 The great Engineer of the Universe has fixed 
 the natural limits of our country, and man can- 
 not change them ; that at least is above the 
 treaty-making power. To that boundary we 
 shall go ; " peaceably if we can, forcibly if we 
 must; " beyond it, all to us is worthless; we 
 would not have it as a gift ; not if Spain would 
 give a dowry with it: that would lay the foun- 
 dation of perpetual collisions ; the other would 
 exclude them so far as human wisdom can avert 
 the danger. Boundaries fix the destiny of na- 
 tions for peace or war. The primary law of all 
 communities is self-defence, protection from as- 
 sault, shelter from invasion, safeguards for com- 
 merce, and commercial depots. They who sur- 
 render barriers, betray themselves; it is high 
 treason against posterity ; the evil ends not with 
 time present ; it operates in perpetuity. Why 
 sell the birthright of our country ? Our ances- 
 tors left us a goodly heritage ; let us preserve it 
 unimpaired ; we are responsible for the estate, 
 and its abutments and defences ; not to those 
 who have passed away, and sleep with their 
 fathers; no, sir, to ourselves; to this nation, 
 the only free one on the globe ; to a long line 
 of succeeding generations ; to the cause of free- 
 dom and humanity itself. "Will you hazard a 
 failure of this great political experiment, "in 
 the full tide of its success ? " "Will you jeopard- 
 ize the integrity of the nation by surrendering 
 its safeguards, and thereby inviting foreign 
 powers to seize our emporiums, and smite us 
 with disunion ? 
 
 Mr. ANDERSON, of Kentucky, said that he re- 
 gretted very much to see the course in which the 
 gentlemen who had preceded him had thought 
 proper to indulge themselves. A course which 
 went in every way to depreciate Florida, and to 
 give to Texas such exaggerated advantages as 
 he believed no country ever possessed. He had 
 inever heard until lately that the acquisition of 
 ^Florida was not eminently desirable to this 
 country ; not only on account of its positive 
 advantages, but for the purpose of excluding 
 from all ownership any foreign power, whose 
 neighborhood would always be unfriendly, and 
 particularly for preventing its occupation by a 
 power which had a strong naval force. The 
 complete natural boundary which its possession 
 would give us, its fine ports, the command of 
 the Gulf, (an advantage always in the recollec- 
 tion of those whose productions passed to mar- 
 ket through the channel of the Mississippi,) had 
 formed the reasons which induced the American 
 people to desire it. Without having any parti- 
 cular information on the subject, which was not 
 common to every gentleman, Mr. A. said that 
 he had yielded to those reasons which seemed 
 so obvious, and had partaken of the general 
 anxiety. Public sentiment had decided on the 
 importance of the acquisition, and the Execu- 
 tive department of the government has been 
 
 stimulated by a knowledge of the universal 
 wish that Florida should belong to us. It may 
 be safely affirmed that for many years the 
 people have never looked to a settlement of our 
 differences with Spain, without combining with 
 that adjustment the acquisition of Florida. So 
 strongly had it seized on the public mind, that 
 the original cause of our negotiation with Spain 
 had become only an incident in public senti- 
 ment. This general anxiety was connected, too, 
 with a belief that its purchase was essential to 
 the complete suppression of the Indian hostili- 
 ties, which had so long vexed our Southern 
 citizens. 
 
 During the long and tedious negotiations 
 which preceded the treaty of February, 1819, 
 this general belief had been cherished and aug- 
 mented. Nothing was said or published to di- 
 vert the public attention, nor to show the peo- 
 ple or the Government that they attached to 
 the country an improper value. But it is now 
 becoming the fashionable opinion that if the 
 treaty is ratified, we shall have acquired nothing 
 valuable ; that Florida is a sand-bank ; that it 
 is, at any rate, what we can do very well with- 
 out at present. All the value which we have 
 heretofore attached to that country is now 
 transferred to Texas ; the climate of Texas, its 
 soil, its relation to the Gulf, its fine port, its 
 high maritime importance, have been spoken 
 of in language of the highest praise. Mr. A. 
 said that much of this may be true ; the map 
 showed to him the climate, and he had heard 
 that there was much fine land. But the nature 
 and accuracy of the information of the gentle- 
 men, he presumed, depended upon authority 
 very much like his own ; he had seen very few 
 people who had ever been there. And as it 
 regarded the naval importance of the country 
 and the fine port spoken of, he would observe 
 that he considered the statements of the gen- 
 tleman wholly wrong. The general opinion, 
 founded on the uncontradicted statements of 
 our naval officers and others, was, that there is 
 no port on the whole coast ; and he could say 
 that he had never heard of it, until it was men- 
 tioned yesterday by his friend, the SPEAKER. 
 It had been frequently mentioned as a peculiar- 
 ity and a commercial misfortune attending the 
 coast of the Gulf, for & very great distance to 
 the southward of the mouth of the Mississippi, 
 that there was not even a tolerable harbor. 
 
 Mr. A. said he thought it peculiarly unfortu- 
 nate that gentlemen should, under existing cir- 
 cumstances, when the acquisition had been 
 made so far as the authorities of our Govern- 
 ment extended, depreciate that which we had 
 gotten, and for the payment of which our con- 
 stituents might soon be called on to contribute, 
 and should endeavor to enhance the value of 
 that country which the same authorities had 
 determined did not belong to us. He thought 
 such a course might have a very unhappy ef- 
 fect on the public mind; and he deprecated 
 very much every thing which would now tend 
 to produce dissatisfaction towards a treaty
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 595 
 
 APRIL, 1820.] 
 
 The Spanish Treaty. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 which we had ourselves promoted and rati- 
 fied. 
 
 On the subject of our power to interfere, in 
 the way proposed, Mr. A. said he had no diffi- 
 culty. He believed that it was competent to 
 the House of Representatives, on any occasion 
 in which they might constitutionally interfere, 
 to bring to punishment the betrayers of the 
 public trust, or which they might be ultimately 
 called on to aid by an appropriation of money, 
 to anticipate the case, and to avert the evil, 
 which they foresaw was about to fall on the 
 country. He believed that this House, on 
 every great occasion, might so far imbody and 
 give expression to public sentiment, as to de- 
 clare by resolution its opinion, for the purpose 
 of averting a great national calamity which the 
 treaty-making power or any other department 
 was about to bring on the country. A right 
 ultimately to prosecute the offenders seemed 
 itself to give a power to avert the offence, by 
 forewarning the agents. But, while he had no 
 doubt of the right of the House to act in this 
 case, in which, if the treaty were made, they 
 would be called on to make the appropriations 
 to fulfil it, he strenuously contended that no 
 case had been made out to justify our inter- 
 ference. The utmost ingenuity of gentlemen 
 had been exerted to ascertain whether the 
 treaty were a good or a bad one. Where dif- 
 ferences of opinion might exist as to its policy, 
 it was essential that the treaty-making power 
 should be uncontrolled ; that the department 
 which had the power to act should act on its 
 own responsibility ; that the exercise of this 
 power should in no way be controlled, nor its 
 responsibility shared by us. With these senti- 
 ments, he could have wished that the resolu- 
 tions had not been introduced. If they had 
 tended towards another purpose, to which an 
 allusion had been made in the course of the de- 
 bate, they should have had his cordial support. 
 He would most cordially co -operate in any pub- 
 lic measures which should go to establish be- 
 tween this country and the independent Gov- 
 ernments of South America those relations 
 which he believed the feelings of our citizens 
 and the just claims of those Governments re- 
 quired relations which he believed would soon 
 exist with the approbation of every one. 
 
 There is another consideration which should 
 make this House cautious in adopting the reso- 
 lutions before us cautious in abandoning the 
 high ground we have obtained by our forbear- 
 ance and magnanimity. The course of this 
 protracted negotiation has gained to us much 
 honor in the eyes of the world. Although we 
 have failed as yet in getting a recompense for 
 the wrongs done to us. we have acquired a 
 character which was worth much more. We 
 have shown to the world that we sought jus- 
 tice, not aggrandizement; we have shown that 
 we could abstain from war, oven when our ad- 
 versary had given to us the amplest justifica- 
 tion. We have defeated the malicious predic- 
 tions of the politicians of Europe, who del-hired 
 
 that we only sought an apology for seizing on 
 Florida. The present state of the negotiation 
 has just brought those Courts to the acknowl- 
 edgment (a proud one for us) that we sought 
 only peace and a fair settlement. 
 
 But, if we pass these resolutions, we sud- 
 denly relinquish this high ground, and assume 
 the station of our adversary. For fourteen 
 years we have been urgent, Spain reluctant ; 
 we have pressed, Spain has receded ; but now, 
 when there is an indication of peace, we sud- 
 denly change sides Spain presses, and we re- 
 cede. We thereby defeat all our declarations 
 of anxiety for peace ; we charge as unequal the 
 terms which for several months have been re- 
 garded as the terms of peace, and which have 
 been sanctioned by all the authorities of the 
 Government. This course would present the 
 American Government in a point of view 
 wholly different from the one in which her 
 conduct throughout the negotiation had placed 
 her. It would manifest a variableness of pub- 
 lic counsel an instability of decision in no 
 way calculated to maintain our character among 
 foreign nations, or among our own citizens. 
 Such a political fickleness would create at home 
 and abroad a distrust of the permanence of all 
 our public measures. It must be borne in mind, 
 too, that this House has approved the treaty in 
 the most solemn manner in which it can act 
 by the passage of a law. A bill was intro- 
 duced and passed for the purpose of executing 
 the treaty, in all those parts which were sus- 
 ceptible of immediate execution, and for estab- 
 lishing a provisional government in Florida. 
 It has been said that this bill passed without 
 discussion. This was true, only because there 
 was no objection or dissent. The forms of our 
 Government do not admit any further ratifica- 
 tion than this treaty has received. It received 
 the approbation of that department to which 
 such duties are, in the first instance, assigned. 
 The House of Representatives then originated 
 and the Congress passed a law for carrying it 
 into effect. He did not contend, for a moment, 
 that the treaty was now binding on us the 
 King of Spain having failed to ratify it within 
 the time prescribed. But, Mr. A. said, he 
 could not consent so soon to contradict the 
 formal declarations which we have made to the 
 world, and now declare to our own citizens that 
 we have ratified a treaty which was not only 
 unequal, but unconstitutional. He would leave 
 to the President and Senate the further nego- 
 tiation of the subject ; and, whether any recent 
 circumstances had occurred, which would in- 
 duce them to reject those terms of settlement 
 to which they had lately assented, he would 
 submit to them, and let rest on their responsi- 
 bility the duty of making such an adjustment 
 as our rights demanded. 
 
 Mr. A. saw nothing in the whole course of 
 this transaction which called on us for our in- 
 terference. He did not think that the circum- 
 stance of the President and Senate having made 
 one treaty, which we did approve, gave any
 
 596 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 The Spanish Treaty. 
 
 [APRIL, 1820. 
 
 evidence that they would now make one which 
 we did not. 
 
 He would now proceed to consider the reso- 
 lution presented by the SPEAKER, in reference 
 to its application, without attending closely to 
 the phraseology. In its operation, it contained 
 a denial of the right of the treaty-making power 
 to declare the Sabine Kiver as the western 
 limit of Louisiana. Although, in form, the 
 first member of the resolution purported to be 
 a declaration that the President and Senate 
 could not cede any of the territory of the 
 United States, still its meaning is so far ex- 
 plained by the second resolution and the speech 
 of the SPEAKER, that it was fair to consider it 
 in its operation, and not in its abstract form. 
 This view of the subject would save him from 
 a most laborious discussion, which an examina- 
 tion of the question of ceding territory belong- 
 ing to the United States would involve. Wheth- 
 er the power to acquire territory does include 
 a power to cede? Whether territory be as 
 much under the regulation of treaties as other 
 property? Whether there be any limitation of 
 the treaty-making power, in relation to terri- 
 tory, produced by any special exception in the 
 constitution ; and, indeed, what are the limita- 
 tions to this power? are, singly, questions of 
 great magnitude ; some of which will probably 
 produce much unpleasant contention before 
 they are finally settled. He was, however, 
 happy to think that the present case required 
 no such discussion. It was sufficient for him 
 to show that the treaty, as concluded, was 
 within the powers of the department which 
 made it, without indulging in any speculations 
 on the construction of the constitution on other 
 controverted points. His single aim, then, was 
 to show that the President and Senate might 
 safely declare, in a treaty of limits, that the 
 disputed province of Texas was not included 
 within the possessions of the United States, 
 without at all assuming the power to cede any 
 of the public territory. 
 
 TO present the proposition, with distinctness, 
 to the committee, it may be stated that there 
 are three situations, in one of which the prov- 
 ince of Texas must be placed : 
 
 1st. It may belong to Spain certainly ; 
 
 2d. Or to us; 
 
 3d. Or it may be disputed territory. 
 
 In the first-mentioned state of the case, there 
 could be no difficulty ; there could be none in 
 recognizing that which previously existed. 
 That supposition, then, will be no farther pur- 
 sued. The second case, then, produces the dif- 
 ficulty, and is the only one on which the reso- 
 lutions can be maintained. There is no pre- 
 tence for sustaining the resolutions until it is 
 first shown that Texas belongs to us ; but no 
 attempt has been made to prove it. The very 
 ground on which the demand of gentlemen for 
 our votes must be supported has not been 
 touched. The debate has assumed, as a fact, 
 that which the Spaniards have never conceded, 
 and which, in fourteen years of negotiation, we, 
 
 have never been able to determine. It has as- 
 sumed, as a fact, that which we may all be- 
 lieve, but which inasmuch as there is no stand- 
 ard between nations to measure the respective 
 rights of each, must be uncertain, so long as 
 both parties assert their claims. Probably no 
 American has ever read the long discussions on 
 this subject, which have been conducted by the 
 secretaries of the two countries, without an 
 ardent wish to find proofs to sustain the claims 
 of his country to the farthest boundaries con- 
 tended for; and very few of us have ever read 
 without finding that for which we all looked. 
 But these reasons are of no avail, so long as 
 there is no common tribunal to enforce them. 
 Mr. A. said, then, that he should not go into 
 the ultimate question of the right, which he 
 considered utterly useless to him who held the 
 negative of the proposition before the House, 
 but should attempt to show that the country 
 referred to was in the third class ; or was dis- 
 puted territory. And there is certainly noth- 
 ing which falls more aptly within the power to 
 form treaties than the settlement of the limits 
 of disputed or undefined territory. 
 
 The history of the transaction shows, that the 
 ownership of this province has never ceased to 
 be a question. That there never has been a 
 moment of time, since the original purchase of 
 Louisiana, at which our claims were admitted 
 by the other contracting party. There are 
 three facts, which alone must assign this coun- 
 try to that class in which he had placed it. 
 
 Spain has never agreed that it belonged to 
 us. 
 
 We have never had possession. 
 
 The President of the United States approved 
 the arrangements made by the American offi- 
 cers with the Spanish commandant, in 1806, by 
 which the Spaniard was to retire with his forces 
 beyond the Sabine ; and neither party was to 
 molest the other on their respective banks. 
 This arrangement was made by the military 
 officer for a temporary purposa, but was ac- 
 quiesced in by Mr. Jefferson, as appears by his 
 Message at the succeeding session, has never, 
 been violated, and has, to every purpose, been 
 heretofore the western limit of our purchase. 
 It would be difficult to devise any circumstances 
 which would more certainly affix on this coun- 
 try the character of a "disputed territory;" 
 there is no trait of such a character absent. 
 After volumes have been written by the agents 
 of the Governments, to maintain their respective 
 rights, it would now indeed be extraordinary to 
 declare that its ownership was not a subject of 
 negotiation ; for, if the final settlement is not 
 within the power of the department which has 
 acted on it, the previous negotiation has been 
 idle. 
 
 We hold the deed of cession, which we de- 
 clare, grants the country to us; while Spain 
 holds the country and denies that the deed em- 
 braces it. When it is remembered, that be- 
 tween nations there is no common arbiter by 
 which the rights of each can be ascertained,
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 597 
 
 APRIL, 1820.] 
 
 Mausoleum to General Washington. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 our claims will, in the eyes of the world, be 
 considered equal, unless, indeed, the possession 
 of our adversary should create in his behalf a 
 presumption against us. Our own convictions 
 that the country is within Louisiana can have 
 no effect ; as there is no test by which it can 
 be demonstrated. An American statesman may 
 rise and declare, that " Texas belongs to us ; I 
 know it; I can prove it;" but it is a vain 
 declaration ; of what avail can it be, when the 
 Spaniard, standing on the land, says " it is mine ; 
 I hold it, and there is no judge between us ? " 
 It is a matter not susceptible of demonstration ; 
 and there is no tribunal to which either is 
 bound to submit. The result certainly is, that 
 the western limit of Louisiana has ever been so 
 uncertain, that its adjustment is clearly within 
 the power which has acted on it. It seems to 
 have been admitted, that, where the extent of 
 a purchase of territory was undefined, the Presi- 
 dent and Senate could, by treaty, define its 
 boundaries. Nothing can be more plain, than 
 that the same power which can acquire terri- 
 tory, can define the extent of the acquisition ; 
 or, in other words, declare how much it did 
 purchase. 
 
 There is nothing which can, under the dis- 
 tribution of powers in our constitution, be more 
 certainly assigned to the President and Senate, 
 than the settlement of disputed boundaries. 
 Probably there is no single subject on which 
 so many treaties have been made. None which 
 is more peculiarly the attribute of the depart- 
 ment to which belongs the peace-making power. 
 From the very great extent of our territory, and 
 the undefined state of its limits, on several 
 sides, this power must be frequently called into 
 exercise. Its frequent operation on the settle- 
 ment of differences of this kind, must have been 
 contemplated by the convention ; and it could 
 never have been intended, that, in a general 
 grant of the power, it should be construed not 
 to apply to cases which had been invariably, in 
 all countries, the subjects of its operation. In 
 the short course of our history, treaties have 
 been made, in which boundaries theretofore 
 uncertain, have been fixed; and territory be- 
 fore uncertain as to its ownership, has been de- 
 clared to belong to us, or, to the other contract- 
 ing party, as it should fall on the one or the 
 other side of the designated line. 
 
 The language of the treaty has been referred 
 to, for the purpose of showing that a cession of 
 territory was in the contemplation of the nego- 
 tiators. Mr. A said that he considered the treaty 
 as he should consider any other written instru- 
 ment, by its legal operation. He thought that 
 the word "cede" was improperly used; but it 
 was an impropriety only in phrase. The inten- 
 tion of the clause was, clearly, a designation of 
 boundary only. If the result was within the 
 constitutional powers of the President and 
 Senate, it would be unnecessary cavilling to 
 censure the language in which the exercise of 
 that power was expressed. 
 
 But do gentlemen see with clearness the con- 
 
 sequence to which a doctrine would lead, which 
 should deny to the President and Senate the 
 power of determining by treaty, that Texas or 
 any other controverted territory, to which we 
 had a claim, but never had possession, did not 
 belong to us ? What tribunal would they pro- 
 pose, to settle the controversy ? If they reject 
 the one which we propose, there is no other 
 test but the sword. The result would be, that, 
 in every case of disputed lines, unless our neigh- 
 bor would unconditionally relinquish to the full 
 extent of our claims, our pretensions must be 
 asserted by war ; and that war could not be 
 abandoned, however disastrous it might be, un- 
 til we had completely succeeded. No treaty 
 could be sooner made, because it would cede a 
 part of our territory. And in the case of Texas, 
 how long should we fight for it? Until the 
 House of Representatives shall be of opinion 
 that it does not belong to us? The very mo- 
 ment in which you take from the Senate the 
 power of determining the right to the property, 
 you are on the ocean without a pilot. The 
 opinion of each individual in the community is 
 entitled to equal weight in this consideration. 
 To the man who thinks that the country is 
 ours, a treaty involving a relinqnishment of it 
 will be unconstitutional, while to him who is 
 of a different opinion, it will be valid and with- 
 out objection. The mischiefs of that construc- 
 tion, which must be to substitute the sword for 
 the Senate, could not be obviated by the arbi- 
 tration of any foreign or disinterested power. 
 This would be entirely inadmissible, as the 
 President and Senate could not refer to others 
 a decision on a point, which they themselves 
 had no authority to decide. 
 
 Mr. A. said he wished it understood, that he 
 applied his arguments only to a country situated 
 like Texas ; a country which was really in dis- 
 pute, one to which we had a claim, but which 
 we had never possessed. 
 
 THURSDAY, April 6. 
 Mausoleum to General Washington. 
 Mr. ERVIX, of South Carolina, submitted the 
 following resolutions : 
 
 Resolved, by the Senate and ffoute of Repretcnt- 
 atives of the United States of America in Congress 
 assembled, That the President of said States be re- 
 quested to take measures to obtain from the honor- 
 able Bushrod Washington the body of the late General 
 George Washington ; and, if obtained, that he cause 
 to be erected over it, in the Capitol square, east of 
 the Capitol, a suitable mausoleum, with inscriptions 
 emblematical of the principal events of his military 
 and political life. 
 
 Resolved, That the President of the United States 
 
 be authorized to give the sum of dollars for 
 
 the best plan of a mausoleum ; which plan of a mauso- 
 leum, and the inscriptions thereon, shall be approved 
 by the President of the United States, the President 
 of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Represent- 
 atives, the Chief Justice, the Secretaries of the differ- 
 ent Departments, and the Attorney-General, or a ma- 
 jority of them.
 
 598 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 Mausoleum to General Washington. 
 
 [APKIL, 1820. 
 
 Be it further resolved, That the President do cause 
 to be procured an equestrian statue of bronze of Gen- 
 eral George Washington, to be executed by some 
 eminent artist, which shall be placed on the top of 
 the said mausoleum, in the centre building of the 
 Capitol, or in any other place within the public square, 
 which, by a majority of the persons in the preceding 
 resolution referred to, shall be deemed most suitable. 
 
 And be it further enacted, That a committee be 
 appointed to bring in a bill to make the necessary ap- 
 propriations of money to carry into execution the ob- 
 jects contemplated in the preceding resolutions. 
 
 Mr. ERVIN addressed the Chair as follows : 
 
 Mr. Speaker, I consider it among the fortu- 
 nate incidents of my life that I have the honor 
 of a seat in the great council of my country, 
 and enjoy an opportunity to vote for a statue 
 and monument to General George Washington, 
 late President of the United States ; not, sir, in 
 the hope to confer honor, or to perpetuate the 
 fame of this great man, but to join in manifest- 
 ing to the world and the latest posterity, our 
 admiration and gratitude for his eminent virtues 
 and most distinguished services. 
 
 It is not my intention ; nay, it is unnecessary 
 to repeat any considerable portion of his history 
 to this enlightened assembly it lives in our 
 memories, it dwells upon our tongues : or his 
 virtues, for they are embalmed in the bosom of 
 our affections. To their narration I can impart 
 no new ornament ; for, in their praise, eloquence 
 has poured forth all her eulogiums, and even 
 panegyric itself has been exhausted. 
 
 Nor is it, sir, for the purpose of mere idle 
 declamation that I hope to claim the attention 
 of this honorable body to the resolutions which 
 I have done myself the honor to present. Con- 
 siderations more momentous have influenced 
 me. The storm has not yet wholly subsided 
 which lately threatened, not only the peace and 
 tranquillity, but the union of these States. To 
 the motives of common security and common 
 interest which have so happily and gloriously 
 united us, I wish, if possible, to add those of 
 sentiment and kindred sympathy ; and I know 
 of nothing more calculated to beget the one or 
 awaken the other, than to entomb the father of 
 our country in a mausoleum, with inscriptions 
 emblematical of the great events of his political 
 and military life, erected at the national ex- 
 pense. 
 
 Cold, indeed, will be that heart which could 
 ever approach it, without experiencing mingled 
 emotions of veneration and respect. The wise, 
 good, and oppressed from every clime, will come 
 and survey, with wonder and delight, the grati- 
 tude of the American people to him " who was 
 first in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts 
 of his countrymen." 
 
 At its pedestal the ambitious will learn the 
 vast difference between promoting the glory 
 and happiness of millions of freemen, and that 
 of mere personal aggrandizement. "Whilst 
 statues, monuments, and the applause of unborn 
 millions, will be the soul- ennobling reward of 
 virtuous ambition in the one case, they will be- 
 
 hold the other sitting upon the ruins of Car- 
 thage, more emblematical of fallen greatness 
 than the very ruins which surrounded it. They 
 will follow it in its flight from the bloody plains 
 of Pharsalia, and behold it naked, lifeless, friend- 
 less, and inurned on Egypt's sultry shore ; they 
 will see it for a few splendid years awing the 
 world then behold it stript of imperial power 
 and splendor, cut off from all the endearing 
 sympathies of our nature, our consolation in 
 misfortune, and exiled to a rock in the great 
 Pacific ocean. 
 
 Here, sir, when we who are now guiding the 
 destinies of our country will be silent in the 
 dust, our children from the North and the South, 
 from the East and the West, will meet in mourn- 
 ful silence ; the great events of the Eevolution 
 will pass in solemn review before them ; the 
 disasters of defeat, and the triumphs of victory. 
 They will behold the man whose cause I now 
 advocate, guiding the storm and directing the 
 energies of an injured people, determined to be 
 free. They will remember the joint exertions, 
 the kindred blood which flowed to purchase our 
 freedom, and will kneel around it, and with full 
 hearts swear to transmit the rich inheritance 
 unimpaired to their latest posterity. 
 
 All the enlightened nations of antiquity con- 
 sidered it a duty not only to commemorate the 
 virtuous deeds, but to perpetuate to their pos- 
 terity the very form and appearance of their 
 illustrious dead. To this end all their literature 
 and arts were equally subservient. On the one 
 hand, whilst history recorded, and eloquence 
 rendered immortal, their virtues and warlike 
 achievements ; on the other hand, the marble, 
 decorated with the ornaments of drapery, seem- 
 ed to breathe under the chisel of the artist, and 
 an artificial form on canvas was almost pencilled 
 into life dividing empire with the grave, and 
 handing down to posterity the venerable image 
 of the benefactors of their country. Hence the 
 incentive to great actions ; hence that undaunted 
 courage which made them superior to the dan- 
 gers of the field ; and hence that noble emula- 
 tion which stimulated them to aspire after 
 generous fnme and everlasting renown, when 
 they knew, and acted under the influence of 
 that knowledge, that they would survive the 
 decay of nature, and be seen and venerated in 
 other times. 
 
 Do we fear the amount of the expenditure ? 
 Quadruple the sura expended whilst debating 
 the Missouri question, will cover the amount 
 necessary. But, admitting it should be more, 
 will my country promise, and promise, and 
 never perform ? On the 17th of August, 1783, 
 in the moment of triumph, when the services of 
 WASHINGTON called forth universal expressions 
 of grateful feeling, the Continental Congress 
 unanimously voted him an equestrian bronze 
 statue; but, notwithstanding his virtues and 
 great achievements, he had the mortification to 
 outlive the gratitude of his country, for it has 
 never been procured. 
 
 In 1799, after having done all the good in his
 
 DEBATES OF CONGKESS. 
 
 APRIL, 1820.] 
 
 Mausoleum to General Washington. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 power, and he was summoned to join the gen- 
 eral congress of virtue above, remember the 
 pledge that was given to this mighty people, 
 who were then in tears. Your chair, sir, was 
 shrouded in black ; the then Congress, in a body, 
 waited on the President of the United States, 
 in condolence for the national loss. They re- 
 quested of his illustrious, disconsolate consort, 
 the body of the Father of our Country, which 
 was assented to ; and in May of the subsequent 
 year a bill was introduced into this House to 
 erect over it a mausoleum. And what, let me 
 ask, has been done ? Other revolutionary claims 
 have been adjusted; but this great national 
 debt of gratitude yet remains to be paid. The 
 eyes of the world are upon us. The affection of 
 the American people demands it ; and will you 
 not gratify them ? Will you justify the imputa- 
 tion of the charge of ingratitude, which history 
 informs us is the vice of Republics ? Will you, 
 in moments of joy or sorrow, when the soul is 
 animated or melted with the noble, generous 
 feelings of the heart, decree statues and monu- 
 ments', and, when those feelings have subsided, 
 suffer yourselves to be governed by motives of 
 a character less meritorious? 
 
 If you should be thus unfortunately influenced, 
 authorize a national subscription, proclaim to 
 the patriotism of the American people, that 
 money is wanting to procure a statue and erect 
 a monument to WASHINGTON : Riches would 
 pour forth her treasures, and the poor Revolu- 
 tionary soldier, whose heart has been often 
 cheered with his voice, whilst fighting the bat- 
 tles of his country, will perform his last pilgrim- 
 age, and give all he has to give, his tears. 
 
 But, sir, I know I may be told, that appre- 
 hensions are entertained for fear of the danger 
 of the precedent : that others less meritorious 
 may wish the like distinction. My regret is, 
 sir, that the annals of mankind have not as yet, 
 and I much fear will never produce such an- 
 other subject of commemoration. But if, in 
 the course of human events, our country should 
 be invaded, and liberty driven to her last in- 
 treuchrnents, some mighty genius should arise, 
 whose victorious arm should beat back the 
 invading foe sweep them off with the besom 
 of destruction, and redeem the sinking destinies 
 of my country, I would commemorate his ex- 
 ploits by every expression of national gratitude, 
 and 'erect to his memory a monument more 
 durable than the pyramids of the Nile. All 
 these glorious exploits, and more, have been 
 performed by this illustrious man ; and if ever 
 man deserved the distinguished evidence of a 
 nation's love, it is WASHINGTON. So eminent 
 have been his services, that he has been, and 
 will be throughout every age, the theme of 
 universal panegyric. 
 
 The liberties of other countries have been ac- 
 quired by the united exertions of numbers ; but 
 whilst I justly admire and duly appreciate the 
 talents, the firmness, and integrity of other illus- 
 trious patriots of the Revolution, I appeal to 
 history to say, whether the liberty of this coun- 
 
 try was not acquired as much by his skill and 
 prudence, as by the force of numbers. At the 
 commencement and during the Revolutionary 
 war, remember the difficulties he had to en- 
 counter; at the head of militiamen, undisci- 
 plined, and without any motives for union but 
 those of common danger, he dared to oppose a 
 power whose veterans had recently conquered 
 in every clime, and whose flag waved in proud 
 triumph round the world. Hannibal like, he 
 soon converted the licentiousness of freemen 
 into the orderly discipline of the soldier, and 
 by superior military skill, drove his arrogant 
 confident foe from his encampment in Boston. 
 On the 15th of November, 1776, two thousand 
 seven hundred of his soldiers were captured at 
 Fort Washington. The 1st of December of the 
 same year, their term of service having expired, 
 twelve thousand more claimed their discharge, 
 and left him with less than three thousand 
 effective men ; with this remnant, in the dead 
 of winter, and in the face of a vastly superior 
 force, he kept the field, and convinced his foe 
 that although his physical numbers were di- 
 minished, his moral force was the same, and 
 that he might destroy, but could never conquer 
 freemen. 
 
 At this awful moment, the stoutest hearts 
 were appalled ; not only the poor and humble, 
 but the rich and influential, gave up all as lost, 
 
 ful enemy. Yes, sir, he was forsaken, and when 
 counselled to make his own peace, he indig- 
 nantly repelled the advice, and declared that he 
 would carry the war into the upper part of his 
 native State, and if driven from thence, he 
 would raise the standard of liberty beyond the 
 mountains. Oh ! my country, he was our 
 father he was our friend. In the most gloomy 
 moments of our Revolution, when all our pros- 
 pects were darkened when hope herself was 
 sinking in despair, his great mind never faltered. 
 No matter what disaster befell you, no matter 
 what misfortune awaited you, he was faithful : 
 he rose superior to the one, and prepared with 
 manly fortitude to encounter the other; and 
 after enduring trials the most afflicting, and 
 encountering dangers the most appalling, he 
 succeeded in establishing the h'berties of his 
 country, by triumphing over the hero who was 
 nursed in arms on the plains where Wolfe, 
 Montcalm, and Montgomery fell. 
 
 At the close of the American Revolution, he 
 exhibited to the world a spectacle to which 
 history furnishes no parallel. His country was 
 exhausted ; without union, without money, and 
 
 ithout credit; flushed with victory, and a 
 
 too, might have taken advantage of the 
 times, triumphed over the rights of the people, 
 and ascended to empire. But, ambition stop 
 thv mad career, and copy the glorious example. 
 Instead of fomenting, he appeased and suppress- 
 ed the discontent of an enraged soldiery ; and 
 after having KM! thorn from victory to victory, 
 and dispelled the horrors of a bloody and pro-
 
 600 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 Mausoleum to General Washington. 
 
 [APRIL, 1820. 
 
 tracted war, and there was nothing else to con- 
 quer but himself or the liberties of his country, 
 he stripped victory of her chains, embraced for 
 the last time his officers, the companions of his 
 glory, and with tears in his eyes bid his soldiers 
 an everlasting farewell ; then repaired to the 
 Hall of Congress, and resigned back to the rep- 
 resentatives of the people that power which he 
 had used only to redeem them and their country- 
 men from misery, from slavery, and from death. 
 
 What American, within the hearing of my 
 voice, whose heart does not melt with gratitude 
 at the name of WASHINGTON ! What language 
 so barbarous as does not speak his name ! What 
 nation so distant as does not resound with 
 his praise ! Eminent without magnificence ; 
 superior without vanity ; and elevated without 
 pride, he was the admiration of an astonished 
 world. Faithful to his friends, generous to his 
 companions, and a philanthropist to the very 
 being of man, he lived loved by the good, 
 caressed by the great, and feared and respected 
 by his very enemies. Firm and inflexible in 
 the pursuit of justice and truth, he scorned 
 equally simulation and detraction. 
 
 Greece may tell of her legislators ; Rome may 
 tell of her heroes, but what age or country can 
 boast a WASHINGTON a man so renowned both 
 in peace and war ? Leonidas was patriotic ; 
 Aristides just ; Hannibal was patient; Fabins 
 prudent; Scipio was continent; Caesar merciful; 
 Marcellus courageous, and Cato of inflexible 
 integrity: yet, these virtues which separately 
 distinguished those mighty men of antiquity, 
 were all united in the character of this singular 
 great man, and raised him above the level of 
 mankind; he was so pre-eminent that envy 
 never dared to raise its malignant glance to the 
 elevation of his virtues. Other heroes are re- 
 nowned for subjugating he for liberating his 
 country. Kings and Princes derive honor from 
 crowns and from sceptres he, less from the 
 splendor of station than the dignity of his own 
 mind. Cffisar and Pompey, on the plains of 
 Pharsalia, competed for the mastery of the 
 world he, amidst contemporaries capable of 
 saving and ennobling empires, ran his splendid 
 career without a rival or competitor. To crown 
 all his other great qualities, and, if possible, to 
 consecrate human greatness, he was a Christian 
 not only the favorite of the earth, but we 
 humbly hope of Heaven. 
 
 Whilst the conduct of other great men in 
 public life tend to ennoble the hero and render 
 illustrious the statesman, in private it is cursed 
 with every vice which degrade the man. In 
 public life, WASHINGTON'S conduct was unri- 
 valled ; and, in private, there was not one cir- 
 cumstance of his whole life which virtue would 
 blush to own. As, in the meridian of life, 
 religion gave dignity to every action, so in the 
 evening of his days, when the troubles and 
 perils of life were past, it beamed resplendent, 
 like the rainbow on the skirts of the storm that 
 is gone, the blessed harbinger of eternal sun- 
 shine in the realms of everlasting day. 
 
 But, Mr. Speaker, to estimate still more cor- 
 rectly the character of this great man, let us 
 pause for a moment, and take a cursory view 
 of the present unhappy situation of other coun- 
 tries and people, compared with our own. Look 
 through the extensive continents of Africa and 
 Asia, and there is not the least vestige of learn- 
 ing* or liberty to be found, however indus- 
 trious the research. Egypt, the cradle of let- 
 ters, is now the abode of ignorance and fanati- 
 cism. The descendants of Ham are sold into 
 every clime, and those that remain wither under 
 the despotism of chieftains, who consign them 
 to destruction with as little remorse as the rude 
 storms of the desert which ravage their native 
 clime. 
 
 Assyria, once the proud mistress of Asia, has 
 long since been blotted from the face of em- 
 pire. Bablyon, with her wall which proudly 
 defied the Persian, has mingled with the dust, 
 and the lonely traveller weeps over the ruins of 
 Palmyra with scarcely a page to tell its name. 
 
 Where are now the sons of Abraham, once 
 the favorites of Heaven ? They are banished 
 from the land of promise, and, as was prophe- 
 sied, are " sifted among the nations of the 
 earth." 
 
 Look into humbled Europe, and lo I there is 
 not one azure spot to cheer the gloom of the 
 political horizon. The Ottoman slave treads, 
 insensible, the glorious field of Marathon, and 
 despotism sways her iron sceptre at the very 
 Strait of Thermopylae. Persecuted liberty has 
 fled from England, the country of Hampden and 
 Sydney, and, although the workshop of the 
 world, she is cursed with a debt which no in- 
 dustry can redeem. Poland, martyred Poland, 
 with sixteen millions of people, forms one of 
 the outposts to the empire of the descendant of 
 Magog ! Italy, the home of the Csesars, and the 
 grave of the heroes of antiquity, cringes under 
 the domination of timid Austria. Whilst France, 
 generous, gallant France, plundered and ex- 
 hausted, weeps over the recollection of the 
 splendor of days that are past. 
 
 Then turn your attention to this happy conn- 
 try, ; ' the land of Washington and sky of Frank- 
 lin ;" the home of the homeless ; the last refuge 
 of oppressed humanity. Here agriculture flour- 
 ishes; our commerce whitens the ocean, and 
 every wind that blows wafts into our ports the 
 riches of every clime. Here we find an empire 
 of laws which guards our rights, both civil and 
 religious, and which knows no distinction but 
 such as merit confers and virtue approves. 
 Where the poor man, in the tattered garb of 
 plebeian humility, sits enthroned upon the altar 
 of justice, and there is no titled, fictitious great- 
 ness to injure or oppress him. 
 
 Contrast this happy situation with that of 
 
 * Mr. E. is aware of the College of Fort William, and the 
 Bibliotheca Biblica in Bengal, the Santa Casa or Holy Office 
 at Goa, aud the schools established at Sierra Leone, by the 
 British on the western coast of Africa; but the benefit 
 which has resulted from those establishments is not yet 
 perceptible.
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 601 
 
 APRIL, 1820.] 
 
 Revision of the Tariff. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 Enrope, Asia, and Africa ; contrast it with your 
 own situation under colonial servitude ; read 
 your Declaration of Independence, and realize, 
 if you can, the black catalogue of injury and 
 oppression under which you then groaned ; your 
 petitions rejected your complaints derided and 
 suppressed not by a redress of grievances,- but 
 by menaces; a whole people outlawed, and 
 given up to military despotism ; then ask your- 
 selves who headed your armies, who fought 
 your battles, who most contributed to raise you 
 from that state of misery and dependence, and 
 gave you rank among the nations of the earth. 
 And 6 my country, I blush to think this our 
 greatest earthly friend, almost within sight of 
 the very walls in which we deliberate, reposes 
 under the humble clod of the hill, without one 
 national stone to tell posterity where he lies. I 
 call upon the venerable patriots of the Revolu- 
 tion, some of whom I yet see mingling in the 
 deliberations of my country ; I call upon the 
 friends of Warren and of Greene, of Mercer, 
 Sumter, Marion, and Montgomery ; nay, I call 
 upon the Representatives of the whole Ameri- 
 can people to redeem my country from such 
 deep ingratitude ; and if any remnant of affec- 
 tion for WASHINGTON still lingers about the 
 heart, I know I will not call in vain. When 
 did your country ever call, and he did not obey ? 
 When did it ever want his aid, and he did not 
 readily yield it his assistance ? What is your 
 whole history ? It is but little more than the 
 record of his obedience, his virtues, and his ser- 
 vices ; and, painful to think, this same history, 
 whilst it will record the unfeeling ingratitude 
 of his country, will inform posterity that, for 
 that very country, he staked his life, determined 
 to redeem it from slavery or perish in the at- 
 tempt. And can you will you refuse to bury 
 him ? Oh no ! Let us rise up at once, and with 
 united acclaim decree him a statue. Let us 
 outstrip the march of ages, and erect a monu- 
 ment, not merely equal to our present condi- 
 tion, but commensurate with the splendid des- 
 tiny which awaits us. He is the Father of our 
 Country; let us demand his body, and erect 
 over it a mausoleum at which Time in his pas- 
 sage to eternity will point and tell to every age 
 the glorious gratitude of the American people. 
 And when the national sympathy shall be for- 
 got, and the memory of man faded away ; when 
 tradition itself shall have had an end, and his- 
 tory be regarded as the splendid fiction of fancy 
 or tale of romance, this monument shall stand 
 throughout every age, the imperishable evi- 
 dence of his virtues and a nation's love. 
 
 When Mr. E. had concluded, the question was 
 taken that the House do now proceed to con- 
 sider the said resolves, and it was decided in the 
 negativA 
 
 WEDNESDAY, April 19. 
 
 Public Lands Reduced Price and Cash Sales. 
 The House then took up the bill making fur- 
 ther provision for the sale of the public lands. 
 
 In the further debate which took place on 
 this bill, the mam object of the bill (to reduce 
 the price of the public lands from the present 
 price to one dollar and twenty-five cents per 
 acre, and to abolish credits thereon) was sup- 
 ported and opposed by the following gentle- 
 men: Affirmative Messrs. ANDEBSON, BAB- 
 BOUB, HARDIN, SLOAN, and STORES. Negative 
 Messrs. CLAY, BBOWN, BUTLEB of Louisiana, 
 COOK, HENDRICKS, JONES of Tennessee, and MO- 
 LEAN of Kentucky. 
 
 Some other gentlemen incidentally engaged 
 in the discussion on amendments, &c., and the 
 bill was finally passed by a vote of 133 to 23, 
 as follows : 
 
 YEAS. Messrs. Abbot, Adams, Alexander, Allen 
 of Massachusetts, Anderson, Archer of Maryland, 
 Baker, Baldwin, Barbour, Bateman, Bayly, Beecher, 
 Boden, Brush, Buffum, Campbell, Case, Clagett, 
 Clark, Cobb, Crafts, Crawford, Culbreth, Cushman, 
 Cuthbert, Darlington, Davidson, Dennison, Dewitt, 
 Dickinson, Dowse, Earle, Eddy, Edwards of Connec- 
 ticut, Edwards of Pennsylvania, Edwards of North 
 Carolina, Fay, Fisher, Floyd, Folger, Foot, Forrest, 
 Fuller, Fnllerton, Garnett, Gross of New York, Gross 
 of Pennsylvania, Hall of New York, Hall of Dela- 
 ware, Hall of North Carolina, Hardin, Hazard, 
 Hemphill, Herrick, Hibshman, Heister, Hill, Holmes, 
 Hooks, Hostetter, Kendall, Kinsey, Little, Linn, 
 Livermore, Lyman, McCoy, McLane of Delaware, 
 Mallary, Marchand, Mason, Meech, Meigs, Mercer, 
 R. Moore, S. Moore, MonelL, Morton, Mosely, Mur- 
 ray, Neale, Nelson of Massachusetts, Newton, Over- 
 street, Parker of Massachusetts, Parker of Virginia, 
 Patterson, Phelps, Philson, Pinckney, Pindall, Pit- 
 cher, Plumer, Rankin, Reed, Rhea, Rich, Richards, 
 Richmond, Robertson, Rogers, Ross, Russ, Sampson, 
 Sawyer, Sergeant, Settle, Shaw, Silsbee, Simians, 
 Sloan, Slocumb, Smith of New Jersey, Smith of 
 Maryland, B. Smith of Virginia, Smith of North 
 Carolina, Southard, Storrs, Strong of New York, 
 Swearingen, Tarr, Taylor, Tomlinson, Tompkins, 
 Tracy, Tucker of South Carolina, Tyler, Van Rens- 
 selaer, Wallace, Wendover, Williams of Virginia, 
 Williams of North Carolina, and Wood. 
 
 NAYS. Messrs. Allen of Tennessee, Ball, Bloom- 
 field, Brown, Bryan, Burwell, Butler of Louisiana, 
 Cannon, Cook, Crowell, Culpeper, Ford, Hackley, 
 Hendricks, Johnson, Jones of Tennessee, McCreary, 
 McLean of Kentucky, Metcalf, Stevens, Trimble, 
 Tucker of Virginia, and Walker.- 
 
 FBIDAY, April 21. 
 Revision of the Tariff. 
 
 The House then resolved itself into a Com- 
 mittee of the Whole, on the bills reported by 
 the Committee of Manufactures, and the Com- 
 mittee determined to take up, first in order, the 
 bill " to regulate the duties on imports and ton- 
 nage, and for other purposes." This bill pro- 
 poses changes in relation to the duties on goods 
 imported, in the proportions which are denoted 
 in the following table, copied from that com- 
 piled and printed for the use of the House of 
 Representatives : 
 
 A comparative view of the existing Tariff of Duties 
 on goods imported from foreign countries as estab-
 
 602 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 Revision of the Tariff. 
 
 [APRIL, 1820. 
 
 lished by the act of 27th April, 1816, entitled "An 
 
 STATEMENT Continued. 
 
 act to regulate the duties on imports and ton- 
 
 
 nage," as amended by the act of the 20th of April, 
 1818 entitled " An act to increase the duties on 
 
 ABTICLE8. 
 
 Old tariff 
 
 Now tariff. 
 
 Rate of 
 addition'! 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 United States," and that proposed by the bill now 
 depending in the House of Representatives of the 
 United States, " to regulate the duties on imports 
 
 Chocolate, Ib. 
 Cocoa, do. 
 Coal, heaped, bushel 
 
 02 
 02 
 05 
 
 04 
 03 
 05 
 
 1-2 
 
 and for other purposes." 
 
 Copperas, cwt. 
 
 01 
 
 2 00 
 
 Double. 
 
 
 Copper rods, spikes, 
 bolts, and nails, and 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Kate of 
 
 ARTICLES. 
 
 Old tariff. 
 
 \ew tariff 
 
 addition'! 
 
 composition, do. Ib. 
 
 04 
 
 04 
 
 
 
 
 
 duty. 
 
 Corks, do. 
 
 15 per ct. 
 
 15 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Coffee, do. 
 
 05 
 
 06 
 
 1-5 do. 
 
 First class of articles, per 
 
 
 
 
 Cotton, do. 
 
 03 
 
 06 
 
 Double. 
 
 cent. 
 
 |0 07 1-2 
 
 $0 12 1-2 
 
 2-3 
 
 Currents, do. 
 
 03 
 
 04 
 
 1-3 do. 
 
 Second, 
 
 15 
 
 20 
 
 1-3 
 
 Figs, do. 
 
 03 
 
 04 
 
 1-3 do. 
 
 Third, 
 Fourth and fifth classes, 
 
 20 
 
 25 
 
 1-4 
 
 Fish, for'n caught, qntl. 
 Mackerel, bbl. 
 
 $1 00 
 
 1 50 
 
 1 00 
 1 50 
 
 
 viz: 
 
 
 
 
 Salmon, do. 
 
 2 00 
 
 2 00 
 
 
 Woollen manufactures, 
 Cotton do., and cotton 
 twist, not from India, 
 
 25 
 
 25 
 
 II) 
 
 Say 1-3 
 
 All other pickled fish, do. 
 Window glass, 8 by 10, 
 100 sq. ft. 
 
 1 00 
 2 50 
 
 1 00 
 
 1 ec A<\ 
 
 Ditto, do. from India, 
 
 25 
 
 40j 
 
 
 Ditto, 10 by 12, do. 
 
 2 75 
 
 325f 
 
 L-5 GO. 
 
 Linen manufactures, 
 
 15 
 
 25 
 
 
 over 10 by 12, do. 
 
 3 25 
 
 3 75 1 
 
 
 Clothing, ready made , 
 Bonnets, hats and caps 
 
 I QA 
 
 40 
 
 
 Plain uncut flint glass, Ib. 
 Glue, do. 
 
 20 per ct. 
 05 
 
 10 
 10 
 
 Double. 
 
 of wool, fur, leather, 
 
 
 
 
 Gunpowder, do. 
 
 08 
 
 10 
 
 1-4 do. 
 
 straw, chip, or silk, 
 
 
 
 
 Hemp, cwt. 
 
 1 50 
 
 2 50 
 
 2-3 do. 
 
 Silk manufactures from 
 
 
 
 
 Iron and steel wire, not 
 
 
 
 
 India, 
 
 15 
 
 30 
 
 
 over No. 18, Ib. 
 
 05 
 
 05 
 
 
 Printed books, 
 
 15 
 
 35 
 
 
 over No. 18, do. 
 
 09 
 
 09 
 
 
 Painted or stained pa- 
 
 
 
 
 Iron in bars and bolts, 
 
 
 
 
 per, and paper hang- 
 
 
 
 
 manufactured except 
 
 
 
 
 ings, 
 
 SO 
 
 35 
 
 
 by rolling, cwt. 
 
 75 
 
 1 25 
 
 2-3 p. ct 
 
 Clocks and time-pieces, 
 
 
 
 
 
 Iron in sheets, rods, and 
 
 
 
 
 Umbrellas, sticks, and 
 
 
 
 
 
 hoops, do. 
 
 $254 
 
 $300 
 
 1-5 do. 
 
 apparatus for umbrel- 
 
 
 
 
 
 Iron in bars and bolts, 
 
 
 
 
 las. 
 
 
 
 
 
 manufactured by roll- 
 
 
 
 
 Bonnets and caps, not 
 otherwise taxed. 
 
 
 
 
 
 ing, do. 
 Anchors, do. 
 
 1 50 
 2 00 
 
 2 00 
 2 00 
 
 1-3 do. 
 
 Fans, feathers, flowers, 
 
 
 
 
 
 Iron in pigs, do. 
 
 50 
 
 75 
 
 1-2 do. 
 
 millinery, perfumes, 
 
 
 
 
 
 Iron castings, do. 
 
 75 
 
 1 50 
 
 Double. 
 
 washes, 
 Painted floor cloths, oil 
 cloths, mats, salad oil, 
 
 80 
 
 35 
 
 
 Say 1-6 a 
 
 Spades and shovels, each 
 Slate and tiles for build- 
 ing, not over 12 inches 
 
 20 per ct. 
 
 25 
 
 
 capers, mustard, ol- 
 
 
 
 
 
 square, per 1000 
 
 
 2 00 
 
 
 ives, preserves, wafers, 
 
 
 
 
 
 12 to 14 in. sq. do. 
 
 
 3 00 
 
 
 sweetmeats, 
 
 
 
 
 
 14 to 16 do. do. 
 
 
 4 00 
 
 
 Manufactures of wood, 
 
 
 
 
 
 16 to 18 do. do. 
 
 
 5 00 
 
 
 coarse lace, carriages, 
 
 
 
 
 
 18 to 20 do. do. 
 
 
 6 00 
 
 
 and furniture for do. 
 
 
 
 
 
 Paper, folio, pot, quarto 
 
 
 
 
 Leather, and manufac- 
 
 
 
 
 
 post, crown, Ac., Ib. 
 
 30 per ct. 
 
 20 
 
 
 tures of leather, brush- 
 
 
 
 
 
 royal imp., Ac., do. 
 
 
 15 
 
 
 es, canes, 
 
 
 
 
 
 printing, and copper 
 
 
 
 
 Gilt and plated ware, 
 Cut glass, 
 
 20 
 SO 
 
 $0 35. 
 35 
 
 
 Included 
 
 plate, do. 
 other coarse, do. 
 
 
 121-2 
 10 
 
 
 China, earthen, stone 
 
 
 
 
 in two 
 
 Screws of wire, gross 
 
 
 8 to 20 
 
 
 ware, and crockery, 
 
 20 
 
 35 
 
 
 preced'g 
 
 Ginger, rough, Ib. 
 
 15=8-10 
 
 1, say 2 
 
 
 Manufactures of marble 
 
 
 
 
 classes. 
 
 ground, do. 
 
 
 04 
 
 
 and alabaster, 
 
 15 
 
 35 
 
 
 
 r served, do. 
 
 
 10 
 
 
 Ale, beer, and porter, in 
 bottles, galls. 
 Do. not in bottles, do. 
 Alum, cwt. 
 
 15 
 10 
 2 00 
 
 20 
 15 
 3 00 
 
 1-3 
 1-2 
 1-2 
 
 . sewing, and silk &. 
 worsted twist, Ib. 
 Indigo, do. 
 Lead in pigs A bars, do. 
 
 16 per ct. 
 01 
 
 1 50 
 15 
 01 
 
 
 Almonds, Ib. 
 
 03 
 
 04 
 
 1-3 
 
 sheets, do. 
 
 01 
 
 021 
 
 
 Bl'k glass bottles, gross 
 Boots, pair 
 
 1 44 
 1 50 
 
 2 00 
 2 00 
 
 1-4 
 1-3 
 
 shot of lead, do. 
 red and white, dry or 
 
 02 
 
 03 
 
 1-2 p. ct 
 
 Bristles, Ib. 
 
 03 
 
 03 
 
 Free. 
 
 in oil, do. 
 
 03 
 
 04 J 
 
 
 Playing cards, pack 
 Tarred cables and cord- 
 
 30 
 
 35 
 
 1-6 
 
 Mace, do. 
 Molasses, gal. 
 
 $1 00 
 05 
 
 1 25 
 10 
 
 1-4 do. 
 
 Double. 
 
 age, Ib. 
 
 03 
 
 04 
 
 1-3 
 
 Nails, of iron, Ib 
 
 04 
 
 05 
 
 1-4 p. ct. 
 
 Untarred ditto, twine and 
 
 
 
 
 Nutmegs, do. 
 
 60 
 
 75 
 
 1-4 do. 
 
 thread, Ib 
 
 04 
 
 05 
 
 1-4 
 
 Pepper, do. 
 
 M 
 
 10 
 
 1-2 do. 
 
 Candles, tallow, do 
 
 03 
 
 05 
 
 2-3 
 
 Pimento, do 
 
 08 
 
 03 
 
 1-3 do. 
 
 wax and sperm, do 
 China Cassia, do 
 
 06 
 06 
 
 08 
 10 
 
 1-3 
 
 2-3 
 
 Plums and prunes, do 
 Raisins, in jars or box- 
 
 03 
 
 04 
 
 1-3 do. 
 
 Cinnamon, do 
 
 25 
 
 331-3 
 
 
 es, Ib 
 
 03 
 
 C4 
 
 1-3 do. 
 
 Cloves, do 
 
 25 
 
 35 
 
 2-5 
 
 all other kinds, do 
 
 02 
 
 03 
 
 1-2 do. 
 
 Cheese, do 
 
 09 
 
 09 
 
 
 Salt, bushel of 56 Ib s 
 
 20 
 
 25 
 
 1-i do. 

 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 603 
 
 APRIL, 1820.] 
 
 Striiim of the Tariff. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 STATEMENT Continued. 
 
 ARTICLES. 
 
 Old tariff. 
 
 New tariff. 
 
 Rate of 
 addition'! 
 
 
 
 
 duty. 
 
 Ochre, dry, Ib. 
 
 . 01 
 
 01 
 
 
 in oil, do. 
 
 01 1-2 
 
 01 1-2 
 
 
 Steel, . cwt. 
 
 $1 00 
 
 1 50 
 
 1-2 
 
 Cigars, 1000 
 Spirits, from grain, first 
 
 2 50 
 
 5 00 
 
 Double. 
 
 proof, 42 cts. ; 2d, 45 ; 
 
 
 
 
 3d, 46; 4th, 52; 5th, 
 
 
 
 
 60 ; over 5th, 75. 
 
 same. 
 
 same. 
 
 
 From other materials, 
 
 
 
 
 1st, 38; 2d, 38; 3d, 
 
 
 
 
 42 ; 4th, 48 ; 5th, 57 ; 
 
 
 
 
 over 5th, 70. 
 
 same. 
 
 same. 
 
 
 Shoes & slip's, silk, pr. 
 leather, do. 
 
 30 
 25 
 
 50 
 50 
 
 1-3 
 Double. 
 
 for children, do. 
 
 15 
 
 25 
 
 2-3 
 
 Spikes of iron, Ib. 
 
 03 
 
 04 
 
 1-3 
 
 Soap, Ib. 
 
 03 
 
 04 
 
 1-3 
 
 Sugar, brown, do. 
 white, clayed, & pow- 
 dered, do. 
 
 03 
 
 $0 04 
 
 04 "I 
 $005 
 
 \ _A 
 
 lump, do. 
 loaf, and sugar can- 
 
 10 
 
 12* 
 
 J.-4 
 
 dv, do. 
 
 12 
 
 15 
 
 
 Snuff," do. 
 
 12 
 
 45 
 
 
 Tallow, do. 
 
 01 
 
 01 
 
 
 Tea, from China, in 
 
 
 
 
 American vessels, bo- 
 
 
 
 
 hea, Ib. 
 
 12 
 
 25 
 
 Double. 
 
 Souchong and all other 
 black teas, 34 Ib. 
 
 25 
 
 25 
 
 
 Hyson Skin, do. 
 Imperial, Gunpowder, 
 and Gomee, 68 Ib. 
 Hyson, and Young Hy- 
 son, 56 Ib. 
 
 27 
 50 
 40 
 
 25 
 50 
 40 
 
 
 Other green, 38 Ib. 
 Tobacco, manufactured, 
 
 28 
 
 28 
 
 
 other than snuff and 
 
 
 
 
 cigars, Ib. 
 
 10 
 
 10 
 
 
 Whiting, and Paris 
 
 
 
 
 white, Ib. 
 
 01 
 
 01 
 
 
 Wines, Burgundy, Ma- 
 
 
 
 
 deira, Tokay, Cham- 
 
 
 
 
 paign, ana Rhen- 
 ish, galls. 
 
 1 00 
 
 
 
 Sherry and St. Lu- 
 
 
 
 
 car, galls. 
 
 60 
 
 
 
 Lisbon, Oporto, and 
 
 
 
 
 others, of Portugal, 
 
 
 
 
 and Sicily, galls. 
 
 50 
 
 
 
 Teneriffe, Fayal, and 
 
 
 
 
 other West India 
 
 
 
 
 isles, galls. 
 
 40 
 
 
 
 all other kinds, galls. 
 
 15 
 
 
 
 do. in bottles or cases, 
 
 30 per ct. 
 
 
 
 Russia duck, ps. 
 
 *-2 00 
 
 2 00 
 
 
 Ravens do. do. 
 
 1 25 
 
 1 25 
 
 
 Holland do. do. 
 
 2 50 
 
 2 50 
 
 
 Spermaceti oil, of foreign 
 fisheries, galls. 
 
 25 
 
 25 
 
 
 Whale oil, do. 
 Olive oil, in casks, do. 
 
 15 
 25 
 
 15 
 25 
 
 
 Linseed oil, do. 
 
 15 per ct, 
 
 25 
 
 
 
 say 16cts. 
 
 
 
 AD VALOREM. 
 
 
 
 
 Blue vitriol, Ib. 
 
 
 06 
 
 
 Oil of vitriol, do. 
 
 
 05 
 
 
 Nitric acid, do. 
 
 
 06 
 
 
 Muriatic acid, do. 
 
 
 04 
 
 
 Sugar of lead, do. 
 
 
 06 
 
 
 The bill having been read through 
 Mr. BALDWIN, of Pennsylvania, said: In 
 
 presenting this bill to the consideration of the 
 House, it is proper that the views of the Com- 
 mittee of Manufactures should be fully ex- 
 plained. The task assigned to them has been 
 one of no ordinary interest; the subjects on 
 which it has been their duty to act may have 
 an important bearing on the whole internal 
 policy of this Government ; and the measures 
 recommended are such as, in their opinion, will 
 essentially benefit the nation. In maturing 
 them, the committee have not (as the gentle- 
 man from Massachusetts, Mr. FULLER, seemed 
 to think) considered themselves a private com- 
 mittee, acting on the private petitions of indi- 
 viduals, ^who sought support and encouragement 
 from Government at the expense of the nation. 
 They have not examined the petitions or state- 
 ments of manufacturers, with a view of ascer- 
 taining whether their establishments are pro- 
 ductive or losing. Their interest has not been 
 a leading motive in our minds ; it was of little 
 importance ; and if this bill, either in its gen- 
 eral principles or its details, cannot be supported 
 on national principles, we are willing that it 
 should fall, and that its fate shall be ours. We 
 have thought that this nation can never be 
 flourishing or independent, unless it can supply 
 from its own resources its food, its clothing, and 
 the means of defence ; that, to be dependent on 
 foreign nations for the articles essential for 
 these purposes, is inconsistent with true policy ; 
 and that the system which has entailed on us 
 this dependence must be radically changed. In 
 a matter which involved so many interests, we 
 found many embarrassments among not the 
 least of them, those which arose from the duties 
 assigned to the different committees of this 
 House. The Committee of Manufactures was a 
 new one ; its powers and duties were undefined 
 by any rule ; the various subjects referred to 
 them related as well to the revenue and com- 
 merce of the country as its manufactures. It 
 was our wish that each committee should act 
 on its appropriate subjects, not to encroach on 
 the jurisdiction of either. It was our first in- 
 tention to have reported a bill which should 
 have related only to the manufactures of the 
 country. But the House will recollect that, at 
 a very early period of the session, a resolution 
 was passed, calling on the Secretary of the 
 Treasury to report the effect on the revenue of 
 a prohibition of woollens, cottons, and iron; 
 that his reply was, that an increase of duty on 
 those articles would impair the revenue, and 
 tend to introduce smuggling. This was a sub- 
 ject on which he knew the House was sensitive 
 a deficit in the receipts of this year of five 
 millions, had been officially announced by the 
 Treasury. The Committee of Ways and Means 
 had reported no bill, had recommended no 
 means of filling the Treasury, and, to our re- 
 peaU-d calls, had answered that none would be 
 adopted by them. You now find that the re- 
 sult of all their deliberations has ended in the 
 bill on your table, authorizing a loan of four 
 millions two directly, and two from the Sink-
 
 604 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 Revision of the Tariff. 
 
 [APRIL, 1820. 
 
 ing Fund to meet the ordinary expenses of the 
 year. I did not approve of the resolution which 
 had thus called on the Secretary of the Treasury 
 to take a part in this great national controversy, 
 and thought it not right in gentlemen to call in 
 the influence of that department against a large 
 portion of the nation, struggling against what 
 they conceived to be the indifference of our 
 own and the efforts of foreign Governments. 
 To have framed a bill confined to the sole ob- 
 ject of promoting the manufactures of the na- 
 tion, by imposing a high duty on those of others, 
 the effect of which would have been still further 
 to diminish a revenue already incompetent to 
 our ordinary expenses, would have thrown us 
 in the way of the very difficulty which gentle- 
 men had so early foreseen, so carefully provided 
 against. Tlie cry of revenue, the Treasury, and 
 smuggling, would have effectually defeated all 
 our projects. There was no other committee 
 disposed to act in concert with us. Left thus 
 alone the Treasury report against an increase 
 of duties ; the Treasury itself empty ; the Com- 
 mittee of Ways and Means unwilling to assist 
 in filling it, and yet called upon by the petitions 
 of thousands of individuals to do something to 
 protect the industry of the nation the commit- 
 tee had no alternative but to abandon, subject 
 to certain destruction, the great interest confided 
 to their care, or to go the extent of their juris- 
 diction, and report a system which, while it 
 would not injure the commerce, should aid the 
 revenue, and save the manufactures of our 
 country. In recommending a general revision 
 of the existing tariff, we are sensible of being 
 exposed to the imputation of encroaching on 
 the province of other committees ; but, as they 
 have declined or refused to act, I hope no ob- 
 jections on this score will come from them. 
 From the House I anticipate none confident in 
 the hope that they will inquire, not so much 
 from what committee this bill emanated, as 
 whether its provisions will promote the general 
 welfare. And if, in the opinion of the House, 
 this measure is called for by the distresses of 
 the country ; if it will tend to their relief, and 
 to restore the nation to its former prosperity ; 
 if it is essential that such encouragement should 
 ever be given to national industry as will enable 
 us to supply the articles of our own consump- 
 tion, you have the authority of the Secretary of 
 the Treasury for saying that this is the proper 
 time. In his annual report on the finances, he 
 tells you this in the most explicit language ; he 
 tells you, too, that your present revenue is in- 
 sufficient you must increase it, or diminish 
 your expenditure. 
 
 This is a time of profound peace, when our 
 expenses are those only of an ordinary Peace 
 Establishment; no national calamity has be- 
 fallen us ; yet a loan is necessary for the pres- 
 ent year, and a larger one will be required for 
 the next. When a system of revenue has thus 
 completely failed, and from the operation of 
 plain and natural causes ; when we cannot flat- 
 ter ourselves that, in the present state of the 
 
 world, it can become better, but are certain 
 that it must become worse, it is time to look to 
 our situation and retrace our error. It is an 
 unpleasant duty in any committee to be obliged 
 to examine existing systems, and recommend a 
 change, but it will be at once perceived that 
 the nation which relies for the means of paying 
 its expenses solely on imposts, must encourage 
 the importation, and not the manufacture, of its 
 article of consumption. Whilst this is its poli- 
 cy, its internal industry must be confined to ar- 
 ticles of export, to pay for foreign fabrics which 
 are imported. With importations, revenue 
 must diminish ; and this has been the reason 
 why all attempts to promote our own manufac- 
 tures have hitherto failed. Now the system 
 must be changed ; yon must either make per- 
 petual loans, or open new sources of revenue, 
 by giving a new turn to the labor of the nation. 
 At all events, I beg gentlemen to consider that, 
 to me, the danger to the Treasury is no answer 
 to this bill ; if it is empty, it is not my fault. 
 Two short years since I Avas in a proud minority 
 of five that opposed the repeal of those taxes 
 which, if continued, would have given you an 
 abundant revenue. If, in their abolition, the 
 encouragement of manufactures has been re- 
 tarded, let no inconsistency be charged upon 
 me ; if the system has failed, it is not because it 
 has not had its full and fair operation, but be- 
 cause it is inconsistent with the present situa- 
 tion of this country and Europe. You may re- 
 sort to temporary expedients ; but the people 
 of this country will not consent to a continual 
 accumulation of debt, in order to protract a 
 system which can alone heal the general dis- 
 tress. What must be done should be done 
 soon. The able and intelligent officer at the 
 head of your finances tells yon this is the time ; 
 and I tell you, that you may as well avoid the 
 approaches of old age, or the stroke of death, 
 as a change in your financial system. You 
 must not wait till the voice of the people calls 
 for it in language which you cannot resist, and 
 when the revulsion will be so sudden as to 
 shake to its foundation the system to which 
 gentlemen now cling so eagerly. If this mis- 
 erable system of impost, as the exclusive source 
 of revenue, is necessary for the support of com- 
 merce ; if the internal industry of the country 
 is to be checked and protracted till public opin- 
 ion demands the change, let gentlemen beware 
 lest all parts of the system go together. 
 
 Those who now complain that the Committee 
 of Manufactures propose too much, will, when 
 that day arrives, (and come it must,) regret the 
 rejection of this bill, which proposes a change 
 gradual, but necessary for the prosperity of 
 the country. In proposing it, the committee 
 are aware that, from one side of the House, we 
 shall be assailed with the cry of, you will ruin 
 commerce ; from the other, agriculture; and 
 from all, smuggling and revenue. x In telling us 
 that commerce supports the Government and 
 furnishes its revenues, gentlemen must not de- 
 ceive themselves in thinking that the people of
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 605 
 
 APRIL, 1820.] 
 
 Revition of the Tariff. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 this country do not know that the consumer of 
 foreign goods, and not the foreigner or import- 
 er, pays the impost. The consumption of for- 
 eign produce, and not its importation, is the 
 source of the revenue ; a kind of taxation the 
 more oppressive on the people, because, by em- 
 ploying the merchant or collector, the consumer 
 pays, not only the amount of duties, but the ac- 
 cumulated profits of all the merchants through 
 whose hands the article passes from the custom- 
 house to the consumer. If the committee are 
 censured for speaking thus plainly of a system 
 on which this Government has hitherto rested 
 for its support, the House must recollect that, 
 at its organization, impost was only one, not 
 the exclusive source of revenue. As soon as 
 the debts of the Revolution were assumed by the 
 New Congress, a system of excise and internal 
 taxation was resorted to, as a paramount means 
 of pay ing the interest of the National Debt. Dur- 
 ing the administration of General WASHINGTOX 
 and his immediate successor, an excise on spirits, 
 snuff, and snuff mills, duties on refined sugar, 
 licenses to retailers, carriages, auctions, and a 
 stamp act and land tax, were imposed. Let it 
 not be forgotten that, in the preamble to the 
 act for laying an impost, the encouragement of 
 domestic manufactures was one of the avowed' 
 objects of the law. This was the revenue sys- 
 tem of the founders of our Government. We 
 do not attack, but rest upon it ; it is the only 
 one on which this nation can rely for perma- 
 nent protection in a time of European peace ; 
 we must recur to it, unless another great con- 
 vulsion should again derange all the institutions 
 of the civilized world. The policy of this Gov- 
 ernment was changed, not because it was found 
 unwise, but because the continuance of the war 
 in Europe rendered it unnecessary. Then other 
 nations wanted our provisions ; their price was 
 such that the labor of this country was diverted 
 from its natural course. Instead of making, we 
 imported the articles of common consumption. 
 The impost was found sufficient for all our 
 wants. But, in the change of events, Europe 
 can now feed herself, and can compete with us 
 in other markets for our provisions. Those na- 
 tions from whom we import the most, now re- 
 fuse to receive our produce at any price. Thus 
 there has been a radical change in those rela- 
 tions with other nations which gave the turn to 
 our national industry. A wise Legislature will 
 and must shape its internal policy to meet the 
 changes which make a revision necessary. The 
 present is not a forced, but the natural and set- 
 tled state of this country. The events of the 
 last thirty years have been unparalleled in his- 
 tory ; we must not expect their recurrence, at 
 least in our time. It requires no reasoning to 
 prove that measures calculated on a general war 
 in Europe will not suit a general state of peace; 
 they must and will be controlled by circum- 
 stances. We must look to facts, and profit by 
 experience. Effects will flow from causes ; they 
 cannot be averted or avoided ; we must meet 
 them sooner or later. It is best not to attempt 
 
 to conceal from ourselves or the nation the ne- 
 cessity of coming back to the original system 
 on which this Government first commenced its 
 operations. In proposing the measures which 
 the committee have reported, we have thought 
 it best to avow the intention to be such a change 
 in our internal policy as will gradually lead the 
 people of this country to be independent of any 
 other for the essential articles of subsistence and 
 the means of defence. We well know it is a 
 thankless, ungracious task. The manufacturers 
 complain that too little, the merchants that 
 every thing, and I well know that here it is 
 thought that too much has been done. These 
 measures have caused much excitement. This 
 is not the time to expect that justice will be 
 done to our motives. But the committee have 
 this, and it is no small satisfaction that, though 
 they have not pleased others, they have pleased 
 themselves. Their system has been matured 
 with much pains, and with the most anxious 
 desire to relieve alike all the suffering interests 
 of the country. How far this bill is so calcu- 
 lated the House will judge, from an examination 
 and comparison with the existing tariff, which 
 I will now explain, begging that gentlemen will 
 not forget one thing that the present tariff 
 was a revenue bill, reported by the Committee 
 of Ways and Means, more to aid the Treasury 
 than to protect the industry of the country. 
 The report of Mr. Dallas was strongly in favor 
 of domestic manufactures ; yet, in that of the 
 Committee of Ways and Means, it is remarkable 
 that the word manufactures is not mentioned. 
 I presume that the gentleman from South Caro- 
 lina, who was then the chairman of that com- 
 mittee, had then the same opinion on the sub- 
 ject that he now entertains. When gentlemen 
 complain of the extravagant protection that this 
 bill affords to national industry, they are, per- 
 haps, not aware that, in general, it exceeds but 
 in a small degree that recommended in 1816 
 from the Treasury, almost exclusively for reve- 
 nue. They must not think it strange if a Com- 
 mittee of Manufactures, combining this with 
 other great national objects, should have felt it 
 their duty to propose some changes necessary 
 to meet the calls of the country. 
 
 The bill proposes 
 
 A duty of 12 per cent, ad valorem on the 
 articles enumerated in the first class, and 20 
 per cent, on ah 1 not enumerated, which embrace 
 many manufactures, but which it was thought 
 best not to particularize. In the present tariff, 
 these were at 7 and 15 per cent. The com- 
 mittee could discern no good reason for leaving 
 them at this low rate of duty, and were abun- 
 dantly convinced that, for the double purpose 
 of revenue and manufactures, the proposed rates 
 were proper. It would be going too much in 
 detail to tra^ the various rates of ad valorem 
 duties from "789 to 1804. In that year they 
 were permanently fixed at 12^, 15, and 20; 
 with the addition of the Mediterranean Fund, 
 they were 15, 17^, and 22^, and continued so 
 during the most prosperous period of our com-
 
 606 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 Revision of the Tariff. 
 
 [APRIL, 1820. 
 
 merce and revenue, till, in 1812, when the per- 
 manent duties were doubled, making 27?, 82 , 
 and 42. They continued so until 1815, after 
 the peace, when the Mediterranean Fund ceased, 
 and the duties remained till July, 1816, at the 
 rates of 25, 30, and 40 per cent, ad valorem. 
 Had they remained so, you would not have been 
 assailed by general cries of distress from all 
 parts of the nation ; we should have enjoyed, 
 not a nominal, but a real independence ; our re- 
 sources would not have been sent abroad to 
 protect and reward the industry of others to 
 the ruin of our own merchants, manufacturers, 
 and farmers. But it was thought proper to re- 
 duce the duties ; and the fear of smuggling, it 
 seems, is assigned as the reason. I am not 
 enough acquainted with the mysteries of com- 
 merce to know what is the smuggling point. 
 
 Gentlemen may talk about it as they please ; 
 there is no evidence that our duties have ever 
 been so high that there has been smuggling to 
 any great extent. From 1804 to 1812 the low- 
 est rate of duties was 12 per cent. ; we heard 
 no complaints then ; during the year 1815 and 
 the first six months of 1816, the lowest duty 
 was 25 per cent. The importation of ad valo- 
 rem articles in 1815 amounted to eighty-six 
 millions of dollars, and gentlemen are called on 
 for the proof of smuggling. They must give 
 reasons better than the mere suggestion of this 
 danger, against this small increase of duties, 
 which is, in effect, only coming back to the old 
 rates before the war. We are not to be de- 
 terred by threats of this kind; and, judging 
 from experience, have no fears that an increase 
 of duties, even to the war rates, would produce 
 this effect ; but if there was danger, it is no ar- 
 gument to us to be told that this Government is 
 unable to enforce measures which are adopted 
 as necessary to the general welfare. We are 
 not so weak ; our laws are not so insufficient ; 
 the rates proposed have been collected, and 
 they can and will be collected if enacted. When 
 the danger becomes realized it will be time to 
 apply the remedy. While it is merely fanciful, 
 and, as I believe, held out to defeat the salutary 
 provisions of this bill, I shall not deem it wor- 
 thy of further notice. The next rate of duty is 
 25 per cent. ; in the present tariff these articles 
 are rated at 20, but in the bill reported by the 
 Committee of Ways and Means they were re- 
 commended at 22. I hope it will not be thought 
 extravagant that we propose an addition of 
 three per cent. Articles of copper are at pres- 
 ent at 25 per cent. One expression is changed, 
 which will be found to apply to most of the ad 
 valorem articles in this bill ; in the old tariff it 
 is " material of chief value ;" this creates great 
 difficulty at the custom-house, where an article 
 is composed of materials paying a different rate 
 of duty ; it is generally entertained as made of 
 that which pays lowest, thus defrauding the 
 revenue and injuring the manufacturer. To 
 avoid this, the committee have adopted the ex- 
 pression "component material," so that any 
 article composed of mixed materials pays the 
 
 duty of the highest. The House will observe 
 that there is in this clause a drawback of the 
 duties on sheet copper, used in building or re- 
 pairing ships ; in the present tariff " copper and 
 brass in pigs, bars, or plates, suited to the 
 sheathing of ships," is duty free. Under this 
 clause all sheet brass' and copper imported, for 
 whatever purpose, is embraced, to the great 
 injury of one class of manufactures, and the 
 diminution of the revenue. While the com- 
 mittee are fully disposed to protect that most 
 noble manufacture, a ship, they are unwilling 
 that any other advantage should be taken of a 
 provision intended solely for this purpose. It is 
 believed that this object is fully answered by 
 the proposed drawback. It has been submitted 
 to intelligent and experienced merchants, and 
 no objections have occurred. While on this 
 subject I must notice some publications in which 
 the committee are charged with hostility to 
 commerce and shipbuilding, in raising the duty 
 on sheathing copper and sail duck. The best 
 answer to the charge is, that it is not true ; in 
 fact, this bill proposes no change on either ; the 
 duck is an important article of manufacture, for 
 which we ought not to be dependent on any 
 other nation, and which ought to be encour- 
 aged ; yet the committee were unwilling to in- 
 terfere with it. We expect much abuse and 
 have received no little; but let me give one 
 word of advice to those inclined to bestow it so 
 liberally ; read before you write. 
 
 The next clause proposes a duty of thirty- 
 three per cent, on woollens. In Mr. Dallas's 
 tariff it was proposed at twenty-eight. On cot- 
 tons, of thirty-three ; the same as proposed by 
 him. Both are now at twenty-five. These 
 being among the most important items in the 
 bill, the House must indulge me in going fully 
 into the reasons which have induced the com- 
 mittee to propose the additional duty. It would 
 seem almost unnecessary to convince this House 
 that the interest of the nation required that it 
 should clothe itself; that it ought to feed itself 
 will not be denied ; yet food is not more neces- 
 sary than raiment, and I cannot see how any 
 people can be independent who must look 
 abroad for that. At all events, the committee 
 have thought that, in bottoming this bill on 
 this national principle, that we ought to feed, 
 clothe, and be able to defend ourselves, we 
 placed it on ground that could not easily be 
 shaken. Our motives rise higher than the in- 
 terest of manufacturers; whether they make 
 money or lose money now ; whether it tends to 
 enrich one or another, or all classes of society, 
 has scarcely entered into our consideration. 
 The nation must command its own consump- 
 tion, its own means of defence. The last war 
 found us destitute. I beg the House to remem- 
 ber what the gentleman from Kentucky told us 
 the other day ; that our gallant soldiers were 
 destitute of clothing, until the Government 
 connived at smuggling, to procure cloth from 
 the nation with whom we were contending. 
 National feeling, if not interest, should forbid
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 607 
 
 APRIL, 1820.] 
 
 Revision of the Tariff. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 the recurrence of such a scene ; it shall not be 
 charged on the Committee of Manufactures. If 
 it was right in 1816 to impose a duty of twenty- 
 five per cent, on woollens and cottons, princi- 
 pally with a view to revenue, there will be 
 found a strong reason for its increase in the du- 
 ties now imposed by the British Government, 
 of six pence sterling on every pound of wool, 
 and six per cent, ad valorem on cotton wool, 
 imported after the 6th January, 1820. Wool 
 has been an article of export from this country 
 to England. The new duty excludes it; the 
 ports are now shut against your provisions; 
 they will not permit its importation till the 
 price of wheat is ten shillings sterling a bushel. 
 Let those who complain so much that the agri- 
 cultural interest will suffer by this bill, reflect 
 on these facts. Let the farmer decide whether 
 it is most for his interest to purchase his cloth- 
 ing from the foreign manufacturer, who will 
 purchase neither his wool nor his provisions ; 
 or the domestic one, who will give him a mar- 
 ket for both, in his anxiety to guard against the 
 profits which may accrue to his neighbors and 
 countrymen, by the success of their manufac- 
 tures. Let him be sure that he falls into better 
 hands by trusting himself to the liberality of 
 foreigners. It is feared that there will be a 
 monopoly and a desire of speculation, if our 
 own countrymen can supply our demands ; yet 
 there seems to be no fear that our course of 
 policy should give that monopoly to the British 
 manufacturers. Hundreds, thousands of our 
 citizens, are out of employment ; they would 
 add infinitely to the national wealth, to our in- 
 dependence, and save its resources at home, if 
 their labor was employed in converting our raw 
 materials into fabrics for our own use. But it 
 is contended that our true policy is to employ 
 the labor of other nations, pay them the profits 
 of their manufactures, for the purpose of direct- 
 ing the industry of ours to productions which 
 can find no market abroad, and have no value 
 at home. These new duties imposed in Eng- 
 land on wool and cotton ought to awaken us to 
 our situation ; no part of the country ought to 
 be more alive to their effects than that from 
 which the opposition to this measure is the 
 greatest. England does not wish to encourage 
 the cotton of America. She gives you unequiv- 
 ocal indications of her policy. She will take it 
 till her colonies can furnish her supplies. 
 Though her best customer, though she now de- 
 pend on us for the raw material to support her 
 manufactures, she takes wool from the conti- 
 nent, cotton from us ; but imposes heavy im- 
 port duties, which are paid by us who consume 
 the manufactured articles. We thus furnish 
 her Government with revenue, her laborers 
 with employment, while ours are idle. 
 
 I am afraid we are not aware of the bold and 
 dangerous experiment we are trying. We are 
 now to decide on the course of internal policy 
 which shall best develop the resources, pro- 
 mote the industry, and secure the independence 
 of the country. Is there not some danger of 
 
 our erring, by adopting the system which best 
 accords with the views of the British Govern- 
 ment ? If it were submitted to them to choose 
 a set of measures for us which would best pro- 
 mote their interest, we well know it would be 
 such as would secure to their merchants, manu- 
 facturers, and mechanics, the supply of all our 
 articles of consumption and defence ; to give to 
 them the employment of the labor and the 
 profits of converting the raw materials into 
 fabrics for use. It is the source of their na- 
 tional greatness ; the great object to which all 
 their efforts are directed ; their policy is most 
 unyielding and unbending. It has existed for 
 ages, and been completed by a steady and uni- 
 form series of legislation ; they have not left 
 things to "regulate themselves;" this has not 
 been, it will not be their maxim, but they wish 
 to see it adopted by those who are to be the 
 dupes of their policy. What is sound political 
 economy there, is, it seems, here the raving of 
 madness, the result of empiricism ; yet it would 
 excite some sensation in this House if the Min- 
 isters of England should formally present us 
 with a plan for our adoption; we should, at 
 least, inquire whether it was the result of their 
 friendship to us, and whether it would not be 
 as safe to trust to the opinion and advice of our 
 own statesmen. To import only our raw mate- 
 rials and provisions, to be our exclusive mer- 
 chants and carriers, was their colonial policy 
 before the Revolution. The great men whose 
 wisdom carried us through that struggle, did not 
 then think that the system of internal policy 
 which was best calculated to secure our inde- 
 pendence and to coerce England to secure our 
 rights, was to afford employment to her citi- 
 zens, encouragement to her artificers, to the 
 impoverishment of our own. 
 
 The immortal Congress of 1774 entered into 
 an agreement not to export any produce to 
 England, to import no goods from that country, 
 to consume none made there ; and denounced, 
 as enemies to American liberty, any person who 
 would violate this agreement. It has never 
 been charged on Bonaparte that he was deficient 
 in foresight, or did not understand the mode of 
 attacking his enemy. His continental system 
 was not aimed at the influence or political power 
 of England, but against her manufactures. That 
 he knew to be the source of her power, and 
 there he attacked her. To save them, England 
 fought and subsidized all Europe. There has 
 been a strange revolution in the moral world, 
 if the connection between causes and effects -is 
 now dissolved; if the measures which, in 1774, 
 were necessary to secure, would now be de- 
 structive of the great interests of this nation. 
 We have been taught to look with veneration 
 to that Congress ; it is, indeed, a change, when 
 we forget their maxims; and, in contending 
 with the same nation for the same rights, reject 
 and spurn their principles as wild and ruinous, 
 anxious to adopt those recommended by the 
 Ministry and political economists of England. 
 This is, at all event?, a dangerous experiment ;
 
 608 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R] 
 
 Revision of the Tariff. 
 
 [AFKIL, 1820. 
 
 before we trust too much on it, we ought to be 
 sure that the solid interests of the country, and 
 not its destruction, is their governing principle. 
 It will be said that more liberal ideas are now 
 adopted by other nations ; that the principles 
 of political economy are now better understood. 
 France has been mentioned; but when her 
 tariff is examined, it will be found to be more 
 rigid to contain more prohibitions than that 
 of England. As to us, it contains some pro- 
 visions which, I think, cannot fail to alarm the 
 agriculturists, the cotton planters of this coun- 
 try. It is worthy the attention of this House 
 to look at their import duties on cotton wool : 
 
 From India, 30 f. per 100 kil., equal to $3 per cwt. 
 Other countries out of Europe, 40 f. per 100 kiL, 
 
 equal to $4 per cwt. 
 
 Entrepots, 50 f. per 100 kil., equal to $5 per cwt. 
 Turkey, 15 f. per 100 kil., equal to $1 50 per cwt. 
 French colonies, 10 f. per 100 kil., equal to $1 per 
 
 cwt. 
 
 This short item contains much information 
 and instruction. Their whole tariff breathes 
 against your agriculture and commerce a spirit 
 of hostility as unequivocal as any regulation of 
 England ; as to cotton, more so ; it is a duty of 
 $4 per 100 pounds; equal to 20 per cent, ad 
 valorem on the raw material, while England 
 imposes only 6 ; that it is aimed at this country 
 is evident from its being $2 50 per 100 pounds, 
 more than on cotton from Turkey, and one dol- 
 lar more than from India. If it is a reason why 
 the cotton of Turkey should be preferred on ac- 
 count of the profits of her trade, it cannot ex- 
 tend to India, to which they export little ; but 
 ought to bear lightly on us, as we are one of 
 the best customers of France for her wines, 
 brandy, silks, cotton, and small wares. She 
 requires our cotton now, but this duty is an 
 earnest of what you may expect from her when 
 she can procure a supply from her colonies or 
 other countries. She receives your tobacco, 
 but takes care to exclude us from all chance of 
 a competition in the market, by compelling a 
 sale to the Government, who buy at their own 
 price. Kice, from India, pays one dollar per 
 100 : from America, two dollars. Thus, we find 
 the two nations with whom our intercourse is 
 the greatest, pursue the same policy as to our 
 great agricultural products, the only ones they 
 receive from us; they are enriched by the 
 manufacture of it we purchase immense quan- 
 tities of their cottons, and woollens, and silks ; 
 these favors produce no relaxation on their 
 part. Our agriculture and manufactures are 
 now prostrate, and commerce goes next. With 
 England it is safe, not because it can regulate 
 itself, but because it is regulated by a conven- 
 tion, to the observance of which the national 
 faith is pledged. With France we have none. 
 Your ships are now said to be virtually exclud- 
 ed from their ports. This part of your com- 
 merce is now to be protected by regulations 
 by a bill no.w on your table, laying a duty of 
 eighteen dollars per ton on French shipping. 
 
 This code, remember, is not the offspring of the 
 age of benighted ignorance, prejudice, or ex- 
 ploded theories, or' of the man against whom 
 all Europe combined ; but in 1817, by the Gov- 
 ernment which has been restored by a common 
 struggle, existing in all the effulgence of the 
 light which has been shed on the subject by 
 their own and English writers on political econ- 
 omy, who are not regarded by the Governments 
 where they live ; whose books are for exporta- 
 tion, not for home consumption, and now for 
 sale in your lobby, to enlighten you on the 
 merits of this bill. It is a matter of much re- 
 gret to me to find their opinions quoted with 
 respect here, when they are disregarded where 
 they are known. There is no country but this 
 that studiously leaves her great concerns to 
 regulate themselves. They are all guarded and 
 preserved by regulations of the most rigorous 
 kind. Yet it seems to be expected that, when 
 our establishments are obliged to contend with 
 those of other countries, the latter, aided by all 
 the force and influence of public opinion and 
 legislation, ours can succeed against this unequal 
 competition, the neglect of Government and 
 public prejudice. If the nations with whom we 
 vie would adopt the same maxims, then the in- 
 dustry of the country would protect itself. All 
 that is asked is to meet regulation by regula- 
 tion, and thus make the competition fair and 
 equal. Apply to their products the same rule 
 that they apply to ours ; if they tax our raw 
 materials, tax their manufactures to the encour- 
 agement of ours ; if they exclude our provisions, 
 exclude their products ; let our legislation keep 
 pace with theirs ; then our industry will be 
 protected, foreign nations will be compelled to 
 observe, practically, the rule which they dis- 
 card from their code, but press into ours "let 
 things regulate themselves." I shall be satisfied 
 with any course if it is uniform. No regulation, 
 or regulation against regulation. If these views, 
 or any of them, are correct, it will not be 
 thought unreasonable that the committee have 
 recommended an additional duty on cotton and 
 woollens of eight per cent. ; it is not so much 
 a protecting as a countervailing duty, to coun- 
 teract the new duties imposed in France and 
 England on our cotton and wool. Had these 
 duties existed, or been known at the time of 
 forming our present tariff, it is but reasonable 
 to believe that the duty would have been high- 
 er. The proposed addition is certainly moder- 
 ate, and consistent with every principle of na- 
 tional interest. The minimum has not been 
 changed. It is proper here to remark that, by 
 estimating all cotton goods to have cost twenty- 
 five cents a yard, and assessing the duty on that 
 sum, the coarser cottons of India have been ex- 
 cluded ; and I beg the House not to lose sight 
 of one fact, which is admitted by all to be true, 
 that coarse domestic cottons are now made 
 cheaper than they were ever imported. The 
 remark is equally true of nails, and every other 
 article of which this country commands the 
 consumption. The domestic competition will
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 APRIL, 1820.] 
 
 Revision of the Tariff". 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 bave this effect on every article. This fact 
 ought to quiet the fears of gentlemen who affect 
 to think that the encouragement of domestic 
 industry tends to take from the many a bounty 
 for the benefit of the few. Such bas been the 
 case in all other countries those which ex- 
 clude the importation of foreign fabrics, always 
 undersell those who leave things to regulate 
 themselves. The experience of nations, for 
 ages, cannot deceive us ; it is, at all events, not 
 safe to adopt theories, and reject the lights of 
 history and experience. Let us follow the 
 course which has led other nations to greatness ; 
 it will be time to prefer theory to fact, to adopt 
 the dreams of speculative writers, when we 
 shall have discovered that the principles which 
 make others rich will impoverish us ; that the 
 path which conducts others to wealth and power 
 will lead us to poverty and colonial depend- 
 ence. In a word, that if we sell more than we 
 buy, if our income exceeds our expenditure, we 
 are ruined. That, if the farmer buys his goods 
 from those who buy bis produce, and gives it a 
 value at home which it has not abroad, ho pays 
 a bounty to the manufacturer. 
 
 It will be observed that this bill recommends 
 an additional duty on cottons from beyond the 
 Cape of Good Hope, of seven per cent., and of 
 ten on silks. It was done for these reasons : 
 that the countries whence these articles are im- 
 ported consume none of our raw rnateri-als, 
 afford no market for our produce, employ none 
 of the labor, and exhaust the specie of the 
 country. It is but fair that a preference should 
 be given to the fabrics of those nations who re- 
 ceive from us something in return. There was 
 an additional reason why the committee thought 
 it best to make this discrimination. It is a 
 matter of serious complaint that the duties im- 
 posed by the French Government on American 
 tonnage have nearly destroyed our commerce 
 with France. It is now said to be cheaper to 
 send a cargo there in a French ship and pay 
 freight, than in one of ours and pay none; the 
 difference of the duties and charges is estimated 
 at about three thousand five hundred dollars a 
 voyage. This is another consequence of the 
 peace in Europe; every nation is now 'desirous 
 of reclaiming its own commerce, of carrying its 
 own productions, and bringing back the articles 
 it wants. We have had the carrying trade of 
 the world ; the protection of our flag was want- 
 ed ; now every flag protects itself; the com- 
 merce of other nations will be increased at the 
 expense of ours. Regulations which are to 
 produce this effect cannot be called hostile or 
 unfriendly ; they result from the desire which 
 all Governments ought to feel of protecting 
 their own interest; it is equally vain for us to 
 expect our commerce to be what it has been, as 
 that the nations of Europe will give ours a pre- 
 ference to their own; (these are maxims re- 
 served for our adoption.) How to shape our 
 course of legislation on this subject is a matter 
 of extreme difficulty. Committees of the House 
 have different plans; a system of commercial 
 VOL. VI.-39 
 
 warfare is recommended, in the hope that 
 France will relax in hers. We have thought it 
 safest to make an appeal, not to her fears, but 
 to her interest ; to give her a peace offering by 
 preferring hers to the fabrics of India, rather 
 than to provoke by excluding her ships from 
 our ports. As it affects merely the manufac- 
 tures pf the country, the latter would be the 
 course to be pursued; for if, in the prosecution 
 of this war of legislation, she should exclude our 
 cotton, the raisers of it will join us in creating 
 a market at home. In thus recommending the 
 measure which is opposed to the interest of 
 those for whose exclusive benefit the committee 
 are said to be acting, we hope to avoid the im- 
 putation of hostility to commerce. The navi- 
 gation acts on your table are bold measures, 
 designed to compel the two most powerful na- 
 tions of Europe to give up their favorite systems 
 of commercial and colonial policy, not the ex- 
 pedients of yesterday or the moment, but set- 
 tled, matured, and acted on for more than a 
 century ; which have entered into all their fa- 
 vorite plans of commercial and naval greatness. 
 In such a contest there is much risked : if these 
 measures produce the desired effect, I shall not 
 be among the last to rejoice ; but if they fail, if, 
 instead of saving they destroy your commerce ; 
 if, instead of producing a relaxation, they only 
 add rigor to the regulations they are intended 
 to counteract, it shall not be charged on the 
 Committee of Manufactures that it was a part 
 of their system. Had these navigation acts 
 emanated from us, I well know the clamor 
 which would have been excited ; as they have 
 come from the Commercial Committee, they 
 will be hailed by the mercantile interests as the 
 means of restoring commerce, and I hope they 
 may prove so ; but, having a different opinion, 
 fearful that this measure would recoil upon us, 
 destroying what it was intended to save, we 
 have inserted this feature in the bill. A duty 
 of 25 per cent, is proposed on linen and a mini- 
 mus of 25 cents. The rate proposed by the 
 Committee of Ways and Means in 1816, was 
 20 ; it was fixed at 15. This is one of the most 
 important items of domestic consumption ; flax, 
 the raw material, raised in all parts of the coun- 
 try, is not an article of export to any extent ; 
 linen is one of the most favored manufactures 
 of England ; it pays no excise for home con- 
 sumption, and the Government pays a custom- 
 house bounty of 25 per cent, (on coarse fabrics)- 
 when exported. Woollens and plain cottons 
 receive none ; the duty on them, therefore, op- 
 erates for the double purpose of revenue and a 
 preference of ours over the imported article. 
 But, as to linen, the present duty only operates 
 as a tax on our own consumption, being 10 per 
 cent, less than the British export bounty ; af- 
 fording, contrary to all principles of a wise pol- 
 icy, a decided preference for a foreign manu- 
 facture. It is impossible to imagine any sound 
 reason for leaving this most important article so 
 wholly unprotected. In the present tariff, it 
 the committee have erred, it is in not proposing
 
 610 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R] 
 
 Revision of the Tariff. 
 
 [APRIL, 1820. 
 
 a still higher rate of duty ; on coarse linen it 
 only equals the bounty, and then, so far as re- 
 spects the competition with our fabrics, makes 
 it duty free ; on the finer, it has some small op- 
 eration as a protecting duty. This increase of 
 duty on linen has caused much complaint. The 
 House will now judge with what reason this 
 bill is called an extravagant one. Th other 
 objections, when examined, will be found to 
 have no more foundation than this. 
 
 The next clause proposes a duty of 30 per 
 cent, on silk from India, 20 from other places : 
 it now pays 15. No good reason could be dis- 
 covered for so low a rate ; it is an article used 
 mostly by the rich ; there is less danger of smug- 
 gling than on most others ; it is imported only 
 in large and valuable ships, and, if from India, 
 is allowed to be landed only in specified ports. 
 A very intelligent merchant from Boston recom- 
 mended a duty of 33 per cent, on all kinds from 
 every country alike : there will probably be no 
 objection to the proposed increase. Raw silk 
 is made duty free in this, though in the present 
 tariff it paid the same duty as the manufactured. 
 Printed books are at 35 the same as proposed 
 by Mr. Dallas in 1816 ; they pay 15 at present. 
 Paper and leather the raw materials are now 
 at 30; the manufactured article should be 
 higher, as it gives employment to much of the 
 labor and a market for many of the products of 
 the country. If imported for colleges, &c., they 
 are duty free ; if for common sale, they are a 
 most important article of consumption, and, like 
 others, should be made at home ; if for mere 
 amusement or works of taste, they are fair sub- 
 jects of revenue ; none can better afford to pay 
 taxes than men of leisure and wealth. If any 
 gentleman thinks a discrimination ought to be 
 made so as to impose a lower rate of duty on 
 works of science and literature, there will be no 
 objection. The other items in this clause are 
 generally at 35 per cent. the same as recom- 
 mended by Mr. Dallas and in the present tariff 
 are rated at 30. The House will thus perceive 
 that on articles paying an ad valorem duty, the 
 proposed increase is generally from 5 to 10 per 
 cent. If the only protection offered by this bill 
 to the national industry consisted in the mere 
 rate of duties, they will be found not to come 
 np to what are generally called protecting, but 
 would be justified for the mere purpose of 
 revenue* The committee were sensible that if 
 all the protection necessary was in the imposi- 
 tion of high duties, the cry of extravagance 
 and smuggling might defeat their measures. 
 They have thought the object could be better 
 accomplished by adding such provisions to the 
 bill as would effectually secure the collection of 
 the duties imposed, and so to apportion them as 
 to produce not only revenue by the consump- 
 tion, but be in some measure a discrimination 
 between the foreign and domestic manufacture. 
 In this view we hope that all will concur. 
 
 The mode of ascertaining the value of goods 
 on which a duty is to be assessed, has been at- ! 
 tended with much difficulty an almost constant ! 
 
 war between the merchants and the officers of 
 the customs, and has been often changed. The 
 original mode of ascertaining the value "at 
 the time and place of importation," prescribed 
 by the act of 1790, was the fairest and most 
 equitable ; as an ad valorem duty, it was in fact 
 what it purported to be so much per cent, on 
 the value. But as a different standard of valu- 
 ation has long since been adopted, it was thought 
 best not so much to alter as to modify it. The 
 mode proposed in this bill has been pursued ; 
 but the committee are not tenacious on this 
 point. There is, however, one feature in this 
 clause which is deemed of infinite importance 
 to the manufacturing interests, and which the 
 House must indulge me with explaining. It is 
 the addition to the valuation of all drawbacks, 
 bounties, premiums, and allowances, which are 
 paid -by foreign Governments on exportation, 
 and assessing the ad valorem duty on the ag- 
 gregate value thus ascertained. It is somewhat 
 singular that our system of imports, which is 
 avowedly for the double purpose of revenue 
 and the protection of our own manufactures, 
 should have overlooked this provision, which is 
 indispensable for the latter. The House will at 
 once perceive that, if the foreign export bounty 
 equals our impost duty on the same article, the 
 duty is only a tax on the consumption of our 
 own citizens ; the foreign article comes into the 
 market on the same terms as the domestic; 
 this is fully exemplified in the article of linen. 
 The British Government pay the exporter 25 
 percent, bounty; ours, charging the importer 
 25 per cent, import duty, it thence becomes 
 duty free. At the present duty of 15 per cent, 
 the importer has a clear profit of 10 per cent, 
 after paying our duty. This is certainly left- 
 handed protection to manufactures. Hence it 
 is, that, without inquiry into the cause, we are 
 told you are unreasonable ; no duties will satisfy 
 you. The great reason why many of the pres- 
 ent ones are incompetent is, that they are 
 checked and rendered unavailing by this artful 
 and masterly system of bounties and drawbacks. 
 It is the true secret by which to account for the 
 immense wealth and power of a nation whose 
 population but little exceeds our own. She is 
 too wise to trust to imposts as the sole source 
 of revenue commands her own consumption, 
 draws the chief support of her Government by 
 an excise on her manufactures ; they afford ma- 
 terials and open new sources of commerce ; her 
 system of bounties enables her to undersell 
 other nations in their own port?, while her 
 political economists mislead us by their specu- 
 lative and ruinous theories. The article of 
 linen fully illustrates her policy. Though her 
 taxes and expenses are enormously oppressive 
 on the people, yet the makers of linen pay none, 
 no excise on their materials or manufacture ; to 
 encourage this fabric, which unites the three 
 great interests of agriculture, commerce, and 
 manufactures, she wisely apportions the burdens 
 of her Government so as to leave this unembar- 
 rassed. This accounts for the cheapness of the
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 611 
 
 APRIL, 1820.] 
 
 Revision of the Tanff. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 article at home, and added to the enormous 
 bounty on the export, gives the true reason for 
 underselling us. Let the British aholish this 
 system, let an article pay the same price for 
 home consumption as for exportation, it will 
 then be seen there is not much difference be- 
 tween manufacturing here and there. One 
 article pays an enormous excise, another none ; 
 let them be equalized, and neither have an ex- 
 port bounty, in the aggregate it will be found 
 that we could meet them in market, if not 
 without any, with a small rate of protecting 
 duty. Let cottons, woollens, and linens, pay 
 the same excise as glass, beer, and spirits, and 
 cost to the consumer in this country as much 
 as they do in England, you would be called on 
 for little further protection to our industry. The 
 manufacture of these articles pays no part of the 
 expenses of their Government, is burdened with 
 no taxes, because they are the sources of their 
 greatness, the machinery by which they draw 
 to themselves the resources of all nations who 
 purchase them ; retaining us, their commercial, 
 naval, and political rivals, in a state of colonial 
 vassalage. It would be right and fair to aim at 
 once at this system, by adding to the ad valorem 
 a specific duty equal to the bounty paid, and 
 drawback of excise allowed on the exportation. 
 Then our duties might be called protecting ones, 
 and be said to afford sufficient protection to our 
 manufactures ; then the competition would be, 
 on national and individual grounds, a fair one ; 
 but the committee, aware that this is the first 
 attempt to introduce such a principle into our 
 code, that it would not be prudent to attempt 
 too much at once, only propose to consider the 
 bounty and drawback as a part of the original 
 cost on which the duty is to be assessed. To 
 exemplify this on linen a duty of 25 per cent, 
 would only counteract the bounty ; we recom- 
 mend the addition of only one-fourth of that 
 amount. It is not to introduce a war of legisla- 
 lation, but in some measure to countervail the 
 association of their system; increased duties 
 will be imperative when they are evaded by in- 
 creased bounties. 
 
 I hope these principles will meet the appro- 
 bation of the House ; if they do not, all our laws 
 will be vain; we had better say at once to 
 those who want protection, " let things regulate 
 themselves." If it is proper to act at all, we 
 must act efficiently ; the interests of our country 
 arc assailed by an enemy deep in his designs, 
 persevering in their execution, governed by a 
 spirit ever awake and watchful, deterred by no 
 opposition, subdued by no difficulties the wis- 
 dom and the resources of a mighty empire 
 directed to one great object, the supply of 
 foreign nations with the articles of consumption. 
 Great as she is, we can meet her in open war, 
 can beat her on the land, the water, and in the 
 Cabinet, but succumb in legislation ; become 
 the dupes of her policy, quietly indifferent to 
 the exhaustion of our resources, which flow to 
 her in one constant increasing current. Our 
 dependence on her almost daily increasing, she 
 
 exulting in the successful operations of her 
 policy, relieved from the expense of governing 
 us. enjoying all the benefits we could afford her 
 as colonies. 
 
 "When other interests are endangered by 
 foreign powers or regulation, you are not back- 
 ward in resisting them at the risk of a war ; if 
 a ship pr cargo is seized, a seaman, native or 
 naturalized, impressed, or discriminating duties 
 imposed on tonnage, you do not leave things to 
 " regulate themselves ;" every thing is protected, 
 every thing defended, but manufactures these 
 alone are unworthy of national protection. De- 
 crees and orders in council that embarrass com- 
 merce are not suffered to operate unmolested, 
 but a system of bounties and drawbacks, de- 
 structive not only of interests equally important, 
 but in their consequences involving all in one 
 common destruction, are practically opposed 
 only by the favorite maxim, leave us alone, let 
 them regulate themselves. I hope we shall ex- 
 tend it to all, or be consistent and apply it to 
 none. We are independent in name, have the. 
 powers of self-government, but tamely content 
 ourselves with being dependent on our rival for 
 articles of necessity and the means of defence. 
 We cannot clothe or arm our soldiers, build or 
 equip a navy, Avithout procuring from England 
 the means. National pride and honor ought to 
 revolt at the degrading reflection. I hope to 
 see the day when, in full command of our con- 
 sumption and means of defence, our resources 
 retained at home, our great interests safe from 
 foreign competition, we shall be in fact, as well 
 as in name, free and independent States. This 
 consummation will not be brought about by 
 folding our arms, and leaving the industry of 
 our country to regulate itself. It was not thus 
 that, in the first Punic war, you emerged from 
 colonial dependence ; that, in the second, you 
 successfully defended your dearest national 
 rights. Before we can be what our resources 
 enable us to attain, you must wage the third 
 Punic war, not of arms, but of legislation ; as- 
 sail our rival where she is vulnerable, in the 
 source of our greatest danger ; her systems of 
 bounties, drawbacks, and premiums, and in her 
 manufactures, x where the Congress of 1774 as- 
 sailed her ; go at least as far as self-defence will 
 authorize protect our own. 
 
 The bill proposes an additional duty on hemp 
 of twenty dollars per ton; it was deemed neces- 
 sary that, for an article of the first necessity, 
 without which we could neither build nor equip 
 a ship, we should not be dependent, as we now 
 are, for the supply on foreign nations. In case 
 of a war, all our naval preparations might be 
 suspended until it could be produced here. It 
 is so essential for national defence, that wo 
 must command enough for our own consump- 
 tion. Viewed as an agricultural production, 
 which was formerly raised in great quantities 
 in the Western States, but which has been de- 
 stroyed by foreign competition, or as a manu- 
 facture, it equally deserves protection ; at a 
 time when our provisions, excluded from foreign
 
 612 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 Revision of the Tariff". 
 
 [APRIL, 1820. 
 
 markets, do not command a price which pays 
 the expense of cultivation. When the agricul- 
 ture of the country is as depressed as its manufac- 
 tures, it needs at least so much protection as to 
 enable it to compete with foreign productions. 
 These reasons, it is hoped, will exempt the duty 
 on this item, from the charge of hostility to 
 agriculture. This article now pays a duty of 
 thirty dollars a ton, the wholesale price of which 
 is two hundred and forty dollars, equal to twelve 
 and a half per cent, ad valorem ; the proposed 
 increase will be twenty-one per cent. If con- 
 sidered as a manufactured article, essential for 
 consumption and defence, it is hoped that the 
 propriety of the increased duty will be apparent, 
 as it can be raised to an amount far beyond the 
 demand ; the domestic competition will make 
 the increased price on the imported article but 
 temporary. The same apply to. the additional 
 duty on cotton, and the further one, which 
 must meet with general assent, that, if the man- 
 ufacturers of cotton supply the country with 
 their fabrics, they ought to use our own raw 
 material, and not import it from India. The 
 cotton planters must not indulge in fancied se- 
 curity. In 1817, the foreign cotton imported 
 and consumed in the United States was 1,700,000 
 pounds ; in 1818, 4,000,000 ; in 1819, it amounted 
 to 6,700,000 ; when they find it thus increasing, 
 and France and England imposing high duties 
 on its importation, they ought to be awakened 
 to the necessity of at least securing the domes- 
 tic market, not trusting entirely to the foreign. 
 The day may not be very distant, when they will 
 find from experience, that their favorite maxim 
 " of let us alone," will apply as little to agricul- 
 ture as it now does practically to commerce. 
 
 I now come to two items on which the House 
 will not only expect, but require me to say some- 
 thingglass and iron ; one infinitely interesting 
 to the district, the other to the State I represent. 
 It is best not to mince matters, but to speak 
 plainly. This has been called a Pittsburg, a cut- 
 glass bill, local, partial in its operations ; and I 
 have been charged with framing it from interest- 
 ed motives. Gentlemen had better be cautious 
 how they use the word Pittsburg as a name of 
 reproach ; it may be like the term whig one 
 of pride, and not of disgrace. I tell the House 
 frankly, that I have not lost sight of the inter- 
 est of Pittsburg, and would never perjure myself 
 if I had ; but the charges shall be met plainly, 
 and if you are not convinced that the interests 
 of that place are identified with the nation ; that 
 cut-class can be defended on national grounds, 
 then I agree that Pittsburg, its Representative, 
 its favorite manufacture, and the tariff, may go 
 together. I will rest the whole bill on this item, 
 and freely admit that the increase of duty on 
 glass, plain, not cut, is among the greatest pro- 
 posed. In selecting articles worthy of national 
 protection, none are more eminently deserving 
 of it than those, the raw materials of which are 
 of no value for exportation; the conversion 
 of which into articles for use, produces some- 
 thing out of nothing turns into manufactures 
 
 of the greatest value and beauty the worthless 
 produce of the earth furnishes a market for 
 the productions of the farmer gives employ- 
 ment not only to laboring men, but boys who 
 would otherwise contract habits of idleness and 
 vice. The foreign material bears to the manufac- 
 tured article the proportion of twenty-five cents 
 to one hundred dollars ; the rest is the product 
 of our own soil : small quantities of ashes, and 
 lead, the principal material sand, which is fit 
 for no other purpose, not even to make mortar 
 stone coal, the machinery. In the days of 
 our prosperity we have made to the amount of 
 a quarter of a million of dollars worth in a year. 
 It was so much money extracted from the 
 bowels of the earth by the labor of hundreds, 
 adding to the wealth and comfort of all within 
 the sphere of its action. Now we make, I may 
 say, none. "Will gentlemen tell me who has 
 profited by the change the farmer, the laborer, 
 our country, or the foreign manufacturer ? Plain 
 glass now pays an impost duty of twenty per 
 centum ; it is proposed to raise it, and make it 
 specific, ten cents a pound. In England the 
 impost duty amounts to a prohibition ; made 
 there, it pays for home consumption an excise 
 of 4 18s. sterling on the 100 weight on ex- 
 portation there is a drawback of the excise, and 
 a custom bounty of one pound five shillings 
 sterling, making in all six pounds three shillings, 
 equal to twenty-eight cents a pound between 
 the price to the consumer in England and here. 
 The custom-house bounty alone amounts to 
 near six cents a pound ; and from this docu- 
 ment, taken from the custom-house in Boston, 
 it appears that, in an invoice amounting to one 
 hundred and twenty-nine pounds in value, the 
 British bounty amounts to one hundred and 
 twenty dollars, our import duty of twenty per 
 cent, to one hundred and fourteen, leaving a 
 clear profit of six dollars. With the addition 
 of the excise drawback on an invoice of five 
 hundred and fifty pounds sterling, the importer, 
 after paying all export duties, freight, insur- 
 ance, commission, and all charges, makes a clear 
 profit of fifty-one pounds. Has not this article 
 peculiar claims on us for protection? The 
 present duty is a mere tax on the consumer ; it 
 operates as no discrimination between ours and 
 the industry of other foreign nations, but leaves 
 it to struggle against the effects of a positive 
 premium on importation. The proposed in- 
 crease will not, as a protecting duty, amount to 
 more than twenty per cent, ad valorem ; on cut 
 glass it is only proposed to add five per cent. ; 
 the duty is now thirty. I am aware of objec- 
 tions to the duty on plain glass, and am sorry 
 to find them come from manufacturers, glass 
 cutters, not makers, but importers of plain glass, 
 who are not satisfied with thirty per cent, on 
 cut glass, and represent plain as a raw material, 
 which ought to be duty free. In Pittsburg it is 
 both made and cut, and the House will judge 
 who is most actuated by national principles, 
 which plan adds most to the sum of national 
 wealth, industry, and resources. Gentlemen are
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 613 
 
 APRIL, 1820.] 
 
 Revision of the Tariff. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 mistaken in supposing mine an iron making 
 it is an iron buying, iron consuming district. 
 The time has been when six thousand tons were 
 purchased annually, not one of which was made 
 in the district ; but to the State of Pennsylvania 
 it is of the utmost importance ; it is her staple 
 manufacture ; to the nation the all essential ar- 
 ticle for private consumption and public de- 
 fence. It ought to be less interesting to us, 
 whether it requires protection, whether the 
 establishments for its manufacture are declining 
 or prosperous, we can and must supply our- 
 selves. Every part of the Union abounds with 
 the raw material ; it is perfectly worthless for 
 all other purposes not fit for roads. The 
 working of it not only employs much of the 
 labor, but furnishes a market for much of the 
 produce of our soil. These good effects are not 
 confined to a small space. An instance of this 
 occurs in the fact that the iron works in the in- 
 terior of our State are supplied with bacon from 
 Kentucky. The remark is true of this, as of all 
 other manufactures, that the farmer is among 
 those who derive the most profit from their 
 success. It is a matter of most perfect astonish- 
 ment that so important an article should have 
 been not only so perfectly and wantonly aban- 
 doned by the present tariff, but pointedly select- 
 ed for reprobation by a strange policy, which, 
 whilst it raised the duties on most other ar- 
 ticles, reduced that on iron nearly one hundred 
 per cent. From 1804 until 1815, it was at sev- 
 enteen and a half per cent., and until 1816, at 
 fifteen a duty which might have been saved 
 these interesting establishments, thus appa- 
 rently destroyed by design. Pigs and castings, 
 in 1816, paid fifteen per cent, ad valorem ; bar 
 iron nine dollars per ton, equal to, say nine per 
 cent, ad valorem ; in 1818, the duties were in- 
 creased to fifty cents a hundred on pigs, sev- 
 enty-five on castings and bar iron. In this 
 House it was raised to twenty dollars a ton by 
 a majority of forty-seven, but reduced in the 
 Senate to fifteen. Had the duty been a propor- 
 tionate one in 1816, a rate lower than the one 
 now proposed would have been sufficient to 
 have insured a domestic supply ; but the re- 
 ports of the Treasury present us with facts 
 which call for immediate and efficient inter- 
 ference. In 1818, the importation of bar iron 
 exceeded sixteen thousand tons ; in 1819, it 
 amounted to near twenty thousand. The de- 
 crease of ad valorem importations in this year 
 has exceeded $19,000,000, while the increase 
 of bar iron has been near four thousand tons. 
 Comparing it with cotton, there are many more 
 national reasons for its protection : the mate- 
 rials of one can be exported, but the other can- 
 not ; we send out of the country near $2,000,- 
 000 annually, for an article we could make at 
 home, and out of materials perfectly worthless 
 in themselves. The rate of duty is not unrea- 
 sonable in itself, or disproportionate to other 
 items in this bill or the old tariff. On the first 
 of this month the wholesale price of it was, ac- 
 cording to the New York and Philadelphia 
 
 prices current, from one hundred to one hun- 
 dred and ten dollars a ton. Calculating on the 
 price at the place of importation, the fairest 
 mode of fixing an ad valorem duty, it would be 
 only twenty-five per cent., the same as on cot- 
 tons and woollens now, and eight per cent less 
 tli an is proposed five less than on leather and 
 paper, in the present, and ten less than is pro- 
 posed in this bill on the former. Consider- 
 ing it as an article abandoned in the former 
 tariff that what will restore the declining will 
 not reanimate the dead that, in the embarrass- 
 ment and distress of the last year, the importa- 
 tions have rapidly increased, while others di- 
 minish, I confidently hope that, in affording to 
 this a protection equal to other articles, no ob- 
 jection will or can be made by those who pro- 
 fess to be friendly to the system. 
 
 Iron is certainly an article of necessity, but 
 not more so than clothing. It is called a raw 
 material ; we would as soon apply this term to 
 a ball of cotton yarn or a piece of broadcloth. 
 This word raw material is strangely misunder- 
 stood. The glass-cutter calls plain glass; the 
 iron-founder pigs ; the rope-maker hemp and 
 flax; the copper-smith and brazier brass and 
 copper in sheets and still bottoms, raw mate- 
 rials ; while the makers of these articles call them 
 manufactures, and petition for protection. I 
 believe the safer rule is to consider that which 
 is taken from the earth as the raw material, 
 and every change in its form or value, by labor, 
 as a manufacture, equally entitled to encourage- 
 ment. It is certainly true policy to afford it to 
 every thing which can be made at home, espe- 
 cially when the material can never become an 
 article of export ; the extent of the protection 
 to be regulated by the amount of importation 
 the deficiency of revenue supplied by an excise 
 on the manufacture protected. The increased 
 duty on molasses has excited much opposition 
 and some feeling of those who seem to consider 
 it partial and oppressive. I must ask a candid 
 review of the principle on which this bill has 
 been framed, the situation in which the com- 
 mittee has been placed, and, with an assurance 
 that no feelings of mine can be gratified by bear- 
 ing hard on my native country, beg them to 
 look at this item on national grounds. Pressed 
 with petitions from every class of manufac- 
 tures, praying for high duties on foreign articles 
 which interfered with theirs; sensible that 
 something ought to be done, yet beset with 
 difficulties on all sides, unaided and alone, we 
 were thrown on a forlorn hope. A partial, 
 local system would have insured its own defeat ; 
 a general one might impair the revenue. To 
 avoid that, to shape our course to meet the in- 
 terests of a nation so widely extended as this, 
 one might almost say twenty-two different na- 
 tions, divided at least into great sections, some 
 engaged almost exclusively in agriculture, some 
 in commercial and manufacturing pursuits, and 
 some in all, was ^attended with uncommon 
 trouble. We are not disappointed in finding 
 other motives attributed to us, but disclaimed.
 
 614 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 Revision of the Tariff. 
 
 1820. 
 
 which are not founded on the general principles 
 avowed by us. In proposing increased duties 
 on the various articles in this bill, there seemed 
 few, if any, on which so many reasons could be 
 brought to bear. The article i. bulky, cannot 
 be smuggled, and aids the revenue. The trans- 
 portation of it from the South employs as much 
 shipping as from the West Indies. It cannot in- 
 jure commerce; still less so, if you adopt the 
 navigation act which stops the intercourse with 
 the British islands. View it us a produce of 
 the soil or a manufacture, it is as much entitled 
 to protection as any other. This bill tends to 
 essentially aid the manufactures of the Northern 
 and Middle States ; it is but fair that they should 
 exchange them for the protections of the South ; 
 buy from their customers, their friends and 
 countrymen. As an article of domestic con- 
 sumption, it is not of much importance ; to a 
 family which consumes twenty gallons in a 
 year, the increased duty is one dollar. The 
 wages of the child employed in a factory put in 
 operation by this bill, which would otherwise 
 be idle, would pay it in two days. If distilled, 
 and the spirits exported, there is a drawback 
 of the duty ; if for home consumption, the fair- 
 ness of the duty is at once apparent. 
 
 The present duty on a gallon of the lowest 
 proof rum is 42 cents ; if distilled from molasses, 
 it now pays 7 ; at the proposed rate, 15 ; there 
 can be no rational reason for this great differ- 
 ence, when an article of consumption is made 
 from a foreign material which can be produced 
 
 the spirit distilled is duty free. With these 
 strong reasons, the committee could not over- 
 look this article ; my mind is not better satis- 
 fied with any one in the bill. We could not, 
 with any justice to ourselves, recommend to 
 the House a system which should not embrace, 
 as far as practicable, the interest of all alike ; it 
 is in vain to expect the concurrence of such a 
 body as this to any measure of partial opera- 
 tion. Take any one item in this bill, some part 
 of the country will object to it, and if confined 
 to one alone, there would be a majority against 
 every one. 
 
 Gentlemen must look to the whole, and not 
 confine their inquiries to what bears hard on" 
 sectional interest ; extend them to the benefits 
 derived ; viewed in this light, the balance will 
 not be found against the part of the country 
 from which the opposition to this duty princi- 
 pally comes. An increased duty of five cents 
 a bushel is proposed on salt ; most of the rea- 
 sons which apply to others will to this article, 
 but there are some which do so exclusively ; if 
 it is at all sound policy to command the con- 
 sumption of our articles of necessity, it is em- 
 phatically so of this, which can be made any- 
 where, and for which, in a cessation of com- 
 mercial intercourse, a most enormous price is 
 imposed. It is a manufacture, the raw material 
 of which is the ocean, the 'principal machinery 
 the fire: nature does the greatest part of the 
 labor. It is an important item of revenue. 
 
 The present price in the interior is from one 
 dollar to one dollar and fifty cents per bushel ; 
 on the sea-coast, say 70 cents ; it is said that 
 such a duty should be laid as may tend in some 
 measure to equalize the cost to the consumer.* 
 The duty on spirits is not altered ; it is an im- 
 portant source of revenue, and cannot be 
 spared ; the present rate is high ; the commit- 
 tee wished to have increased it to prohibition ; 
 but it was not in their province to submit an 
 excuse to supply the deficit of revenue. We 
 well know that to take, in one item, 2,500,000 
 dollars from an already exhausted treasury, 
 would destroy the whole bill; yet I feel au- 
 thorized to say that none would more cheer- 
 fully concur in the prohibition of foreign spirits, 
 and an excise on domestic, than the Committee 
 of Manufactures. It may be proper here to ob- 
 serve, that that committee did not act on the 
 items in the bill printed in italics, except brown 
 sugar and molasses; this list was furnished to 
 us, with a view to revenue, by a gentleman 
 whose situation brought that subject under his 
 consideration ; for any other purpose we have 
 no anxiety to retain them. 
 
 The fourth section allows a drawback of the 
 duty on tin and copper when made up and ex- 
 ported ; this is a new feature in our system, but 
 deemed necessary for the double purpose of aid- 
 ing the manufactures and commerce of the 
 country. It would have been extended to 
 other articles, but it was thought better not to 
 make the bill too complicated, or to go too 
 much into detail. The foundation once laid, it 
 can be built on hereafter. The manufacture of 
 these articles for the West India market, would 
 bo a source of employment to our labor, and 
 profit to the employer, if enabled to compete 
 with the same articles made and imported by 
 others. With a duty of twenty per cent, our 
 workmen would be excluded; with this draw- 
 back, they come in on equal terms. These ar- 
 ticles present the commencement of a system 
 which we must some day adopt, and which will 
 make the foundation of our prosperity un- 
 shaken. It consists in imposing such an im- 
 port duty as will secure us our home consump- 
 tion; an excise on consumption, (for revenue;) 
 on the exportation, a drawback of excise ; thus 
 making the manufacture of one article exem- 
 plify the policy and all the great objects of 
 Government. The remainder of the bill, ex- 
 cept the 9th and 10th sections, is copied from 
 the present law ; those sections have been in- 
 serted with the sole view of guarding against 
 frauds which exist to a very great extent, and 
 which, if not checked, will completely counter- 
 act principles of vital importance to the system 
 have recommended. Fears have been en- 
 tertained that the 10th section will be in- 
 jurious to the fair commerce of the country. 
 It is not so intended, and can be so modified as 
 to secure the objects of the committee, without 
 
 * The bounties on the fisheries were increased by an 
 amendment to the bill. 25 per cent., on account of the in- 
 creased duty on salt
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 615 
 
 APRIL, 1820.] 
 
 Revision of the Tariff. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 injuring an interest equally worthy of national 
 protection as the one I am advocating. If it 
 cannot, I will consent to strike it out, for I am 
 no enemy to commerce.* This is not the time 
 to make professions ; they will not be believed 
 till the excitement occasioned by this and the 
 other bills reported by the committee shall have 
 sub>ided.; when they are calmly examined, 
 there will be found no evidence of a disposition 
 to protect one at the expense of the other great 
 interests of the nation : all are alike depressed, 
 presenting equal claims on a Government de- 
 signed for the common benefit; struggling 
 against foreign competition and regulations; 
 all parts of the country require your protection. 
 The committee, adopting the opinion of the 
 Treasury, that this was the proper time to effect 
 a change in our internal relations, have not, in 
 recommending this measure, overlooked these 
 interests. It makes ample provision for reve- 
 nue; if the imports continue the same as in 
 1818, the increased duties add $5,800,000. It 
 must be matter of conjecture, how far the di- 
 minished importation will equal or exceed the 
 increased duties ; if the system of imports is 
 alone to be relied on, if you will resort to no 
 other, it is your duty to make the most of it ; 
 not to attempt to support it by loans and tak- 
 ing the Sinking Fund, as proposed by the Com- 
 mittee of Ways and Means. If you will cling 
 to it, I hope you will not reject this bill because 
 it aids manufactures as well as revenue ; that 
 those who are so sensitive on the state of the 
 Treasury, and object to this, will propose a bet- 
 ter mode of apportioning the burdens on the 
 consumer. Pass this bill, reduce the credits of 
 the custom-house, impose a duty on auction 
 sales you want no loan ; the cry of revenue 
 will be hushed by a union of those who wish 
 to fill the Treasury and protect our own indus- 
 try. But we understand each other very well : 
 revenue is one of the alarm bells to defeat this 
 bill ; those who raise it, well know, that for the 
 present it makes ample provision, but that for 
 the future a new system must be adopted ; one 
 which must combine the protection of the great 
 interest which they oppose. As it is inevitable, 
 it is better to come to it gradually; if post- 
 poned till the voice of the country makes an im- 
 perative call, do not blame us if the revulsion is 
 sudden, and the shock violent. 
 
 In five short years your impost has diminish- 
 ed from thirty-six millions to sixteen, more than 
 three millions of which is now in suit. Your 
 expenditures are twenty-six millions in a state 
 of peace. It requires no spirit of prophecy to 
 tell that the income will not meet the expenses ; 
 you must resort to new means; to internal 
 taxes, to excise. In using these words I will 
 not be misunderstood: by internal taxes I 
 mean not direct ones on land, but on auctions, 
 pleasure carriages, watches, expensive furniture, 
 &c. ; in other words, those taxes on the rich 
 and money-making classes of society, which 
 
 * This section was stricken out on the motion of Mr. B. 
 
 were repealed two years ago, when a temporary 
 overflowing of the Treasury induced you to 
 abandon the original financial system of reve- 
 nue, and trust alone to imposts. By excise I 
 mean a tax on the domestic manufacture which 
 is protected from foreign competition. Excise 
 has been an odious term, but it will soon be un- 
 derstood and divested of its terrors. To the 
 consumer it makes no difference whether he 
 pays to the merchant two dollars impost on a 
 pair of boots, or the same amount of excise to a 
 shoemaker ; to a farmer, whether he pays five 
 dollars impost on his coat, or five dollars excise 
 to the manufacturer. There is, indeed, one 
 difference, and that contains the sum and snb- 
 stance of political economy he can pay the 
 manufacturer in wool and provisions. The 
 merchant he must pay in money ; he must re- 
 mit it to England ; she excludes our produce 
 and raw materials. This illustrates the differ- 
 ence between impost and excise ; the first turns 
 the whole attention of the Government to en- 
 courage the importation of foreign productions, 
 as the means of imposing a tax on the con- 
 sumer. If the country commands its own con- 
 sumption, importation and imposts cease ; now 
 every thing becomes subservient to revenue and 
 to commerce, as the means of transporting the 
 instruments of taxation. Such a system neces- 
 sarily checks, if not destroys, our internal in- 
 dustry. Domestic manufactures paying no tax, 
 the encouragement of foreign, is the inevitable 
 consequence. 
 
 Whether this system is beneficial to the na- 
 tion, is no longer a matter of opinion, but of 
 history. The late war totally destroyed the 
 imposts ; you were left without revenue : 
 foreign importation ceasing, the manufactures 
 of the country sprung up and flourished. Amid 
 all the pressure and privations of the war, the 
 people grew rich and were able to pay taxes to 
 the amount of $12,000,000 in one year. How 
 much could they afford to pay now? The 
 peace found the national resources untouched, 
 the nation strong, and the people contented: 
 while the war duties continued, there were no 
 complaints ; revenue was abundant : commerce 
 flourished ; manufactures prospered ; farmers 
 rolled in wealth; not a murmur was heard 
 against taxes ; even when you repealed them, 
 there was but one solitary petition on your 
 table praying for the measure. It was most 
 strange, after this experience of the salutary 
 effects of the then state of things, that there 
 should have been a recurrence to the old sys- 
 tem, which must be again abandoned on every 
 fluctuation of our commerce and foreign rela- 
 tions, which can never be permanent, but is in 
 its nature temporary ; resulting from the chap- 
 ter of accidents, relied on by no nation but 
 ours, and by us found insufficient by experience. 
 Even at this moment, when our opponents are 
 so alarmed about it, we have made up our 
 minds to vote for a loan after this bill should 
 have been defeated, for fear it will impair this 
 noble and beautiful system of impost. You
 
 616 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 Revision of the Tariff. 
 
 [APRIL, 1820. 
 
 will, before you adjourn, contradict your de- 
 claration, that the system is good, and the 
 revenue sound, by a " be it enacted," and the 
 legislative declarations of the three branches of 
 Government pronounce that it is found want- 
 ing. This is no time for concealment; the 
 House will not understand me as attempting to 
 disguise my views on this subject. If national 
 industry is ever to be protected ; if we are ever 
 to command our own consumption ; the system 
 of revenue must be changed ; part impost, part 
 excise. "While you rely exclusively on the first, 
 it is in vain to expect that sound measures of 
 national policy can ever be adopted. A tem- 
 porary check on foreign importation may, for a 
 time, give a favorable turn to the labor of the 
 nation ; but, in their recurrence, our establish- 
 ments must fall. Do nothing, or do something 
 permanent and efficient, so that there may be 
 some assurance that the national industry Avill 
 not be exposed to abandonment by every vary- 
 ing motion of foreign policy. Restore a con- 
 fidence now destroyed : bottom your revenue 
 on the manufactures of the country ; then both 
 are placed on a foundation which combines the 
 support of the Government with the best inter- 
 ests of the nation. 
 
 We are told that this bill will destroy com- 
 merce ; this is not au unexpected alarm ; it was 
 raised when the last tariff was passed; it is 
 equally loud when any measure is proposed 
 which adds a cent or a dollar to a duty on im- 
 portation. Joined with smuggling we shall al- 
 ways hear the cry repeated, when any measure 
 is proposed not tending to the exclusive benefit 
 of that interest. I had indulged a hope, that, 
 at this time, when the commerce of the country 
 was as prostrate as our manufactures, when 
 both are pressing us for protection from the 
 same dangers, that its friends would have made 
 common cause, and joined in a common strug- 
 gle for self-preservation. The hope was not a 
 sanguine one ; commerce has been too long a 
 pet, the spoiled child of Government, to think 
 there are any other interests worth protecting. 
 The mere creature of legislation, raised to im- 
 portance by our laws and the expenditure of a 
 great portion of our revenue for its support, 
 commerce has presented herself as the Atlas 
 which supports the Government, the country, 
 and all its great interests ; now, it seems, she 
 cannot support herself. Yet. while approaching 
 you in a suppliant posture, praying for a bank- 
 rupt law, to save her merchants, navigation 
 acts, her shipping, she still retains the spirit, 
 still thinks that all legislation must be for her 
 benefit; boldly claiming the rights of primo- 
 geniture ; loudly protesting that any thing done 
 for the other children of the nation is her de- 
 struction. While this is commerce, "I am 
 against it ; " but if she claims equal protection, 
 or even a double portion in her favor, I will go 
 as far as airy man in this House to support the 
 fair trade of the country. 
 
 MONDAY, April 24. 
 JRevmon of the Tariff. 
 
 The House then again resolved itself into a 
 Committee of the Whole, on the bill to regulate 
 the duties on imports. 
 
 A motion to strike out the first section of the 
 bill (to reject it) being under consideration 
 
 Mr. TYLER said, that he sincerely mingled his 
 regrets with those which had been repeatedly 
 expressed by others, that this all-important sub- 
 ject should be urged to a decision at this late 
 period. The languor attendant on a long session 
 rarely fails to produce a restlessness and impa- 
 tience adverse to a full and free investigation. 
 If we arrive, said he, to a precipitate conclusion, 
 one adverse to the best interests of this nation, 
 he meant not that any share of the responsi- 
 bility should devolve on him. He considered 
 that he had a high duty to discharge, and trusted 
 the House would bear with him while he dis- 
 charged it. 
 
 Some gentlemen have been pleased to con- 
 sider the bill on the table a mere experiment. 
 We should be cautious, Mr. Chairman, how we 
 adopt experiments of a vague and uncertain 
 character ; but more especially ought we to be 
 so, when the two great brandies of national in- 
 dustry, commerce and agriculture, are materially 
 interested in that experiment. Shall we make 
 a hasty experiment on our best interests? Shall 
 we precipitately adopt a system from which the 
 most serious and destructive results may arise ? 
 I repeat, that great deliberation and reflection 
 are required of us. And, sir, what is the char- 
 acter of the experiment which is about to be 
 made ? One which is to give a new direction 
 to the capital and labor of the country. The 
 clamor which has been raised in support of 
 what is called national industry, has this for its 
 object and nothing else. This is the inevitable 
 consequence of the bill on your table should 
 you adopt it. Are the present manufacturers 
 in the United States really entitled to your aid ? 
 Where is the proof of it? We have asked for 
 the proof, and the chairman of the committee 
 frankly acknowledged that he did not possess it. 
 All classes labor, at this time, under serious em- 
 barrassments. The gentleman from Pennsylva- 
 nia (Mr. BALDWIN) has ascribed these embar- 
 rassments to the badness of our present system. 
 Not so, said Mr. T., the causes are plain and 
 obvious. The present extraordinary condition 
 of the world, almost all Christendom being now 
 at peace, is one of the great causes. The demand 
 for the productions of our soil is diminished by 
 the circumstance of the inhabitants of Europe 
 being now permitted to pursue the walks of in- 
 dustry, uninterrupted by the turmoil of war. 
 They are no longer dependent on us for those 
 large supplies which they lately required. There 
 is another cause equally operative, and it is to 
 be found in that hot-bed banking system, which, 
 like the present bill, when introduced, was made 
 to promise us such potent blessings. I repeat, 
 that all classes are greatly oppressed. For one,
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 617 
 
 APRIL, 1820.] 
 
 Revision of the Tariff. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 I wanted such information as would have en- 
 abled me fairly to contrast the condition of the 
 manufacturing with the other interests of the 
 country. I wanted to be informed whether 
 that interest only suffered in the same ratio with 
 the others, and whether its sufferings were pro- 
 duced by similar causes. In the absence of this 
 information, I am left to conclude that it is now 
 deemed expedient to hold out rewards for the 
 purpose of giving a new direction to the capital 
 and labor of the nation. 
 
 If gentlemen imagine that by this bill they are 
 securing the permanent interests of the manu- 
 facturers ; if they believe that this is all which 
 will be required at the hands of the Legislature, 
 they are most grossly deceived. This is but the 
 incipient measure of a system. I venture to 
 predict that, after the lapse of a very few years, 
 we shall be assailed by as urgent petitions as 
 those which have poured in on us at the present 
 session. 
 
 What will be the effect of this measure ? It 
 proposes a rate of duties sufficiently high to 
 enable our artists to undersell the foreign artists 
 in the markets of this country. For a short 
 time it will have that effect, but it cannot long 
 continue. It adds to the profits of those who 
 at this time have their capitals invested in manu- 
 factories ; and while other classes will labor 
 under severe pecuniary embarrassments, they 
 will enjoy comparative prosperity. What will 
 be the consequence ? Why, sir, there is no prin- 
 ciple in political economy more universally true, 
 than that capital will flow into those employ- 
 ments from which it can derive the greatest 
 profits. This bill, then, will have the effect of 
 causing new investitures of capital. Thus a 
 spirit of competition will have been generated, 
 and in the course of a few years, the profits of 
 these capitalists will have settled down to their 
 present level. The supply will always, after a 
 short time, suit itself to the demand, and, from 
 being at first deficient, will often exceed it. 
 Again : The advocates of this system have at- 
 tempted too much. They have clasped in their 
 embrace too many favorites to yield a perma- 
 nent benefit to any one. There will exist an 
 inequality of profits in the various branches of 
 manufacturing industry ; and this circumstance 
 will aid greatly in producing the result which I 
 have deduced. To simplify my argument, let 
 me present to you a supposititious case. Take 
 the case of the tailor and shoemaker. If the 
 tailor makes a greater profit in his trade, then 
 you will have more tailors than shoemakers ; 
 more labor will be employed by the one than 
 the other. The shoemaker, in order to retain 
 his laborers in his employment, will be forced 
 to give higher wages ; and the tailor, in order 
 to counteract this effect, will find himself com- 
 pelled to increase the wages of his laborers. 
 And thus, the competition between them will 
 urge them on to the imposition of high prices 
 on their different fabrics. While the want's of 
 labor are continually advancing, they will find 
 their profits constantly diminishing, and their 
 
 resort to high prices for their products will re- 
 semble the desperate effort of the gambler, 
 whose hopes are all staked on the last throw of 
 the dice. The consequence is inevitable. This 
 bill secures them not. The foreign competitor 
 again enters your market, and again will our 
 ears be deafened with cries for relief. 
 
 But, Mr. Chairman, we are promised a home 
 market for our products. Are gentlemen serious 
 when they urge such arguments ? Would you 
 add by this bill to the number of consumers in 
 the United States ? I speak of the agricultural 
 interest, as it now exists, before sufficient time 
 shall have elapsed to enable the farmer to desert 
 his field, and give a new direction to his labor. 
 I ask, then, if your manufactures shall prosper ; 
 if you succeed, as you unquestionably will, in 
 building up large manufacturing establishments, 
 will you add to the number of consumers ? Who 
 will be found in them ? Men who must be fed 
 whether they are there or elsewhere laborers. 
 Will this be to furnish a new market ? Take 
 the case of large mercantile cities ; they would 
 furnish a parallel. By concentrating the popu- 
 lation, you concentrate the number of pur- 
 chasers, but you do not thereby increase their 
 number. Whether your fifty merchants be in a 
 city, or dispersed over the country, they do not 
 lose their character of purchasers. They must, 
 in either event, be fed. So too with the labor- 
 ers employed in a manufactory. But look to 
 the list of agricultural exports, and tell me how 
 long it will take you to furnish a home market 
 for them ? They amounted last year, if I do not 
 mistake, to something like $50,000,000, and this 
 was made up of the portion of product which 
 remained after satisfying the home demand. 
 The proposition, sir, is futile; nay, a perfect 
 mockery. Nor are we to be deceived by the 
 apparent regard which the Committee of Manu- 
 factures has evinced in our behalf. The chair- 
 man (Mr. BALDWIN) has been pleased to report 
 a duty on cotton and tobacco, imported into this 
 country. Did he really imagine that the mem- 
 bers from Georgia and South Carolina were to 
 be entrapped by the first, or the members from 
 Virginia by the last ? I feel assured that my 
 honorable friend did not intend to practise a 
 deception upon us. He would spurn with in- 
 dignation, any such resort. But I ask him se- 
 riously to say whether he thinks that the South 
 requires this tax on cotton, or Virginia this tax 
 on tobacco ? Look at the list of annual exports 
 of cotton, and tell me if the cotton planter here 
 has any thing to fear from foreign competition ? 
 And is it not well known that the Virginia to- 
 bacco planter fears no competition on earth ? 
 No other tobacco comes into competition with 
 it France admits none other than that raised 
 in Virginia; and the anxiety of foreign pur- 
 chasers to obtain our tobacco, is the best evi- 
 dence of its decided superiority over the similar 
 production of any other country. As well might 
 the gentleman, if he had been legislating for 
 Newcastle, to use a familiar illustration, have 
 laid a high duty on coal thereinto imported.
 
 618 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 Revision of the Tariff, 
 
 1820. 
 
 I think, then, Mr. Chairman, that I have ren- 
 dered in some measure the effects which will 
 flow from this bill manifest. It will diminish 
 the value of our land ; it will shut us out from 
 the foreign market ; it cannot substitute a home 
 market, as is erroneously contended ; and, finally, 
 it subjects us to a heavy burden of taxation. Is 
 it necessary that I should go on to show its 
 effects on commerce? Agriculture and com- 
 merce are twin sisters. You cannot inflict a 
 wound on the one without injuring the other. 
 Our foreign trade, I have already attempted to 
 show, would be greatly and most seriously cur- 
 tailed. And, sir, when the gentleman excepts 
 from duty copper used for sheathing of ships, he 
 takes care to limit this application of that article 
 by striking a destructive blow at the vessel it- 
 self. That noble spirit of enterprise which has 
 heretofore been our chief boast, will be in a 
 great measure destroyed, and your navigation 
 will be confined to your own bays and creeks. 
 Tell me not, then, of the embarrassments which 
 now prevail in this land. Go on with this Chi- 
 nese system; carry this strange fallacy into 
 effect, and we shall present a contrast as strik- 
 ing, between our present and our then situation, 
 as that which is exhibited in the case of a child 
 who has lost his plaything, and of the man 
 whose house is wrapt in flames, and the fruits 
 of a long life of industry in a moment destroyed. 
 
 Mr. STORKS delivered a speech of about an 
 hour's length, in reply. 
 
 Mr. GEOSS said, that the proposition of the 
 honorable gentleman from Virginia (Mr. TY- 
 LER) must have originated in a conviction, on 
 his part, of the impolicy of the bill, considered 
 in relation to the principles upon which it has 
 been framed, and not in a mere dissatisfaction 
 with its details. In the latter case, candor and 
 patriotism would have concurred in pointing 
 the honorable gentleman to a course very dif- 
 ferent from the one he had adopted. He would 
 have proposed amendments rather than have 
 submitted a motion to destroy the bill. What 
 reasons does he offer to induce us to support 
 his motion ? I confess, said Mr. G., that I 
 should think him in favor of the bill, did I take 
 his remarks instead of his motion, as the test 
 of his sentiments. He acknowledges that the 
 general pacification of Europe, and the conse- 
 
 ductions, is the cause of the present distress. 
 The honorable gentleman, sir, is perfectly right. 
 "We may talk about banks and extravagance as 
 much as we please ; but they are not the cause 
 of our misfortunes. They are rather the evi- 
 dences of oty former prosperity. When every 
 thing which our soil produced commanded a 
 high price in the European markets, and when 
 we were the carriers for all nations, we could 
 afford to be extravagant. Industry, sir, simple 
 industry, was sufficient to secure to every indi- 
 vidual the necessaries and conveniences of life. 
 The mechanic found abundant employment ; 
 the planter and farmer enjoyed a ready market 
 for their produce , and the merchant became 
 
 wealthy. The case is altered now, sir. The 
 mechanic is without business, the farmer finds 
 no market, and the capitalist, instead of grow- 
 ing rich by the interest of his money, is forced 
 to live upon the principal, unless he choose to 
 fatten on the misfortunes of his neighbors. 
 Can all this, sir, he the effect of luxury ? Ex- 
 travagance makes money change its owners, 
 but does not banish it from a country, if that 
 country be otherwise in a flourishing condition. 
 We must abandon, it is true, our habits of show 
 and parade, in order to accommodate ourselves 
 to our present reduced condition ; but if there 
 be no market for the produce of our soil, and 
 no demand for our labor, our efforts will barely 
 enable us to subsist. To arrest the progress of 
 this evil, and to prevent the enormous exporta- 
 tion of specie, it seems to me that we should 
 furnish ourselves with those articles for which 
 we have heretofore sent our money across the 
 Atlantic. 
 
 But let us inquire, said Mr. G., what remedy 
 the honorable gentleman proposes for the evils 
 which oppress us. Why, sir, he seems to have 
 discovered a " speck of war " in the European 
 horizon, a little cloud, no bigger at present than 
 a man's hand, but which he devoutly hopes and 
 believes will increase and overshadow the whole 
 eastern continent. Has it indeed, sir, come to 
 this ? Are we to confine ourselves exclusively 
 to the cultivation of the soil, even when its 
 produce will not procure us the refuse trash of 
 Europe? Are we to wait in our present situa- 
 tion until a war hi Europe shall work our de- 
 deliverance? The hope of such an event is 
 impious. But suppose it should actually hap- 
 pen, where is our security for its continuance ? 
 Must our prosperity forever depend on the 
 misfortunes of Europe ? Shall we be con- 
 demned to mourn whenever peace shall bless 
 her shores ? Where is the Representative who 
 is prepared to leave his country in such a state 
 of vassalage and dependence ? We have, sir, 
 at a vast expense of blood and treasure, estab- 
 lished and maintained our political independ- 
 ence; but if the present state of things be 
 without remedy, or, if we have not spirit 
 enough to adopt a plan of reform in our inter- 
 nal policy, we may as well renew our allegiance 
 to the British Crown, and save the trouble and 
 expense of governing ourselves. 
 
 The honorable gentleman, said Mr. G., seems 
 to concur with the celebrated Dr. Smith, that 
 we ought not to accommodate our pursuits to 
 our circumstances. What else can he mean by 
 warning us not to change the direction of the 
 national capital ? The learned doctor informs 
 his readers that " the tailor does not attempt 
 to make his own shoes, but buys them of the 
 shoemaker. The shoemaker does not attempt 
 to make his own clothes, but employs the tai- 
 lor. The farmer," he continues, " attempts to 
 make neither the one nor the other, but em- 
 ploys those different artificers." And what is 
 the reason which the doctor gives for all this ? 
 It is, according to him, because " all these find
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 G19 
 
 APRIL, 1820.] 
 
 Revision of the Tariff. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 it for their interest to employ their whole in- 
 dustry in a way in which they have some ad- 
 vantage over their neighbors, and to purchase 
 with a part of its produce, or, what is the same 
 thing, with the price of a part of it, whatever 
 else they may have occasion for." "Will any 
 one deny the correctness of these remarks? 
 Yet, sir, if they be designed as an argument 
 against the present bill, there are not more 
 sophistical and Jesuitical' sentences in the Eng- 
 lish language. They are founded on the as- 
 sumed fact that the tailor, the shoemaker, and 
 the farmer, depend mutually on each other for 
 the particular articles which their industry 
 produces. But let us suppose, for a moment, 
 that the farmer has no longer any " advantage 
 over his neighbor," the tailor, by the cultiva- 
 tion of the soil. Let us take it for granted that 
 he cannot dispose of his provisions ; that the 
 shoemaker is supplied from another quarter, 
 and that the tailor supplies himself. Let us 
 imagine, moreover, a very probable case, that, 
 for the want of a market, he cannot purchase, 
 with the price of a part of his produce, the 
 shoes and coats of his neighbors ; what shall 
 he do under these circumstances? Shall he 
 remain unclothed and unshod for fear of inter- 
 fering with Dr. Smith's system of economy ? 
 Shall he prefer the cultivation of the soil, naked 
 as he is, which can yield him no profit, to those 
 mechanical arts which will, at least, secure him 
 from the inclemency of the weather, and pre- 
 serve him from debt? 
 
 The honorable gentleman, said Mr. G., in- 
 forms us that manufacturers are no more de- 
 pressed than other classes of the community. 
 True, sir ; but shall we, for this reason, abandon 
 the country to its fate ? Yes, says the honora- 
 ble gentleman, let every thing regulate itself, 
 and manufactures will gradually be introduced 
 from necessity. I am satisfied, said Mr. G., 
 that they will be established, whether we pass 
 this bill or not ; for, by permitting things to 
 take their natural course, whilst every other 
 nation is intermeddling with commercial mat- 
 ters, we are reduced to the necessity of sus- 
 pending almost entirely our foreign importa- 
 tions. We are compelled to provide a home 
 market for our provisions and raw materials. 
 For my part, sir, I am willing to aid the effects 
 of our foolish policy, while they tend to work 
 their own remedy. The good sense of the 
 community is awake. A spirit of inquiry has 
 gone forth, and the progress of public opinion in 
 favor of a change of policy is not to be arrested ; 
 but, if the Government does nothing, years of 
 suffering and embarrassment may pass away 
 before the evil will be completely cured. Let 
 us not permit the distresses of our fellow-citi- 
 zens to be the sole cause of reformation ; the 
 skilful physician follows the indications of na- 
 ture, and assists all its operations in throwing 
 oflf the disease. Let us follow the example, 
 and afford a seasonable encouragement to the 
 manufacturing interest, which is now struggling 
 between hope and despair. 
 
 But the honorable gentleman, said Mr. G., 
 foresees an excise duty, if we pass this bill. 
 After proving that such will be the result, I 
 cannot see that he will have gamed much 
 ground. What has his own system produced? 
 A deficit of five millions, and a yearly decrease 
 of revenue. As to the revenue, the two sys- 
 tems are the same ; but hi regard to the inter- 
 nal prosperity of the country, the advantage is 
 decidedly in favor of the new plan of economy. 
 The old policy has ruined the revenue by im- 
 poverishing the people; the present bill pro- 
 poses to exclude a portion of foreign commodi- 
 ties, in order to encourage the industry of our 
 own citizens. Let us look back to the late war, 
 and to the measures of Government at its close. 
 At the commencement of the contest we expe- 
 rienced the evils of a want of manufacturing 
 establishments in the most sensible manner ; the 
 capitalist began to turn his attention to the 
 subject; but, before a supply could be fur- 
 nished, the Government was compelled to sub- 
 mit to the disgrace of conniving at a violation 
 of its own laws, and of countenancing smug- 
 gling, for the sake of clothing the army. The 
 youth of our establishments, their small num- 
 ber, and the consequent want of competition, 
 caused the high prices for which our manufac- 
 turers have been so often reproached. A few 
 years would have remedied the evil. The les- 
 son taught us at that time ought not so soon to 
 have been forgotten. We ought to have learned 
 that it was essential to our independence to be 
 able, at all times, to furnish ourselves with 
 many of the articles which we now import from 
 abroad. 
 
 But, on the receipt of the news of peace, the 
 country seemed mad with joy. Without re- 
 flecting on the altered situation of Europe, and 
 not considering that our produce could no 
 longer be disposed of in that quarter, Congress 
 formed a tariff on the honorable gentleman's 
 plan. They enacted a treasury tariff, a revenue 
 tariff, without the least regard to the situation 
 of the country. Need I mention the result ? 
 The low duties which were imposed brought 
 upon the nation a perfect deluge of foreign ar- 
 ticles. Our infant manufacturing establish- 
 ments were prostrated ; but the individual dis- 
 tress of their proprietors was unnoticed amidst 
 the general joy at seeing the National Treasury 
 filled to overflowing. What is the result? 
 This system has operated like an exhilarating 
 poison, which, at first, increased the animal 
 powers, but finally sinks them to the grave. 
 This system has been pursued to the present 
 time. Will any one, at this day, call it a reve- 
 nue system ? It deserves a different title. We 
 have purchased foreign commodities until the 
 country is reduced to the utmost distress. We 
 can purchase them no longer. The revenue 
 has declined, and will continue to decline. 
 Even now we have a bill upon our tables to 
 
 Cvide for a part of the Treasury deficit by a 
 a, and, for the balance, the Lord knows 
 how ; and vet the honorable gentleman warns
 
 620 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF K.] 
 
 Revision of the Tariff. 
 
 1820. 
 
 us against a change of policy, for fear of affect- 
 ing the revenue; that miserable remnant, I 
 suppose he means, which our blessed revenue 
 system has not destroyed. Can that policy be 
 wise which renders war a blessing ? I appeal 
 to the recollection of every member of this 
 House, if the last war, with all its taxes, pressed 
 so heavily on the country as the present peace ? 
 
 I am well satisfied, said Mr. G., that there is 
 a decided majority in the House who approve 
 of the principles upon which this bill has been 
 framed. They all acknowledge that our policy 
 must be changed. It is evident, however, that 
 certain items of its detail are unsatisfactory to 
 some of its friends. For myself, sir, I can as- 
 sure the House that no private consideration 
 shall induce me to vote against the passage of 
 the bill. It has a national object in view, and 
 individual considerations should be laid aside. 
 We have heard much wrangling from a quarter 
 whence it should have been least expected. 
 The very people who are most interested in the 
 passage of this bill, and whose demands for the 
 encouragement of their peculiar industry have 
 almost uniformly been complied with, are 
 clamorous about a miserable tax of five cents 
 the gallon on molasses. My immediate consti- 
 tuents, sir, are deeply interested in the proposed 
 increase of duty on bar iron ; but I am proud 
 to believe that, should it be stricken out, I 
 should forfeit their confidence by voting against 
 the bill. I trust, sir, that the motion of the 
 honorable gentleman from Virginia will be re- 
 jected. 
 
 The question was then taken on striking out 
 the first section of the bill, and decided in the 
 negative, 73 votes to 48. 
 
 The Committee of the Whole then took up 
 the other bill referred to it, by the title of " A 
 bill regulating the payment of duties on mer- 
 chandise imported, and for other purposes." 
 
 [This bill provides that, from and after a cer- 
 tain date, the duties laid on all goods, wares, 
 and merchandise, imported into the United 
 States, except dyeing drugs, and materials for 
 composing dyes, gum arable, gum Senegal, and 
 all other articles used solely for medicinal pur- 
 poses, cassia, cinnamon, cloves, chocolate, co- 
 coa, coffee, indigo, mace, molasses, nutmegs, 
 pepper, pimento, salt, ochre, sugar, tea, shall 
 be paid before a permit shall be granted for 
 landing the same, unless entered for exportation 
 or deposited in public store-houses. On the 
 excepted articles, duties not exceeding one hun- 
 dred dollars in amount to be paid in cash ; and, 
 if exceeding that sum, shall be allowed a cred- 
 it, on one-half for three months, and on the 
 other half tor six months except tea, the du- 
 ties on which are to be payable, in equal pay- 
 ments, at three, six, and nine months.] 
 
 Mr. BALDWIN rose and addressed the Chair 
 as follows : 
 
 In commencing its operations, our Govern- 
 ment justly deemed it of great importance to 
 give every facility to the commerce of our 
 country. There was then peace in Europe. 
 
 Commerce was principally in the hands of two 
 
 ipal 
 
 nl w 
 
 nations, whose capital was so abundant that, in 
 Holland, it was said not to be a bad business 
 for a merchant, by his labors and the employ- 
 ment of his money, to realize 6 per cent. In 
 England, an unequivocal evidence of the extent 
 of unemployed capital was, that their 3 per 
 cent, stocks were in the market at 93 per cent. 
 It was no part of the policy of these nations 
 to give aid to commerce by affording credits at 
 the custom-houses, on the importation of goods 
 it was not necessary. In this country the 
 case was different. The period which imme- 
 diately succeeded the Ee volution, was one of 
 unexampled embarrassment, from which we 
 were just recovering when the Government was 
 organized. There was but little capital in the 
 
 country. 
 
 Its commerce was mostly carried on 
 ""' them 
 
 by foreigners, whose superior capital gavi 
 great advantages in their competition with our 
 citizens it thus became necessary to divert 
 trade from its accustomed channels, by every 
 possible facility. Imposts were the principal 
 source of revenue merchants the agents to 
 collect from the people. Credits for the duties 
 were allowed them, not only to give time to 
 collect from consumers, but as a means of in- 
 creasing their capital, by retaining, and having 
 the use of the money, until their bonds became 
 due. In 1789, the credit allowed on goods 
 from the West Indies, was four months ; on 
 Madeira wines, twelve months; on all other 
 goods, six months. In 1790, a credit was given 
 on teas from China, of twelve months. In 1795, 
 the credit on goods from the West Indies was al- 
 tered to three and six months ; from Europe to 
 eight, ten, and twelve months. In 1799, a general 
 system was adopted ; from the West Indies, half 
 in three, half in six months ; salt, nine months ; 
 wines, twelve months ; from Europe, one-third 
 each in eight, ten, and twelve months ; other 
 than from Europe, half in six and one-fourth, 
 each in nine and twelve months; teas, as other 
 goods, or at the option of the importer, to be 
 deposited, and bonds given at two years, and to 
 be sold for the duties, if the bonds were not 
 duly paid. In 1805, all importations from the 
 eastern coast of America, north of the equator, 
 were allowed the same credits as those from 
 the West Indies. In 1818, the credit on such 
 importations was extended to six and nine 
 months; on those from other countries than 
 Europe and the West Indies, (salt, wines, and 
 teas excepted,) to eight, ten, and eighteen 
 months, one-third being payable at each of 
 these periods. No alteration has since been 
 made, so that the credits now are : 
 
 On the duties on importations from the West 
 Indies and north of the equator, (excepting Eu- 
 rope,) half in six and half in nine months. 
 
 From Europe, one-third in eight, one-third 
 in ten, and one-third in twelve months. 
 
 From the East Indies, one-third in eight, 
 one-third in ten, and one-third in eighteen 
 months. 
 
 Of wine?, twelve months.
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 APRIL, 1820.] 
 
 Revision of the Tariff. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 Of salt, nine months. 
 
 Of teas, one-third in eight, one-third in ten, 
 and one-third in twelve months ; or, if deposit- 
 ed, twenty -four months. 
 
 While our commerce was struggling to com- 
 pete with that of other nations, there were 
 good reasons for allowing liberal credits on the 
 duties ; but, when the French revolution threw 
 the commerce of the world into our hands ; 
 when the capital of foreigners was employed 
 by our merchants, the use of it being amply 
 compensated by the protection of our flag, 
 there would seem to have been no very power- 
 ful reasons for taxing the consumers to create 
 or enlarge the capital of merchants ; for such 
 is the immediate effect of custom-house credits. 
 It is understood to be the custom of merchants 
 to calculate their profits on the aggregate cost 
 of goods, including charges and duties. The 
 amount of duties is, in effect, a loan from the 
 Government to the merchant, without interest, 
 which becomes a part of his capital, and is as 
 productive as the money he has actually remit- 
 ted in payment for his goods. It would seem 
 then to be as reasonable that he should furnish 
 this, as that he should furnish the other portion 
 of his capital. When the credit on the duties 
 exceeds that allowed on sales to retailers, it af- 
 fords to the importer the further advantage of 
 the active use of the money which has been 
 drawn from those who really pay the duties. 
 
 It would have seemed more consistent with 
 general principles, if, in the infancy and during 
 the hard struggle of our commerce, liberal 
 credits had been given, and they had been 
 gradually diminished, as there was less occasion 
 for them. The reverse, however, has been our 
 policy. Though, during the period of short 
 credits, our commerce was constantly and rap- 
 idly increasing, and not content with a fair di- 
 vision with other nations, was attaining a mo- 
 nopoly, yet the credits were extended in pro- 
 portion as the real necessity for them dimin- 
 ished. Even so late as 1818, when our East 
 India merchants had acquired vast wealth, 
 abundant capital, and were without foreign 
 competition, their credits were in part extended 
 to eighteen months a longer period, I will 
 venture to say, than they give their customers. 
 The consequence of this system is, that, by 
 selling at auction for cash, or on short credit, 
 for notes which can be discounted at bank, the 
 amount of duties thus loaned may be invested 
 in a new voyage. Generally one, and often 
 two adventures, may be completed before the 
 duties on the first are due. 
 
 We have lately heard much of the favorite 
 commercial maxim : " Let us alone, let trade 
 regulate itself." The practical application of 
 this maxim is developed by this custom-house 
 system. Our legislation upon this subject has 
 been uniformly progressive. Regulation has 
 indeed followed regulation; but it has been 
 to give additional facilities to commerce. The 
 credits at the custom-house have been often al- 
 tered ; but in every case they have increased. 
 
 Our statute book does not contain a solitary in- 
 stance of a credit diminished. This system 
 having been coeval with our Government, fol- 
 lowed up by a uniform series of acts for thirty 
 years, is now viewed as the natural and estab- 
 lished order of things; as a matter of right, 
 not of favor. Extending the credit means, 
 " let us alone ; " to reduce it to the old terms 
 is to destroy the commerce of the country. It 
 is worth while to look at the practical illustra- 
 tion of this rule in the act of 1818, the last law 
 on the subject, passed on the last day of the 
 session. The East India credits were extended 
 to eighteen months, in the last line of the last 
 clause in the last section of a bill for the deposit 
 of wines and spirits, and for other purposes. It 
 might be well to inquire into the evidence on 
 which this measure was reported. It is at least 
 to be hoped that, from whatever other quarter 
 it may come, the doctrine of " letting things 
 regulate themselves" will not again be heard 
 from those who owe so much to regulation. 
 
 In speaking thus plainly of these credits, I 
 must not be understood as objecting so ranch to 
 their expediency at the time of their adoption, 
 as to their being continued and enlarged after 
 the reasons for which they were granted have 
 ceased, and when their effects have become in- 
 jurious to all parts of the country. They were 
 granted for the benefit of American commerce, 
 and as facilities to American merchants ; but 
 they now operate to the destruction of the one 
 and the impoverishment of the other. From a 
 careful examination of the weekly abstracts of 
 merchandise entered at the custom-house in 
 New York in the year 1819, it appears that 
 there were entered 32,958 packages of dry 
 goods, of which 24,659 were on foreign, and 
 8,299 only on American account. Thus, in the 
 proud emporium of our commerce, where cap- 
 ital is abundant, and in vain seeking profitable 
 employment, three-fourths of the importations 
 appear to be on foreign account, the sales of 
 which, for the most ^>art, are by auction. This 
 is no forced, but the plain and evident effect of 
 obvious causes. The nations of Europe, to 
 whom England allied herself, and whom she 
 subsidized to destroy the continental system, 
 having accomplished the object of putting down 
 its author, retained or readopted the system it- 
 self. That nation, who foaght the common 
 battles of herself and other nations, and who 
 paid them for fighting for themselves, now finds 
 her manufactures mostly excluded from the 
 Continent; her merchants and manufacturers 
 seeking rather for some market than for a good 
 one. Few nations will buy from them at all ; 
 none but this will furnish them with a capital 
 without interest on a long credit. Other na- 
 tions regulate this matter ; they require prompt 
 payment of duties, or deposit of goods. We 
 leave things to regulate themselves, and allow 
 foreigners to avail themselves of three-fourths 
 of the benefits of our credits. Depr, 
 home for the want of a market as well as of 
 capital they eagerly look to us as affording
 
 622 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 Revision of the Tariff. 
 
 [APRIL, 1820. 
 
 both. During the wars in Europe they could 
 not improve these facilities ; but now they hold 
 but inducements and offer temptations which 
 will lead to a great increase, and a final mo- 
 nopoly of our trade in such hands. An ordi- 
 nary trading voyage to England may be com- 
 pleted, the goods sold by means of auctions, 
 notes discounted, and the proceeds ready to be 
 remitted back in four months. By the Liver- 
 pool packets much less time will suffice. But, 
 allowing three operations in a year, I find that 
 our custom-house credits on cottons and wool- 
 lens will double the capital employed in the 
 first year, and increase 135 per centum at the 
 end of the second year. In this mode a loan, 
 perpetual and increasing in a steady ratio, is 
 made by our Government to the foreign mer- 
 chant; who, while he thus obtains it without 
 interest, is enabled to continue his operations ; 
 and, to avoid the notary, he looks more to his 
 credit than to his profits, and will continue his 
 business though it may be a losing one. What 
 to the American merchant would be a losing is 
 to him a gainful trade. The American im- 
 porter becomes a mere caterer to the foreign 
 manufacturer. The orders sent out by him in- 
 dicate the quantity, kind, and quality of goods 
 required at our different ports. The manufac- 
 turer, thus advised of the demand, sends simi- 
 lar articles to the same market. If, after de- 
 ducting charges, he can receive in New York 
 the price at his manufactory, he has the usual 
 profit and an increase to his capital by the cus- 
 tom-house credits. The American merchant 
 pays the manufacturer his price in England, 
 and must sell here at an advance, or decline 
 business. It is therefore not a matter of sur- 
 prise that so large a proportion of importations 
 should be on foreign account, but rather that 
 there should be any other. 
 
 This at once accounts for the cries of distress 
 which assail us from the commercial cities, im- 
 ploring us to abolish credits on imports, and im- 
 pose heavy duties on aucflon sales. The ope- 
 ration of these two causes on all the great in- 
 terests of the country, shows their intimate 
 connection, their mutual dependence. I hope 
 all will unite in affording a remedy. It will be 
 truly unexpected if gentlemen shall be found 
 willing to have the revenue, commerce, and ag- 
 riculture, abandoned to their fate, because the 
 only measure which can save them will like- 
 wise benefit manufactures. The occasion is 
 now fairly presented to the House. This bill 
 has been called for from the seaports. It has 
 been reported, published in the counting-rooms 
 of merchants for three months, and not a soli- 
 tary petition against it from individuals has 
 been presented. Called for by all, and I may 
 almost say opposed by no part of the country, 
 necessary to correct existing, not fancied, evils ; 
 evils which are felt, and threaten to be greater 
 in future, I cannot but feel some confidence that 
 even the opponents of the tariff will be in favor 
 of this bill. For the revenue it is almost indis- 
 pensable, as well for security as for convenience. 
 
 On the first of January of the present year the 
 amount of revenue bonds actually in suit ex- 
 ceeded three millions of dollars. On the first 
 of this month (April) it was considerably in- 
 creasedsay to $3,120,000. On the first of 
 January, 1819, it was only $1.740,000. 
 
 Mr. SILSBEE of Massachusetts, addressed the 
 committee as follows 
 
 Mr. Chairman : Being an inhabitant of a 
 commercial district of the United States, I feel 
 compelled, by a sense of duty to my constitu- 
 ents, to make a few remarks upon the bill now 
 under consideration. 
 
 It seems to be generally admitted, sir, that 
 every interest of the country is depressed at 
 this time ; and what does this bill propose 
 measures for the relief and benefit of all ? No, 
 sir ; its object seems to be, to impose new re- 
 strictions aud additional burdens upon that in- 
 terest which, at this moment, is more depressed 
 than any other. I mean the commercial and 
 navigating interest. In the course of the past 
 year a loss has been sustained by the merchants 
 of this country, of at least twenty-five per cent. 
 of the whole capital employed in foreign trade, 
 and the prospects of the present year are not 
 more flattering than those of the past. There 
 will not be so much capital employed this year 
 as there was last, because there is not so much 
 to employ ; but in that which is employed the 
 loss (judging from present appearances) will 
 be as great, or greater, than it was the last 
 year. If gentlemen have attended to the me- 
 morials which have been read in this House, 
 from the manufacturing interest, they will have 
 learnt from them something of the present state 
 of our navigation and commerce. We have 
 been informed by these memorials that our 
 ships are rotting at the Avharves ; that they are 
 not worth half their cost ; that a large portion 
 of the merchants are already bankrupts; and 
 that others are almost daily added to the list. 
 If this be true, (and no one who has recently 
 visited our seaports will be inclined to doubt 
 it,) if this be true, I say, is it wise, or is it just, . 
 further to depress the interest at this time? 
 
 The bill under consideration proposes the 
 abolition of the present system of credits on 
 revenue bonds, and the adoption of an entire 
 new system. The present system has been in 
 operation, with some alterations, from the com- 
 mencement of the present Government. By 
 the act of the 4th of August, 1790, the credits 
 for duties on imports were fixed as follows : On 
 goods from the West Indies, at four months; 
 on teas from China, at twelve months ; on 
 Madeira wine, at twelve months ; on all other 
 goods, at six months. At this time sales of 
 goods were generally made for cash, or at 
 very short credits; but, as the business of the 
 country increased, longer credits to purchasers 
 became usual ; and it cannot be doubted that 
 it was the encouragement of this increase of 
 trade which induced the Government to extend 
 these credits, as they have done at different 
 periods since 1790.
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 623 
 
 APRIL, 1820.] 
 
 Revision of the Tariff. 
 
 [H. OF E. 
 
 By the act of May, 1792, the credit for duties 
 on salt was fixed at nine months; on other 
 West India goods, at four months ; on all other 
 goods, (except wines and teas,) half in six, a 
 
 Siarter in nine, and a quarter in twelve months, 
 y the act of January 29th, 1795, the credit on 
 importations from the West Indies was extend- 
 ed to three and six months ; and on importations 
 from Europe, the credit was fixed at eight, ten, 
 and twelve months; one-third cash. By the 
 act of the 3d of March, 1799, the credits were 
 fixed as follows : on West India products, (ex- 
 cept salt,) half in three, and half in six months ; 
 on salt, in nine months ; on wines, in twelve 
 months; on teas from China or Europe, the 
 same as other goods from those countries, un- 
 less deposited in Government stores, in which 
 case the credit not to exceed two years; on 
 articles from Europe, one-third in eight, one- 
 third in ten, and one-third in twelve months ; 
 on all goods from any other place than Europe 
 and the West Indies, (other than salt, teas, and 
 wines,) half in six, a quarter in nine, and a 
 quarter in twelve months. These credits have 
 not been changed since March, 1799, except 
 that, by the act of April 20, 1818, the credit on 
 West India products was extended from three 
 and six, to five and nine months ; and on arti- 
 cles from the East Indies, South America, &c., 
 from half in six, quarter in nine, and a quarter 
 in twelve months, to one-third in eight, one- 
 third in ten, and one-third in eighteen months. 
 
 These credits are given on bonds, with one or 
 more sureties, to the satisfaction of the collec- 
 tor, in double the amount of duties ; or, in lieu 
 of the sureties, the collector may accept a de- 
 posit of so much of the goods as shall, in his 
 opinion, be a sufficient security for the amount 
 of the duties, (not the whole goods, as is re- 
 quired by the bill now under consideration,) 
 which deposit is to be held till the bonds be- 
 come due, at which time, if the bonds are not 
 previously paid, the goods are to be sold, and 
 the surplus, after paying the bonds and charges, 
 to be paid over to the importer of the goods. 
 This is the substance of our present system of 
 credits, which to this time has been found as 
 satisfactory and sufficient as it is simple. 
 
 The system proposed by the bill under con- 
 sideration, if I understand it, is this : On the 
 arrival of goods liable to the payment of duty, 
 the importer may elect whether to enter them 
 for exportation or for consumption ; if he 
 enters them for exportation, he is to give bond, 
 with sufficient sureties, to the whole amount 
 of the goods, that they shall be exported, and 
 not relanded in the United States. It is, how- 
 ever, provided that tle importer may, subse- 
 quently, re-enter his goods for consumption ; 
 but this indulgence is extended only to three 
 months from the date of importation, and on 
 condition that the duties are all paid before the 
 expiration of that time. If the goods are, at 
 the time of importation, entered for consump- 
 tion, and are such as named, as excepted, in 
 the first section of the bill, they are to be en- 
 
 titled to a credit on one-half the amount for 
 three months, and on the other half for six 
 months, except teas, on which the credit is to 
 be three, six, and nine months ; one-third cash. 
 On all other goods, of every description, the 
 duty is to be paid in cash ; or, in default of 
 such payment, the goods (not merely enough 
 to secure the payment of the duty, as under the 
 present system, but the whole goods) are to be 
 deposited in stores selected by the collector, and 
 retained in his custody for six months, when, 
 if the duty is not previously paid, so much of 
 the goods are to be sold as will pay the duty 
 and charges. Now, sir, if the Government had 
 large and convenient warehouses established in 
 all our seaports, as is the case in most parts of 
 Europe, to which access could readily be had 
 during the usual hours of business, this might 
 not be considered so great an inconvenience; 
 but this is not the case and, should importers 
 generally store their goods instead of paying 
 the duties, almost every store in our commer- 
 cial towns would be converted into a govern- 
 ment store, and unless the Government should 
 forthwith appoint a host of storekeepers, it will 
 be found extremely difficult, if not impracti- 
 cable, to get along with this part of this new 
 system. It will at least be found so inconve- 
 nient and perplexing that few, if any, who can 
 pay the duties on importation, will submit to 
 it. I must, therefore, consider the duties on 
 all the non- excepted articles as liable to cash 
 payment. 
 
 The revenue from the customs, in 1818, (the 
 last year for which returns have been made,) 
 was $21,828,461 ; of which $5,410,320 accrued 
 on articles which are to be entitled to a credit, 
 according to the provisions of this bill ; and 
 $16,631,852 were derived from articles which 
 are to be liable to cash payment of duties. So 
 that less than one-fourth part of the amount of 
 duties are to have the benefit of a credit of three 
 and six months, and more than three-quarters 
 of the duties are to be paid in cash. 
 
 Sir, the merchants of the United States are 
 at this time, and at all times, under bonds to 
 the Government for the payment of about 
 twenty millions of dollars within a year. 
 Should this bill pass, and not lessen the amount 
 of duties that would otherwise accrue, it will 
 require from the merchants a further payment 
 of ten or fifteen millions more, making thirty 
 to thirty-five millions within a year from the 
 time this bill takes effect. 
 
 Now, can the commercial interest bear an 
 additional assessment of- fifty to seventy-five 
 per cent., at a time when they find it all but 
 impossible to comply with their present engage- 
 ments ? And if such requisition could be com- 
 plied with, would any interest of the country, 
 either public or private, be benefited by with- 
 drawing from circulation such an additional 
 sum, when a considerable portion of it, at least, 
 would lie dormant in the Treasury, or in the 
 bank, for the greater part of a year ? It would, 
 to be sure, give us an overflowing Treasury for
 
 624 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 Revision of the Tariff. 
 
 [APRIL, 1820. 
 
 the first year, but a very impoverished one for 
 several succeeding years. 
 
 I have heard it said, on this floor, that credits 
 for duties are not allowed by any of the com- 
 mercial nations of Europe. This, if apparently, 
 is not really, the case. Entrepots, or public 
 warehouses, are established, I believe, by every 
 commercial nation in Europe ; certainly by 
 most of them, and most goods may remain in 
 entrepot until they are sold for consumption, 
 before the payment of duties is required ; even 
 goods prohibited for consumption may remain 
 in depot until some foreign market offers a de- 
 mand for them. 
 
 The English, French, and Dutch, may be 
 considered the principal commercial nations of 
 Europe. 
 
 In England, I believe, all goods may remain 
 some months, and most of them may remain 
 from two to five years, in the public ware- 
 houses, without bond, except such as are liable 
 to excise, which must be bonded when put into 
 the warehouses, and on prohibited goods, bonds 
 must be given to export them ; the payment of 
 duties may be delayed until the goods are taken 
 out of the warehouses for consumption. In 
 France, goods may remain in entrepot twelve 
 months, with the privilege of further time, by 
 special permission ; on taking them out for con- 
 sumption, the duties must be paid, either in 
 cash or by bond with sureties at four months ; 
 but goods are generally sold, in France, in en- 
 trepot, and the duty paid by the purchaser, as 
 he takes them out for consumption. 
 
 In Holland, goods may remain twelve months 
 in entrepot, on bond, after which prohibited 
 goods must be exported, but other goods must 
 remain longer by permission of the board of 
 licenses. 
 
 In Spain, the payment of duties is required 
 when goods are taken from the custom-house, 
 but I don't know how long they are permitted 
 to remain there. 
 
 In the ports of Italy, all goods are sold in 
 entrepot ; the duties are paid by the purchaser 
 when taken out for consumption. 
 
 In Denmark, the duties are not paid until the 
 goods are sold to the consumer. 
 
 It will therefore be seen, that, although the 
 European systems differ from ours, yet, that 
 those systems afford, really, even longer credits 
 than are allowed by our Government ; with 
 this difference, however, that there, in most 
 cases, the goods themselves afford the security 
 for the payment of the duties, and if the goods, 
 by any casualty, are lost to the owner, the 
 duty is lost to the Government. "With us, in- 
 stead of holding the goods, bonds with sureties 
 are taken, and, although goods are lost by any 
 casualty whatever, (which not unfrequently 
 happens,) yet the duties are paid to the Govern- 
 ment. And I am confident that, to this time, 
 the Government have been great gainers by 
 the adoption of our own system in preference 
 to any of the European ones. Under our pres- 
 ent system the merchants know when their 
 
 payments to Government become due, and pre- 
 pare to make them ; but, under the system con- 
 templated by this bill, they cannot be so prepar- 
 ed ; their ships may arrive two or three months 
 earlier than expected, at a moment when they 
 have just used so much of their means and so 
 much of their credit, upon some new adven- 
 ture, as to be unable to raise twenty, thirty, or 
 one hundred thousand dollars at short notice; 
 but if their ships should not arrive so soon, by 
 two or three months, as may be expected, the 
 funds which they may have provided for the 
 payment of duties will, in such case, remain un- 
 productive. A large portion of our imports are 
 made in the spring months of March and April, 
 consequently the cash payments required at 
 this time will be so large as to cause a pressure 
 in the money market, at that time, and, as the 
 banks will be apprised of this, they will rather 
 lessen than increase their accommodations, at 
 a time when they will be most wanted. There 
 is already much complaint of the scarcity of 
 money ; the passage of this bill will not lessen 
 this complaint. 
 
 This bill discourages importations generally ; 
 this policy is the reverse of every thing seen in 
 Europe. It is the policy of other nations to 
 encourage, the importation of almost every 
 article, even if prohibited for consumption; 
 this is done, not solely with a view to benefit 
 the revenue, and to keep down prices, but also 
 for the further purpose of sustaining the carry- 
 ing trade ; and we ought to do the same, at 
 least as far as respects articles with which we 
 cannot supply ourselves. 
 
 It has also been said on this floor that the 
 credits now given operate as a loan to the mer- 
 chants. It will not be denied but this may be 
 the case in some instances, but equally true 
 that in many, and I believe I may say in most 
 cases, the duty is paid to the Government before 
 it is received from the consumer ; and I think it 
 may be said, without fear of contradiction, that, 
 on an average, the duties are paid before they 
 are realized from the sales of goods. So far as 
 my own experience has enabled me to judge, 
 this has certainly been the case. I have some 
 goods now on hand, the duties on which have 
 been paid more than three years. If merchants 
 are compelled to pay the duties before they 
 can realize them from the proceeds of the goods, 
 it must be seen that the effect will be to lessen 
 their business, and, consequently, to lessen the 
 revenue. 
 
 It has also been said, that great losses must 
 have been sustained by the Government, in 
 consequence of these credits on revenue bonds. 
 Have you ever heard any such complaints, even 
 from the Treasury Department or elsewhere? 
 No, sir, we have not heard any such complaint, 
 because no such losses have happened. The 
 revenue which has accrued from the customs, 
 from the 4th of March, 1799, (the commence- 
 ment of the present revenue system,) to the end 
 of the year 1819, is $351,329,799, upon which 
 there has been a loss of $1,037,355, and a fur-
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 625 
 
 APRIL, 1820.] 
 
 Revision of the Tariff. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 ther sum of $540,969 which may be lost, in 
 whole or in part ; but, supposing the whole to 
 be lost, the amount of losses will be $1,578,824 
 a little short of 45-100ths of one per cent. 
 In the district in which I live, although the 
 trade from that district is such as is entitled to 
 the longest credits given by our laws, the losses 
 have, I believe, been less than l-100th part of 
 a per cent. ; and in the district of Boston, in 
 which immense sums have been bonded, the 
 losses have not, I think, exceeded 1-1 Oth of a 
 per cent. The official report from the Treas- 
 ury Department shows that the whole losses 
 throughout the United States have been less 
 than half a per cent. Now, I ask, if another 
 instance can probably be found in the world of 
 a Government, or even an individual, having 
 sustained so small a loss upon its, or upon his 
 credits, or upon any class of credits, for a space 
 of thirty years, in the course of which, it should 
 also be noticed, that a foreign war, embargoes, 
 and other restrictive measure have taken place, 
 which have essentially affected the interest of 
 those people who have had these payments to 
 make ? There is, I think, no hazard, in say- 
 ing, that in no country on. earth has the reve- 
 nue from customs been so promptly paid as in 
 this. 
 
 If the object of this biU is to aid the manu- 
 facturing interest, I must say that, in my hum- 
 ble opinion, that aid ought to be sought in 
 some other way than by coercing people to aban- 
 don commerce (by making it more profitable 
 to them) for the purpose of inducing them to 
 devote a portion of their capital to manufac- 
 turing purposes ; and really it is only in this 
 way that I can perceive any benefit will be af- 
 forded to the manufacturing interest by this 
 bill. It will not have much if any effect upon 
 the importation of European manufactures, be- 
 cause, if the greater part of those importations 
 are made by the agents of foreign establish- 
 ments, as we have been repeatedly assured is 
 the case, those agents, on the arrival of their 
 goods, have only to sell a bill of exchange on 
 their principal in Europe for as much money 
 as is needed to pay their duties ; and these bills 
 of exchange are always a cash article in the 
 market. This description of importations will 
 therefore be less affected by the provisions of 
 this bill than any other. 
 
 If I know myself, I am a friend to manufac- 
 turing establishments, and am disposed to afford 
 to that interest every aid and encouragement 
 that can be given, consistently with due re- 
 gard to the other great interests of the country. 
 The other day, I gave my vote freely and satis- 
 factorily in favor of clothing the army with our 
 own manufactures, without restriction as to 
 price ; but, at a time of general depression, I 
 cannot consent to build up any one interest of 
 the country upon the ruins of another. 
 
 If higher duties are necessary for the protec- 
 tion of our domestic manufactures, I have no 
 objection to a reasonable increase of such du- 
 ties, but I have always considered the imposi- 
 VOL. VI. 40 
 
 tion of duties upon a minimum price, to be an 
 incorrect way of assessing them ; it is a mode 
 which has not, I believe, ever been adopted by 
 any other nation. I was therefore induced the 
 other day to move that the proviso, in the con- 
 templated tariff, relative to coarse cotton goods, 
 be stricken out ; not, however, with a view of 
 lessening the duty on such goods, but for the 
 purpose, as I then stated, of changing the man- 
 ner of assessing that duty from a nominal to an 
 actual percentage ; and whether this had been 
 fixed at 50 or 150 per cent., I should not have 
 objected to it. 
 
 Sir, we are now called upon to decide whether 
 we will, at this moment of general depression 
 and distress, abandon a system which has been 
 in successful operation for more than thirty 
 years ; a system which has been productive of 
 immense wealth to the nation, and been uni- 
 versally acquiesced in until this time, and adopt 
 a new one of untried operation and effect ; one 
 which imposes such conditions as are not im- 
 posed by any other commercial nation, and 
 such as ought not to be imposed by this, unless 
 we are disposed to aid the nations of Europe to 
 build up their commerce and navigation upon 
 the downfall of our own. 
 
 The passage of this bill will make the foreign 
 trade of the country a monopoly in the hands 
 of the capitalists and foreign agents, will injure 
 if not ruin all the young and enterprising mer- 
 chants of moderate property, will enhance the 
 price of foreign articles to the consumer, not 
 only by lessening the importations, but by 
 placing them in the hands of capitalists who 
 can and who will hold them for high prices, 
 will have a tendency to lessen the price of our 
 own products by lessening the number of pur- 
 chasers for exportation, will lessen the revenue 
 at least for several years to come ; arid what is 
 worse than this, it would be productive of 
 smuggling and other fraudulent practices, the 
 temptations to which ought to be more cau- 
 tiously avoided in this country than in any 
 other, because our extensive sea-coast and in- 
 numerable rivers, bays, and creeks, afford 
 greater facilities for these practices than are 
 found in any other country. 
 
 Engaged as I am in commercial pursuits, it 
 may, and probably will, be supposed that I am 
 induced by motives of self-interest to oppose 
 the passage of this bill ; for the purpose, there- 
 fore, of preventing the effect of such a suppo- 
 sition, I assure the committee that, as an indi- 
 vidual, I feel rather indifferent than hostile to 
 the provisions of the bill. My own private in- 
 terest would, I think, be rather benefited than 
 injured by the passage of it; but knowing as I 
 tli ink I do that it will be productive of much 
 public as well as private i^jnry, and that the 
 present state of commerce will not bear it, I 
 feel it to be my duty to oppose it. 
 
 Mr. LOWNDES also assigned the reasons why 
 he also was opposed to the bill, and particularly 
 to the provisions which contemplate restrictions 
 on the East India trade.
 
 626 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 Revision of the Tariff. 
 
 [APRIL, 1820. 
 
 Mr. CLAY spoke in reply to Mr. SILSBEK and 
 Mr. LOWNDES, and urged the adoption of the 
 provisions of this bill. 
 
 Mr. LOWNDES again spoke ; and Mr. CLAY 
 rejoined. 
 
 Mr. BALDWIN" was speaking earnestly in sup- 
 port of the bill ; when an alarm of fire, in the 
 city, induced the committee to rise, (at four 
 o'clock,) and the House adjourned. 
 
 TUESDAY, April 25. 
 Revision of the Tariff. 
 
 The House then again resolved itself into a 
 Committee of the Whole, on the bills concern- 
 ing the duties on imports and the mode of their 
 collection. 
 
 The bill now under consideration, is the bill 
 regulating the payment of duties on merchan- 
 dise imported, and for other purposes. 
 
 The question immediately before the House 
 being on Mr. SILSBBE'S motion to strike out the 
 first section of the bill, 
 
 Mr. BALDWIN resumed and concluded the 
 speech which he yesterday began, in support of 
 the principles of the bill. 
 
 Mr. JOHNSON, of Virginia, followed in decided 
 opposition to the bill. 
 
 Mr. WHITMAN, of Massachusetts, spoke at 
 large against the bill. 
 
 WEDNESDAY, April 26. 
 Revision of the Tariff. 
 The House then again resumed the consid- 
 eration of the bill regulating the mode of col- 
 lecting the duties on imports, &c. Mr. SILS- 
 BEE'S motion to strike out the first section of 
 
 Mr. ALEXANDER said, he hoped he should 
 claim the indulgence of the committee for a 
 short time, while he expressed the reasons that 
 would influence his mind in the decision of the 
 subject then before it. He was aware of the 
 disadvantages under which he labored, and 
 trusted that he might be pardoned in assuming 
 to himself any part of the discussion on so im- 
 portant a question. His apology, however, 
 in throwing himself upon the patience of the 
 committee would be found in the very brief 
 remarks that he should submit to its consid- 
 eration. 
 
 I cannot permit myself, said Mr. A., to re- 
 main satisfied that the present is merely " a 
 bill to regulate the duties on imports," which 
 would have justified my silence on the occasion, 
 but that it is something more, as clearly ap- 
 pears from the latter part of its title, and it 
 would more properly be entitled, " a bill for 
 the encouragement of domestic manufactures," 
 the avowed object of its advocates. Nor can I 
 persuade ^myself, continued he, notwithstand- 
 ing the ingenious and imposing manner in 
 which the subject has been placed by the hon- 
 orable gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. 
 BALDWIN,) who opened the debate, that the 
 
 other great interests of the country have been 
 associated and identified with it in principle, 
 while all due regard has likewise been paid to 
 the revenue of the Government, no less impor- 
 tant. Here we find ourselves unfortunately at 
 issue, and it becomes us calmly to deliberate 
 and weigh well the effects, before we yield our 
 assent to the truth of a position, which, to say 
 the least of it, is extremely problematical. The 
 gentleman who was first in the debate, (Mr. 
 B.,) has openly denounced the present system 
 of revenue, (derivable, by much the greatest 
 part, from duties,) as unsound and inadequate 
 for the purposes of Government ; and he de- 
 clares his readiness to adopt a more permanent 
 one, operating directly as a tax upon the people. 
 In this opinion, he fortifies himself under the 
 Message of the President upon the opening of 
 the session of Congress, and the report of the 
 Secretary of the Treasury on the state of the 
 finances. So far as these can add strength to 
 his argument, (and no one, I am persuaded, is 
 more disposed to give weight to their charac- 
 ter than myself,) he is fully entitled to their 
 benefit. But, if a negative can anywise grow 
 out of an affirmative expression, I think it may 
 be fairly inferred in both cases. 
 
 It will be perceived, said Mr. A., that I as- 
 sume, as the basis of my argument, that the 
 branch of industry which is capable of support- 
 ing the greatest quantity of capital, is most ad- 
 vantageous to the community, and consequently 
 to the nation, and should remain unfettered, 
 unrestrained, in exclusion of the claim of any 
 other towards encouragement; or, in other 
 words, that nations, like individuals, might be 
 permitted to pursue their own interests in their 
 own way. Leaving the channel of trade per- 
 fectly free and natural, there can remain but 
 little doubt that, like the fluid which gives 
 health to the system, it will seek its proper 
 level, and contribute to the mutual benefit of 
 each branch ; and wherever the wealth of in- 
 dividuals has been promoted, that of the society 
 will be augmented in an equal degree. But 
 depress it by force of causes, and it immediately 
 becomes like the stagnation of blood in the 
 body, and there ia danger of an apoplexy. 
 
 Statesmen, Mr. A. said, were never more 
 uselessly employed than in attempting to direct 
 the avenues of trade, by producing an equal 
 division of labor among them. These depend 
 upon circumstances as variable and undefinable 
 as the causes that operate upon the circulating 
 medium of a country, which, since no human 
 ingenuity, law, or punishment, has ever yet 
 been able to regulate, so neither are they with- 
 JQ. the control of any power, without detriment 
 to the public interest. But it has been said, 
 ihat national pride should induce us to adopt a 
 policy countervailing that of foreign powers, by 
 which we throw off a state of dependency alto- 
 gether in favor of the citizen, to become sub- 
 ected to a greater and more intolerable degree 
 of servitude. 
 
 Sir, said Mr. A., I should be extremely sorry
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 627 
 
 APRIL, 1820.] 
 
 Revision of the Tariff. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 to see our pride so far get the better of our 
 judgments, as to lead to a course ruinous to the 
 best interests of the country ; little else, in fact, 
 I humbly conceive, than an act of political in- 
 fanticide, and for the encouragement of manu- 
 factures, which, like false pride, always places 
 true beauty in the background. That cases 
 may arise where it becomes necessary to resort 
 to retaliatory measures, I shall not pretend to 
 deny, but mean only to say, that this is not one 
 of that character ; and even then they should 
 not be adopted without proper caution and de- 
 liberation, and where there was a probability 
 of removing the evil complained of, because 
 their efforts are felt in a greater or less degree 
 at home. 
 
 Even England herself, whose policy is always 
 made the fatal example of reasoning, (and, un- 
 less we depart somewhat from the track she has 
 marked out, I fear we shall find ourselves at 
 last in the same wretched condition of poverty 
 and distress which she at present exhibits, 
 groaning under a burden of excessive taxation, 
 which is but oppression under the best of gov- 
 ernments,) has not found it to her advantage to 
 exclude entirely foreign articles, many of which 
 she is capable of producing to a high degree of 
 perfection. Although high duties are imposed, 
 both by England and France, upon the respec- 
 tive manufactures of each, dictated, not so much 
 from a spirit o f national aggrandizement as na- 
 tional animosity, goaded on by the clamors and 
 insatiable avarice of monopolizing merchants 
 and manufacturers, yet, trade is stiU carried on 
 between them, under the most odious and de- 
 moralizing of all traffics. And when we call 
 the worst passions of men into action, it is rea- 
 sonable to apprehend like consequences in our 
 Government, whose basis rests on the moral 
 character of its citizens. It may be said that 
 the same effect will not be produced here, be- 
 cause they are not intended to be prohibitory. 
 I shall, however, consider them presently in this 
 point of view, and endeavor to show, unless 
 they are so to a certain degree, no advantage 
 can be derived from the increase, but it must 
 operate entirely as a tax upon the consumption 
 of the country. The wines of France are per- 
 mitted to be imported into England, although 
 it is well known, that certain parts of her king- 
 dom might be made favorable to the growth of 
 the grape ; and with equal propriety, under the 
 idea of encouraging domestic industry, ought 
 you to extend this benefit to the inhabitants of 
 Vevay, or any other portion of our Southern 
 country, whose soil and climate are peculiarly 
 suited to the cultivation of the vine, because 
 you have it in your power to supply the whole 
 United States. China (who treats the com- 
 merce of the rest of the world as beggarly, and 
 where the laborer exalts his situation little less 
 than that of the Mandarin himself, in claiming 
 a portion of the soil as his own) is not shut out 
 from the markets of England with her rich fa- 
 brics, although many of them are successfully 
 promoted within her own dominions. Yet, 
 
 even these people, for the want of a more 
 liberal foreign intercourse, present the most 
 abject state of poverty, ignorance, and bar- 
 barism ; and, in truth, it may be said, that the 
 laborer here is not always "worthy of his 
 hire." 
 
 The policy cannot be otherwise than founded 
 in the best of all possible reasons : that there 
 can be no justice in causing fifty or a hundred 
 times as much capital and labor to be employed 
 at home, in the production of an article, that 
 would be required to purchase the same of 
 foreign manufacture. There are advantages 
 possessed by some countries hi a greater degree 
 than others ; so much so, that it would be dan- 
 gerous to come in competition with them, and 
 folly in the extreme to prosecute a policy, 
 where would be seen failure in the very attempt, 
 and total annihilation in the end. 
 
 This brings me to consider the situation of 
 our country with regard to England in such a 
 contest, where she would occupy entirely the 
 " vantage ground." I take it to be a correct 
 principle for the interest of a nation, to aug- 
 ment as much as possible its rude products, and 
 to exchange them for foreign commodities ; and 
 that which is good economy among private 
 families, can hardly be bad among nations, to 
 buy of others what we cannot make so cheaply 
 ourselves. For, if a Government can increase 
 the quantity of its annual exports, whatever is 
 gained in the way of exchange is so much added 
 to the capital of the society, aqd, of course, to 
 its own wealth ; and it is not correct to say, 
 that, whatever is purchased abroad when it 
 can be made at home, is one man's loss and 
 another's gain ; the difference of price in bring- 
 ing the articles to market forming the differ- 
 ence in value, which may relatively be in favor 
 of each. 
 
 Such is the very purpose for which society 
 was established, and what would be the use of 
 trade among individuals, were they to manu- 
 facture within themselves ah 1 that their wants 
 might require ? The mechanic of one descrip- 
 tion finds it to his advantage to buy of that of 
 another, and thus, by the combined exertions 
 of each, society becomes, as it were, a machine 
 to carry on all the various operations of labor, 
 too great for the power of any one individual 
 to accomplish; and if nations were governed 
 by the same selfish and contracted views, the 
 trade and commerce of the world would soon 
 be at an end, and all the advantages arising from 
 them be entirely destroyed. 
 
 But it is as essential -to the prosperity of a 
 nation to encourage foreign trade, as it is for 
 individuals the industry of each other, by a 
 proper division of labor. Considering the rest 
 of the world as a manufacturing people, it is 
 more important to us that our capital should be 
 employed in the channel through which it at 
 present flows, in the improvement of agricul- 
 ture, than that of any other, Nor do I conceive 
 the argument of my honorable colleague, (Mr. 
 TTLEB,) to prove that we stood, in relation to
 
 628 
 
 ABKIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R] 
 
 Revision of the Tariff". 
 
 [APRIL, 1820. 
 
 the rest of the world, as a granary, which 
 Egypt once was to Europe, and Sicily to Italy, 
 at all shaken by that employed by the honor- 
 able gentleman from New York, (Mr. STORES,) 
 to show that, if it were a granary, it was that 
 sort of granary which permitted all our grain 
 to remain upon our hands. For, let me ask the 
 honorable gentleman, if we were cut off from 
 the extensive market that is now opened for 
 the reception of our produce, and confined to 
 the limits of the United States, would we not 
 be more properly a granary in the sense in 
 which he used it ? England, possessing advan- 
 tages peculiar to herself in this respect, where 
 her population is dense, and wages of labor are 
 comparatively small, finds it to her interest to 
 manufacture for the greater part of the world ; 
 whereas, on the other hand, we, whose popula- 
 tion is sparse, and price of labor is high, find 
 that greater profits are derived from agriculture. 
 Such is the fair and honest course of trade that 
 should exist among nations, that, while one 
 should be manufacturers, the other should be- 
 come the growers of the material ; and thus, 
 the competition of the whole world being 
 brought to a particular market for the rude pro- 
 ducts of the soil, a monopoly to a certain extent 
 is obtained in the one case, while it is diminish- 
 ed in the other. The trade which is carried on 
 in this way, consists in an exchange of the rude 
 for the manufactured article, and the smaller 
 the quantity of one which is required to pur- 
 chase a greater quantity of the other, will be 
 the proportionate value of the two. Whatever 
 tends to diminish the value of the former, by 
 high duties or prohibitions, operates injuriously 
 in two ways : firstly, by enhancing the value of 
 the foreign commodity, the price of the surplus 
 produce of the land is diminished, and a mono- 
 poly is given to the home manufacturer and ar- 
 tificer, at the expense of the landed interest, by 
 diverting a portion of its capital to another 
 employment. And it would be an absurdity 
 to say, the market of the world is open to 
 you, when it must be manifest, unless you 
 export something, you can bring nothing in 
 return. 
 
 This, then, I take to be the case, said Mr. A., 
 which is intended to be produced by the present 
 measure ; and, let me ask if it is just, if it is 
 desirable, that the most valuable branch of in- 
 dustry should suffer, or be made to contribute 
 to the protection of any other, than in the nat- 
 ural way ? For one, I am prepared to say that 
 it is not, generally speaking; and as agriculture 
 was the first among the Greeks and Romans in 
 their best days, who regarded all others as me- 
 nial, from being unfavorable to the exercises of 
 the Gymnasium and Campus Martius, so should 
 it be the last to be forsaken by us. For, if such 
 be not the effect of the system, I take it for 
 granted the expected result will not take place. 
 If the duty be not so high as to diminish the 
 revenue of the country, the enhanced value of 
 the foreign will only give an equal advance to 
 the home manufacture ; and, standing precisely 
 
 in the same relation to each other, the supe- 
 rior quality of the former will give it a pre- 
 ference over the latter, and it can operate 
 only as a tax upon the industry, without a cor- 
 responding benefit. I take the fact to be, said 
 Mr. A., that the manufacturing interests of this 
 country require a greater quantity of capital, in 
 order to carry on their operations, than it is 
 within their power to command. 
 
 It then follows, that all the capital of the na- 
 tion is employed in the most natural and advan- 
 tageous way in which it can be used. The de- 
 ficiency can be supplied in only one of two ways 
 either by diverting a portion of it from one 
 branch of trade to another, or suffering all the 
 sources to remain uninterrupted and free, until 
 they are filled, and then the surplus will turn 
 itself to that employment which brings in the 
 next greatest revenue, and will afford the proper 
 encouragement to industry. I am disposed to 
 adopt the latter expedient, because it is not 
 forced, and no unnatural convulsions are likely 
 to arise out of it to the commercial world, and 
 to avoid the former as altogether in favor of the 
 producer and against the consumer. And I 
 must confess, that I do not understand this way 
 of taxing the right hand to support the left. 
 Let nature have her course, and she will work 
 out her own safety. For, I lay it down as an 
 incontrovertible position, said Mr. A., that the 
 general industry of a society can never exceed 
 the capital which it employs, and increases in 
 proportion to the increase of its capital. When- 
 ever this takes place, it immediately seeks and 
 finds out new and different objects, to which it 
 is directed, and adds to the productive labor of 
 the country. 
 
 If the fixed capital of the existing manufac- 
 tures be sufficient to sustain them, I contend 
 that they require no further support, as they 
 possess superior advantages over any foreign, 
 and much greater than can be expected to be 
 enjoyed by new ones coming in competition 
 with them ; and if it be intended to raise up 
 new manufactures, not by the creation of new, 
 but by the diversion of old capital, it must 
 operate as a tax upon the consumption of the 
 country, amounting to a prohibition of all for- 
 eign productions. 
 
 It is in vain for the friends of the system to 
 say that such is not their design ; when we rea- 
 son from cause to effect, and view the interests, 
 passions, and prejudices, that lead men to ac- 
 tion, we cannot but distrust the consequences, 
 and look to the ultimatum of which it is capa- 
 ble. Suppose, for a moment, that it should 
 succeed, to the admiration of its advocates. 
 Can it be expected to bring the manufactures of 
 our country (which of all other trades requires 
 the most extensive circulation) in competition 
 with those of foreign powers, where labor is 
 cheap, and who are many centuries before us, 
 or is it intended to confine their circulation to 
 the home market ? If the former be the intent, 
 it cannot be executed ; and the latter must 
 equally fail, since, for all valuable purposes, the
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 629 
 
 APRIL, 1820.] 
 
 Revision of the Tariff. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 agricultural part of the community are a manu- 
 facturing class, and want only those richer and 
 finer fabrics, which it is impossible for us, with- 
 in any short time, if ever, to bring to any sort 
 of perfection. And then will the American 
 tar, the honest defender of " free trade and 
 sailors' rights," become, like the Chinese boat- 
 man, without a hovel to breast him from the 
 storms of the ocean, lying upon his oars, in the 
 bed of his own waters. 
 
 Mr. ARCHER, of Virginia, said, that the whole 
 merits of the bill being presented by the motion 
 under consideration, he would offer himself, for 
 a short period, to the notice of the committee. 
 He had no design of abusing the patience he 
 solicited, by going at large into the discussion 
 of the question, which was one of the most ex- 
 tensive in the science of political economy. His 
 purpose was limited to the narrow object of a 
 brief exposition of some of the more considerable 
 of those views of the question, and topics con- 
 nected with it, which appeared to him to be the 
 best entitled to claim attention, or the most 
 calculated to attract it. 
 
 The first objection to the bill related to its 
 apparent ineflicacy in reference to its avowed 
 object. The augmentation of the duties on im- 
 ports which had been made when the subject 
 had been last under the consideration of Con- 
 gress, in 1816, amounted, Mr. A. believed, to an 
 average of about twenty-five per cent. The 
 additional augmentation contemplated by the 
 present bill would amount, he had been informed 
 he had not himself made the estimate to an 
 average of not more than seven or eight per 
 cent Had the former augmentation produced, 
 in any degree, the effect which was now designed 
 of protection to domestic manufactures ? Eo. 
 We were told by the friends of the protecting 
 system that our manufacturing establishments 
 have gone to absolute ruin, under the protection 
 which had been heretofore afforded them. If 
 this representation were correct, could the in- 
 crease of duties now proposed be considered 
 sufficient for the retrieval from ruin, and effi- 
 cient protection of, these establishments? If it 
 could, the imposition which it created must be 
 regarded as unreasonably high and oppressive, 
 in relation to all classes of the community other 
 than that which was intended to be protected. 
 But if this increase could not be considered 
 adequate to the effect which had been stated, 
 then the imposition was nugatory to its alleged 
 object. Take it either way and this imposition 
 would either be excessive, or else inadequate. 
 In either character it was equally indefensible. 
 Mr. A. was aware that an object larger than the 
 alleged object of the bill, had been imputed to the 
 framers and supporters of it. It had, he knew, 
 been supposed, that their design extended to 
 the inception of a system, which was to be ren- 
 dered gradually progressive to positive prohibi- 
 tion on the admission of foreign manufactured 
 articles, or to a rate of duties so high as to be 
 tantamount to prohibition in its effects. It was 
 alleged, in evidence of the entertainment and 
 
 possible success of such a design, that the same 
 topics of argument derived from the supposed 
 advantage ahd propriety of the protective 
 policy, which were employed in recommenda- 
 tion of the augmentation of duties now proposed, 
 would be of equal, and greater, efficacy in the re- 
 commendation of further augmentations which 
 might hereafter be demanded, from the force of 
 the obvious connected consideration (which 
 would not fail to be relied on) of the necessity of 
 these further impositions to prevent the cost and 
 effect of the former from being thrown away. 
 Mr. A. was himself far from imputing any such 
 view as had been stated ; nor, if such a system 
 of policy ever should be proposed, could he 
 have any fear of its success, founded, as he 
 conceived it to be, in an obvious principle of in- 
 justice and inequality, as respected its operation 
 on the different interests of the community, and 
 condemned, as it unquestionably was, by a uni- 
 form experience of fruits of mischief and suffer- 
 ing in every country in which an experiment 
 had been made of it. "Without connecting the 
 bill under consideration with any odious policy 
 of this sort, it stood sufficiently divested of title 
 to support, by reference to the demerit of its 
 real objects and proper operations. 
 
 While upon this topic, the objects of the bill, 
 frankness required Mr. A. to state, that he did 
 not consider it as directed to the attainment of 
 any object of public policy at all. He considered 
 it as one of the instances of that practice of ap- 
 peal to public authority for the relief of private 
 distress, the remarkable prevalence of which 
 was the unhappy characteristic of the period in 
 which we were called upon to deliberate. A 
 general depression and distress affected all 
 classes of the community, the result, as was 
 conceived, of commercial over-action, and the 
 operation of that system of paper currency, of 
 which some species of necromancy must have 
 dragged us into the adoption. 
 
 The manufacturing class was supposed to par- 
 take, in a peculiar degree, of this distress, and 
 the present bill was a project for the relief of 
 their private adversity, through the medium of 
 a legislative intervention. Mr. A. considered 
 himself justified in regarding the subject in this 
 view, both from the inadequacy of the bill to 
 any purpose of public policy, (which had already 
 been adverted to,) and the nature of the repre- 
 sentations employed in its support. What were 
 these representations ? Did they relate to any 
 inherent disadvantage, or incapacity, affecting 
 domestic fabrics, in maintaining competition 
 with the imported for the domestic market? 
 Not at all. The depression affecting domestic 
 manufacturing establishments, which was made 
 the foundation of the demand for relief, was re- 
 ferred to causes accidental entirely in their ac- 
 cess, or temporary in their operation. Excessive 
 importations of foreign manufactured articles, 
 the unusual reduction of their price, and of that 
 of the labor employed in preparing them ; the 
 undue extension of domestic business, dispro- 
 portionate investments of capital in a fixed
 
 630 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OP R.] 
 
 Revision of the Tariff. 
 
 [APRIL, 1820. 
 
 form, (buildings, machinery, &c.,) the effects 
 of a general restoration of peace, and the 
 operation of the paper system on markets 
 and industry : these were the causes assigned 
 as the sources of manufacturing distress, and the 
 grounds of legislative interposition for its 
 remedy. But did these grounds disclose any 
 object of general permanent policy, requiring 
 the adoption of the measure which was pressed 
 for adoption ? Mr. A. could not perceive that 
 they did. He considered the present bill as 
 belonging to the same class of character with 
 the bankrupt bill. The distinction, indeed, was 
 to the disadvantage of the present bill, in the 
 comparison. A bankrupt act operated only on 
 a particular injustice. The sacrifice of interest 
 which it involved affected only a peculiar class, 
 (the creditors of bankrupts.) It might be con- 
 sidered, too, as a contingent, and was not a con- 
 tinuing sacrifice. Bnt the imposition which the 
 present bill, if it passed, would create, would not 
 only be a general burden on the community, for 
 the benefit of a peculiar class of it, but would 
 be a certain, and was designed to be a per- 
 manent, imposition. 
 
 The impairment of manufacturing capital, fur- 
 nished no sufficient reason for the adoption of 
 the bill. The preservation of manufacturing, 
 could not be more important than of commercial 
 capital. The fund which supplied consumption 
 could not be considered of greater consequence 
 than that which afforded the means of disposal 
 for production. No person, however, would 
 think of a measure of the character of that now 
 proposed for the relief of commercial distress. 
 If the commercial capital of the country were 
 entirely annihilated, no factitious incitement or 
 aid to the operation of capital, in this direction, 
 would be thought of. And why? Because 
 occasions for the employment of capital were 
 known always to attract capital, or create it, in 
 pretty nearly the exact proportion of the exi- 
 gency of these occasions. An occasion so essen- 
 tial as the disposal of the productions of a 
 country which were elsewhere in demand, could 
 not fail of finding means for its discharge. Even 
 could a state of circumstances be imagined, in 
 which there was no subsisting accumulation of 
 capital, and no description of public currency, 
 yet credit, or an artificial substitute of some 
 kind, would be found to supply their place, in 
 ministering to the operations of commerce. The 
 remark was no less inevitably true in relation 
 to the occasions of a country for manufactures. 
 No fear was to be entertained of any serious or 
 lasting defect of the essential facilities for their 
 supply. The capital for this purpose might not 
 indeed be derived from domestic sources ; but 
 this circumstance did not present a considera- 
 tion with which the community were in any 
 material degree concerned. It was the cer- 
 tainty, not the source of supply, which formed 
 the principal subject of their interest, and was 
 entitled to claim the chief exercise of their 
 solicitude. 
 
 We had come to realize, in our public con- 
 
 duct, the justice of an expression used in refer- 
 ence to another and more important subject of 
 human interest. We confessed truth with our 
 lips, but in practice we denied it. There was 
 scarce any person, perhaps, who did not admit 
 the abstract proposition, that capital, in the 
 pursuit of the modes of employment most pro- 
 ductive of profit to its proprietors, fell, un- 
 assisted, unto those which were calculated to 
 produce the most beneficial results to the com- 
 munity. This was one of the principles the 
 least liable to controversy or qualification, 
 which were presented by the theory of a just 
 political economy. Yet, it was in the direct 
 contravention and overthrow of this indisput- 
 able principle, that the foundations of the policy, 
 which was at present recommended to us, were 
 laid. 
 
 The reason, too, which explained this prin- 
 ciple, it was material to understand, both on 
 account of its own illustration, and the impor- 
 tance of the deductions to which it led in the 
 discussion. The reason was to be found 
 in the tendency of capital, uninfluenced by 
 public authority, to be determined, as respected 
 the modes of its employment, by demand, 
 which furnished the standard at the same 
 time of the utility of its employment. The 
 expenditure of capital was directed by obvious 
 considerations (relative to the interest of its 
 proprietors) to subjects of the greatest and most 
 general request; and these were the subjects 
 and the employments of labor and capital which 
 procured them the employments which had, in 
 a general view, the strongest presumptions of 
 utility in their favor. Demand was the index 
 of the beneficial, as it was of the unbiassed, 
 direction of capital. 
 
 The inference from this proposition was of 
 singular importance. It was, that no direction 
 of capital, relatively useful, could require adven- 
 titious encouragement. Why? Because this 
 character of utility was the infallible source of 
 adequate demand for the productions of capital 
 employed in this direction, and adequate de- 
 mand for the productions of any employment, 
 dispensed from the necessity of its adventitious 
 encouragement. The converse of the last pro- 
 position was equally true, that no employment, 
 requiring factitious encouragement, could be 
 relatively useful. Why? Because this occa- 
 sion for encouragement'demonstrated a defect of 
 adequate demand for its productions, and the de- 
 fect of adequate demand for its productions was 
 evidence of its want of relative utility. The force 
 of these conclusions, in their application to do- 
 mestic manufacturing establishments, was in no 
 degree obviated by the suggestion, that the ex- 
 istence of adequate demand for their produc- 
 tions was prevented by the interchange of 
 foreign competition; because this suggestion 
 only proved that, although in a different condi- 
 tion of circumstances, in which a deficiency in 
 the supply of foreign manufactured articles was 
 experienced, the establishments in question 
 would be useful; yet, under existing circum-
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 631 
 
 APRIL, 1820.] 
 
 Revision of the Tariff. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 stances, in which no such deficiency was ex- 
 perienced, they could assert no pretension to 
 this character of utility. 
 
 The proposition which had heen stated, of 
 the voluntary tendency of capital in a course 
 of unbiassed distribution, to conform to the or- 
 der of employment which public utility would 
 prescribe, was, in its general acceptation, per- 
 haps the most familiar trash in the science of 
 political economy. We are told, in every book 
 of elements on the subject, that the natural and 
 most, advantageous course of the distribution of 
 capital was, in a progressive succession, from 
 agriculture to internal trade, and thence to a 
 foreign trade of exportation ; to manufactures, 
 or to'indirect foreign trade, as peculiar circum- 
 stances might determine. Could any adequate 
 reason be assigned for the contravention, with 
 a view to the peculiar encouragement of manu- 
 factures, of the general laws of the distribution 
 of capital ? The ground of such a proceeding 
 was to be found, not in sound policy, but pre- 
 possession. 
 
 It was an evident proposition, that an em- 
 ployment which required factitious encourage- 
 ment, must, in a pecuniary view, be a losing 
 one. If, therefore, encouragement was due to 
 domestic manufactures, it could not be in an 
 economical view, but from their supposed sub- 
 serviency to some collateral object, regarded as 
 important as national independence, for ex- 
 ample. The question, in this aspect, would 
 present itself for examination in a succeeding 
 part of the discussion. 
 
 The freedom which had been used, in speak- 
 ing of the reasonings in opposition to the bill, 
 authorized Mr. A. in indulging the frankness of 
 saying, that the argument employed in its sup- 
 port appeared to him to be founded in a series 
 of fallacies. It was irrelevant, as respected sev- 
 eral of the principal propositions sought to be 
 established. It was misconceived, as respected 
 the time and circumstances to which it was ap- 
 plied. It was erroneous, as respected the top- 
 ics of reasoning it employed. A person would 
 be led to suppose, from the course of observa- 
 tion adopted on the other side, that the ques- 
 tion related to the importance and necessity of 
 adequate supplies of manufactured articles, or to 
 the abstract advantage attending the possession 
 of domestic establishments for the attainment 
 of these supplies. But these were propositions 
 not liable to controversy. The question related 
 not to the necessity or value of supplies of man- 
 ufactured articles, but to the relative advan- 
 tages of different methods of procuring them 
 to the choice to be exerted between obtaining 
 them at a cheaper rate from foreign, or at a 
 higher price from domestic sources. Neither 
 did the controversy refer to any abstract su- 
 periority of domestic over foreign sources of 
 supply, but to the mode and time of their es- 
 tablishment to the choice between an artificial 
 introduction of domestic establishments at an 
 earlier period, attended with the charge of a 
 burdensome system of protective duties for 
 
 their support, and a natural spontaneous growth 
 of these establishments, at a more advanced 
 period, unattended with any system of regula- 
 tion, or charge for their encouragement. 
 
 But there was no part of the argument em- 
 ployed in recommendation of the proposed sys- 
 tem, which appeared so egregiously exposed to 
 criticism, as that in which the favorable char- 
 acter of the present period for its introduction 
 was asserted. The condition of general distress 
 which characterized the existing period was ad- 
 mitted, and yet it was conceived to present a 
 favorable occasion for the experiments of a pol- 
 icy involving an addition to the ordinary and 
 necessary sources of expense, by which all 
 classes of the community would" be affected. 
 The peculiar characteristic of the distress com- 
 plained of, related to the depression in the price 
 of whatever there was to sell. One strong cir- 
 cumstance of relief, however, had been found, 
 in the corresponding depression in the price of 
 the most material articles we had to buy. In 
 such a condition of things, what was the policy 
 recommended? An operation, by which the 
 only circumstance of relief which the situation 
 of the country presented, was to be cut off by 
 which the prices of all the most essential ar- 
 ticles of purchase would be enhanced, whilst 
 those of our vendible commodities (to state the 
 case in the most favorable view) were to remain 
 unaltered. Beneath the picture of a policy of 
 this sort, it could not be necessary to write the 
 name. Mr. A. had been describing the opera- 
 tion of the bill, as tending to a mere purpose of 
 private relief. But this description did not ex- 
 press the full character of its demerit. It was 
 a bill against public relief. 
 
 The principal advantages anticipated from the 
 success of the proposed system were referable 
 to two general heads, the establishment of do- 
 mestic sources of supply of manufactured ar- 
 ticles, and the establishment or extension of a 
 domestic market for the surplus of agricultural 
 productions. The first of these advantages was, 
 in the peculiar circumstances of our situation, 
 rather nominal than real ; or, in the most favor- 
 able statement of the case, far less important 
 than had been represented. The point in which 
 the public were interested in this respect, re- 
 lated principally to the character, not the 
 source, of the supply of manufactured articles. 
 Their interest required that this supply should 
 be good, cheap, abundant, regular. But the 
 supply from domestic would not be of better 
 quality than from foreign sources. It would not 
 be of cheaper, but on the contrary, of dearer price, 
 by the amount of the difference which would 
 be created by the proposed increase of duties. 
 It would not be more abundant or regular. 
 In both these respects the supply from foreign 
 sources, except in the contingency of a disturb- 
 ed state of the foreign relations of the country, 
 could be the subject of no complaint. The only 
 real advantage, then, attending the possession 
 of domestic establishments for the supply of 
 manufactured articles, related to periods of war,
 
 632 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 a OF 
 
 Revision of the Tariff. 
 
 [APRIL, 1820. 
 
 which might be expected very rarely to occur. 
 By the policy recommended, we were to be sub- 
 jected to a constant, permanent monopoly-price 
 of the most essential articles of consumption, 
 for the purpose of being guarded against a price 
 somewhat higher, in a contingent, remote, un- 
 frequent event. A considerable enhancement 
 of price was, in this respect, the sum of the evil 
 which could be involved in the event of war ; 
 for the supply of no essential article was liable, 
 in such a contingency, to be absolutely cut off. 
 Nor was the evil consequence to be apprehend- 
 ed from war, liable to be incurred in any other 
 than the single instance of a war with Great 
 Britain. The concurring interests of the sup- 
 plying countries, and the superiority of our 
 public and commercial marine, would be a safe- 
 guard against the material obstruction of sup- 
 ply, from the effect of war with any other 
 power. The feeling of resentment prevailing 
 against Great Britain, the result of the perse- 
 vering and malignant character of her hostility, 
 was strong and general in this country, but this 
 feeling was not, it was to be hoped, of a nature 
 to be susceptible of misdirection, to an unrequit- 
 ed and essential sacrifice of public interests. 
 The abundance of the materials of manufacture, 
 and the facility of conversion to a manufactured 
 form, which the most important of them ad- 
 mitted, would preclude, even in a war with 
 Great Britain, injury from the obstruction or 
 enhanced price of supply, in any degree com- 
 mensurate with the cost of the means, which 
 were recommended as security against the 
 chances of it. More injury, in disturbing the 
 regularity of supply, was to be apprehended 
 from the effect of the proposed policy, in im- 
 pairing the regularity of our demand for that 
 supply. 
 
 Arguments were rendered palpable by ex- 
 ample. There were few articles of more essen- 
 tial necessity than salt. From this character- 
 istic of it, and our habit of reliance on external 
 sources for supply, there was, perhaps, no ar- 
 ticle liable, in a higher degree, to enhancement 
 in price in time of war. But salt was suscepti- 
 ble of supply from domestic sources, to an in- 
 definite amount. Would any man be found to 
 recommend the protection of domestic establish- 
 ments for the preparation of salt, by such a sys- 
 tem of duties as would insure their operation in 
 time of peace ? Yet the supply of no article 
 was more important. "Why should the policy 
 surrendered in relation to this article, be proper 
 in relation to others ? If the material, in the 
 instance of any other article, were of indigenous 
 growth, the same reliance might be had on the 
 resource of domestic fabrication in time of war, 
 with which we were content in case of salt. 
 Or, if the material were not indigenous, then 
 the supply of it would not be less liable to ob- 
 struction, in a season of war, than that of the 
 wrought article. In either event, the resort to 
 high protective duties for the encouragement or 
 preservation of the domestic manufacture, ap- 
 peared to be equally unadvisable. The argu- 
 
 ment derived from the different preparations of 
 machinery or skill, required in different depart- 
 ments of manufacture, was not of sufficient force 
 to obviate or impair the correctness of the con- 
 clusion. 
 
 The principal reliance, however, of the argu- 
 ment in favor of the protective system, rested 
 on its tendency to the formation of a domes- 
 tic market for agricultural productions. The 
 ?reat and enlarging amount of our agricultural 
 labor and productions, might be expected in the 
 lapse of a short period. It was said, to ren- 
 der these productions redundant, in relation to 
 their present markets, and an obvious policy, 
 therefore, required the immediate substitution, 
 through the medium of manufacturing establish- 
 ments, of a domestic market ; which, by its pro- 
 gressive extension, might have the effect of 
 obviating, or providing a remedy for, such a 
 condition of affairs. The answer to this repre- 
 sentation was attended with no difficulty. It 
 was, that the remedy sought to be provided, in 
 the mode proposed, would be found available 
 without any occasion for legislative regulation, 
 by the necessary ultimate operation of the va- 
 rious circumstances which were thought to call 
 for this regulation. 
 
 The population of the country being progres- 
 sive with its means of subsistence, would con- 
 tinue to observe the proportion which it now 
 did, to production. Production, therefore, could 
 be expected to exhibit, relatively to domestic 
 demand, no greater redundancy than it did at 
 present. The redundancy anticipated, must re- 
 fer to foreign demand entirely. 
 
 But the labor and capital which it would be 
 the effect of this supposed redundant state of 
 agricultural productions to disenage from agri- 
 cultural employment, must find some other 
 mode of occupation. They could not remain 
 unemployed ; and in what direction could em- 
 ployment be found for them ? Not in com- 
 merce, for the capacity of commerce to furnish 
 occupation to labor and capital was determina- 
 ble by the operation of foreign demand for their 
 productions, and this demand, under the cir- 
 cumstances supposed, must be excluded. There 
 was left but one resort for the employment of 
 this disengaged labor and capital, and that was 
 in manufactures. Not only without aid or di- 
 rection, but by an impulse which could not be 
 controlled, they must flow to fulfil this destina- 
 tion. The manufactures thus established, (it 
 was to be further observed,) from the conti- 
 guity and abundance of materials, and the de- 
 pressed price of these materials, which the 
 hypothesis supposed, must of necessity be en- 
 abled to maintain, unassisted by positive en- 
 couragement, a successful competition with 
 fabrics of foreign origin. Here, then, was the 
 effect desired, realized, independently of any 
 occasion for regulation. The object proposed 
 Avas, through the medium of a complicated and 
 burdensome system of duties, to provide a rem- 
 edy for an anticipated contingency, and this 
 contingency was found, upon inquiry, to intro-
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 633 
 
 APRIL, 1820.] 
 
 Revision of the Tariff. 
 
 [H. OF R 
 
 duce in its occurrence, the very remedy pro- 
 posed, without necessity for any duty whatever. 
 This effect was in consistency with the order of 
 nature, in which evils, whether of physical or 
 social character, resulting from her unforced 
 operations, were invariably found to generate 
 their proper remedies. It was the eternal effort 
 of politicians to supersede this salutary order, 
 which formed the source of half the mischiefs 
 by which mankind were afflicted. 
 
 The attempt had been made to show, that 
 the artificial introduction of a domestic market, 
 through the medium of manufactures, was su- 
 perfluous, as this market would, at the proper 
 season, be introduced, without exertion or ex- 
 pense, by a spontaneous operation. But sup- 
 pose the contrary to be the fact, still the ad- 
 vantage of the proposed policy was, to say the 
 least of it, equivocal. There was no accession 
 contemplated as the result of this policy, to the 
 amount of capital or labor. The effect contem- 
 plated in this respect, was confined to a mere 
 change of destination, as related to a portion of 
 this amount. Nor was the diversion expected 
 to be made to a more productive, but only (as 
 was supposed) to a more convenient, employ- 
 ment. This, however, was the slightest form 
 of the objection. If it appertained to the 
 scheme of our foreign policy to prosecute com- 
 mercial intercourse at all with other nations, 
 our account must be laid in the calculation of a 
 general equality in the respective amounts of 
 our foreign sales and purchases. 
 
 A resort, in particular, to the cultivation of 
 domestic resources of supply, was almost in- 
 variably found to present irresistible temptations 
 to its extension. Kesentment, produced by the 
 pursuit of a supposed illiberal policy on the 
 part of a former customer, was a motive of ob- 
 vious occurrence in co-operation with induce- 
 ments of this description. The result, then, of 
 the policy recommended to us in relation to the 
 introduction of a domestic market, through the 
 medium of the encouragement of manufactures, 
 besides involving the certainty of a loss in the 
 extent of the foreign market, equivalent to the 
 acquisition of domestic market, led to an ex- 
 posure to the loss of a much larger proportion, 
 or the whole, of the foreign market. In the best 
 result of the policy, there could be no gain in 
 the extent of market. In a different result, a 
 great deal, of every thing, in this respect, might 
 be lost. A course of policy of this character 
 could set up no pretensions to the award of an 
 impartial judgment hi its favor. 
 
 Let, then, a fair account be stated of the re- 
 lative amount of advantage or disadvantage to 
 be anticipated from the proposed system, and 
 how would the balance stand? In reference to 
 the supposed importance of the introduction of 
 domestic sources of supply of manufactured ar- 
 ticles, the whole advantage had been shown to 
 be contingent on a particular, and not probable 
 or frequent event. In reference to the suppos- 
 ed importance of the introduction or extension 
 of a domestic market, through the medium of 
 
 manufacturing establishments, the advantage 
 had been shown, in the most favorable view of 
 it, to be equivocal. 
 
 What were the items of offset to he stated? 
 A considerable and permanent imposition on 
 many of the articles of most essential consump- 
 tion, in the amount of the proposed increase of 
 duties ; subduction from agricultural production 
 to the amount of the accession to manufactures ; 
 deduction from the foreign, equivalent to the 
 acquisition of domestic market; exposure to the 
 hazard of greater and indefinite deduction from 
 the extent of the same market ; and, finally, the 
 amount of the direct or other taxation, which 
 would be rendered necessary, by the deficit in 
 the revenue, which it would be the effect (as 
 was admitted) of the adoption of the proposed 
 system to occasion. How striking was the dis- 
 proportion of objection to the system which this 
 statement exhibited! Nor did this statement 
 exhibit the whole objections. 
 
 There was a peculiar consideration affecting 
 the condition of the -larger portion of foreign 
 manufactures, which rendered the error of at- 
 tempting to substitute the supply of them from 
 domestic sources, susceptible of being placed in 
 a striking point of view. This consideration re- 
 lated to the necessary advantage which these 
 manufactures enjoyed in comparison with the 
 domestic, as respected the important character- 
 istic of cheapness. The principal element in 
 the price of any article was derived from the 
 value of the labor employed in producing it. 
 The principal circumstance determining the 
 value of labor, was the value of the subsistence 
 required for its support. The last value was 
 determined, in its turn, by a consideration not 
 merely of the kind and style of subsistence to 
 which the classes employed in labor were ac- 
 customed. 
 
 But in these respects the operation of artifi- 
 cial social arrangements, and of their own dis- 
 proportionate multiplication, in reference to the 
 regular occasio'ns of employment, had sunk the 
 condition of the laboring classes, in the coun- 
 tries with which we enjoyed the largest share 
 of commercial intercouse, to a very low point 
 of depression. From the causes stated, and 
 perhaps some others, then* modes of subsistence, 
 as respected both the quantity and description 
 of its supply, had become, to the last degree, 
 penurious. The amount of their pecuniary com- 
 pensation had been of course proportionately 
 affected. A laborer in those countries was in 
 the practice of receiving scarcely a greater num- 
 ber of pence than one engaged in a similar mode 
 of occupation in ours required shillings, in re- 
 muneration of his labor. The necessary re- 
 sult of the operation of these circumstances had 
 been the depression of the real value, as well as 
 pecuniary price, of the productions of labor in 
 such countries, below the just standard of the 
 value and price of productions of the same de- 
 nomination and quality in our country. Here 
 was a peculiarity, creating a source of recom- 
 mendation of foreign manufactures, of which
 
 634 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 Revision of the Tariff. 
 
 [APRIL, 1820. 
 
 sound policy would teach us rather to endeavor | would take occasion to warn gentlemen who 
 
 to avail ourselves of the advantage, than ob- 
 stinately to contend against it. A further 
 source of similar advantage was found in the pe- 
 culiar character and latitude of the commercial 
 regulations, entirely inconsistent with the genius 
 of our institutions, of which the forms of gov- 
 ernment and polity prevailing in other coun- 
 tries, admitted the adoption and enforcement ; 
 regulations, of which the policy was to keep 
 down the price of the raw material of manufac- 
 ture, (like that by which the price of wool was 
 reduced fifty per cent, in Great Britain,) or of 
 which the design was to force an extraordinary 
 production of the raw material, like many of 
 the regulations of France, were exemplifications 
 of the remark; If the question related to the 
 propriety of availing ourselves of the physical 
 advantages of other countries in giving direction 
 to our commercial policy, instead of engaging in 
 an injurious competition with these advantages, 
 there would be no diversity of opinion as to the 
 course to be pursued. It could not be made a 
 question, for example, whether there would be 
 policy in availing ourselves of, or in contending 
 with, the advantages of France for the growth 
 of wines and olives, (supposing that our soil and 
 climate admitted of being forced to the growth 
 of such products,) or of the West Indies, for the 
 supply of tropical productions. What greater 
 reason could there be for refusing to avail our- 
 selves of the benefit of political or social pecu- 
 liarities, presented by the circumstances of other 
 countries, or for insisting on contending with 
 them ? It might be affirmed without difficulty 
 that no adequate reasons for such a policy could 
 
 Upon the whole, Mr. A. regarded the bill as 
 involving an imposition considerable in amount, 
 and which was neither just in its principle nor 
 equal in its operation. The beneficial results 
 anticipated from its adoption he considered as 
 illusory, and conceived, on the contrary, that its 
 operation would be found fraught with no ordi- 
 nary detriment to the most essential interests 
 of the community. He could not but hope, 
 therefore, that it would obtain the singular tes- 
 timony to its merit which the chairman of the 
 committee (Mr. BALDWIN) had spoken of as the 
 most conclusive and unquestionable, viz : that 
 of giving dissatisfaction to every part of the 
 House. This praise it had already earned, as 
 respected one quarter of the House ; and it was 
 attended by the hearty good wishes of Mr. A. 
 for similar success in every other quarter. To 
 the general principle of this measure, he could 
 not express his objection more aptly than in the 
 reason assigned by an ancient English patriot, 
 when called to expiate his attachment to liberty 
 on the scaffold, for resistance to an arbitrary 
 Government. He said he had never been able 
 to discover that " some men came into the world 
 with saddles on their backs, and others booted 
 and spurred to ride them." Neither could Mr. 
 A. admit that parties came into the Federal 
 Union in any such relative conditions. And lie 
 
 thought, by means of the present or any other 
 injustice, to mount upon the backs of the South- 
 ern people, that they would find their seats 
 neither pleasant, nor so entirely secure but that 
 they might chance to encounter a fall, from the 
 effects of which it might not be easy to recover 
 
 THUESDAY, April 27. 
 Eevision of the Tariff. 
 
 The House then again resolved itself into a 
 Committee of the Whole on the bill regulating 
 the duties on imports. 
 
 The question being on the committee's rising 
 and reporting the tariff bill to the House, the 
 debate thereon was resumed. 
 
 Mr. BARBOFR, of Virginia, addressed the com- 
 mittee as follows : 
 
 Mr. Chairman, I feel much indebted to the 
 committee for their goodness in rising on yes- 
 terday, to afford me an opportunity of expressing 
 my views upon this subject. 
 
 I am about to attempt an answer to the mem- 
 ber from Pennsylvania who reported this bill, 
 and other gentlemen who followed him in its 
 support. Considering the arduousness of the 
 undertaking, it might perhaps be the part of 
 prudence in me to decline it ; for one gentle- 
 man from Kentucky (Mr. TKIMBLE) informed us 
 that he had demonstrated many of his proposi- 
 tions, and thus placed them beyond the possi- 
 bility of question, although moral and political 
 questions are, in their nature, incapable of 
 demonstration, and it cannot be affirmed of 
 any thing short of demonstration that there is 
 no possible doubt ; whilst another member from 
 Kentucky (the Speaker) has invited the oppo- 
 nents of the bill to attempt an answer to the 
 member from Pennsylvania ; from which it may 
 be inferred, that the advocates of the bill feel 
 something like the confidence of anticipated 
 triumph. Arduous however as the undertaking 
 may be, fearful as the odds may be against me, 
 I am emboldened to proceed, from the considera- 
 tion that, in such a conflict as I find myself en- 
 gaged in, success on my part Avould be a cause 
 of self-gratulation, whilst defeat would not be 
 attended with disgrace. 
 
 The avowed object of this bill is, by means of 
 increased duties upon imported goods, to afford 
 encouragement to that part of the industry of 
 the country which is engaged in domestic manu- 
 factures ; and the question is, whether such a 
 measure is compatible with the principles of 
 justice, or of sound policy ? It will be my en- 
 deavor to prove that it is not. Before, however, 
 I go particularly into these views, I beg leave 
 to answer the remarks of the gentleman from 
 Pennsylvania, (Mr. BALDWIN,) and the gentle- 
 man from New York, (Mr. STORES,) of a general 
 nature, in relation to our system of revenue 
 from imposts. They have characterized it with 
 epithets of the severest reprobation. It has 
 been called an unsound, a rotten system. So 
 far from thinking that these epithets are merited,
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 635 
 
 APRIL, 1820.] 
 
 Revision of the Tariff. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 I have, ibr my part, a decided preference for the 
 impost system, and I will proceed to state to 
 the committee the reasons of that preference. 
 The whole practice of the Government, from its 
 commenceme.nt to the present moment, with 
 but few exceptions, and those principally in time 
 of war, has been to rely upon imposts for the 
 purpose. of defraying its expenditures. Of this 
 (act I make the double use, that those who have 
 administered the Government have considered 
 this mode of raising revenue most consistent 
 with the feelings of the people, and that the 
 people themselves, having been accustomed to 
 it for thirty years, would find it more agreeable 
 and convenient than any other. I would not 
 innovate upon it, then, unless there were very 
 strong reasons for a change. So far from this, 
 the reasons are, in my opinion, strong in favor 
 of its continuance. Let us examine them some- 
 what at large. This mode of raising revenue 
 by impost is the least expensive in its collection, 
 and of course, of any given sum raised by taxa- 
 tion, the less there may be expended in collec- 
 tion, the more there will be applicable to the 
 purposes of the Government. Gentlemen have 
 said that the excise in England was collected at 
 less expense than any other tax. Whatever may 
 be the case in England, such would not be the 
 fair calculation in this country. In England the 
 population is dense, and the manufacturers are 
 collected in large cities and towns, which would 
 make the collection much less expensive than in 
 the United States, where the population is com- 
 paratively very sparse, and the manufacturers 
 scattered over a much larger surface. But, in- 
 stead of detaining the committee with proba- 
 bilities, I will refer them to matter of fact. The 
 report from the Treasury Department, of De- 
 cember, 1801, states that whilst the expenses of 
 collection on merchandise and tonnage did not 
 exceed four per cent., those on the permanent 
 internal duties amounted to almost twenty per 
 cent. This he ascribed to the dispersed situa- 
 tion of the persons paying the duties, and the 
 total amount of revenue being inconsiderable. 
 But, sir, let us come nearer the present time. 
 It appears, from official documents, that the 
 total amount of duties on imports, for the years 
 1815, 1816, 1817, and 1818, was (not regarding 
 fractions) $118,383,000, and the whole expense 
 of collection (in like manner discarding frac- 
 tions) was $2,771,000, not equal to two and a 
 half per cent, upon the whole amount. From 
 the same source I derive the fact that the ex- 
 pense of the collection of internal duties, in 1816, 
 was four per cent, and eight-tenths, and that 
 of the collection of the direct tax of the same 
 year was five per cent, and three-tenths. 
 
 A second advantage in favor of the impost 
 system is, that there is much less loss to the 
 Government by insolvency, &c. ; it appears that 
 the whole loss upon customs, from the com- 
 mencement of the system, amounting to the 
 enormous sum of $351,329,799, is not quite one 
 half of one per cent. Without referring the 
 committee to the minuti of official reports, I 
 
 am justified in saying, generally, that the loss in 
 the collection of internal taxes has been much 
 greater, and for this obvious reason, that the 
 customs are collected from a very few persons 
 in comparison with those from whom the other 
 taxes are collected. A third advantage is, that 
 the payment of this kind of tax is an act of vo- 
 lition ; the duty becomes a part of the price, and 
 we either buy or not as we choose ; whereas, as 
 far as internal taxes should consist of direct 
 taxes, the payment would be matter of compul- 
 sion. A fourth advantage is, that this system 
 is calculated to operate more equally. The great 
 desideratum in every system of taxation should 
 be to make every citizen contribute, as far as 
 practicable, in proportion to his ability. As 
 there is no mode of ascertaining that ability 
 with precision, without too inquisitorial a scru- 
 tiny, the best approximation which we can 
 make to it is to act upon the principle that 
 every man's expense is proportioned to his 
 ability ; the few examples which we observe of 
 a departure from this principle, in prodigality 
 or extravagance, do not disturb the general 
 truth ; the present system has this principle for 
 its basis, as the buyer of goods pays a tax ac- 
 cording to what he purchases. Although the 
 same reasoning would apply to excises, yet it 
 clearly would not to direct taxes ; they, by the 
 constitution, must be laid, not according to 
 wealth, but according to population ; thus, in 
 case of a direct tax, a manufacturing State, with 
 millions of capital profitably employed in that 
 way, would pay not one cent more than another 
 State of equal population, whose wealth was 
 even fifty per cent, less than that of the other ; 
 but it is not only thus unequal in its operation 
 between different States, it is also subject to 
 enormous inequalities between citizens of the 
 same State. 
 
 The direct tax is imposed upon land with its 
 improvements and slaves. Now, sir, it might 
 happen that a man worth ten thousand dollars, 
 if it consisted in lands and slaves, might pay 
 more direct tax than one worth half a million, 
 if it consisted of certain descriptions of property, 
 such as bank stock, funded debt, &c., for this 
 kind of property pays no part of the direct tax. 
 A fifth advantage in adhering to this system is, 
 that now we have one set of officers ; whereas, 
 if we introduce a permanent system of internal 
 taxation, the present system must still be also 
 continued, and thus we shall create another set 
 of officers, whose salaries and perquisites of 
 office will be an entire loss, in a pecuniary point 
 of view, besides the vexation produced by being 
 liable to the demands of a double set of tax- 
 gatherers. The last, but not the least advantage 
 which I will mention, is, that the power of lay- 
 ing imposts is taken from the States and given 
 exclusively to Congress. One of the strongest 
 objections to the constitution was, the collision 
 which might arise between the State and Fed- 
 eral Governments, hi the exercise of their re- 
 spective powers of taxation, where they were 
 concurrent ; but in this particular mode of lay-
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OK R.] 
 
 Revision of the Tariff. 
 
 [APRIL, 1820. 
 
 ing duties on imports, and in this only, the 
 Federal Government having the power exclu- 
 sively, there is a complete obviation of all dif- 
 ficulties which might arise from colliding juris- 
 diction. 
 
 The advocates of this bill have told us that 
 we cannot much longer get on without the aid 
 of internal taxation ; that sooner or later we 
 must come to that point ; and that, therefore, 
 we had better do it at once. My first remark 
 in reply to this is, that if, as I have attempted 
 to show, the system of impost be a better and 
 more equal one than that of internal taxation, 
 then the argument which would persuade us to 
 adopt the latter, by anticipation, because we 
 might hereafter be obliged to do it, is precisely 
 like persuading a man that, because he must, in 
 the course of nature, inevitably die, it would 
 become him to anticipate it by his own act, in 
 the commission of suicide. But, say gentlemen, 
 the revenue from imposts is unequal to the exi- 
 gencies of the Government ; and how do you 
 propose to remedy it ? Why, it would seem, by 
 the passage of a bill, the effect of which must 
 be, as I shall presently attempt to show, to di- 
 minish that very revenue which gentlemen say, 
 even now, is insufficient. The only way by 
 which this apparent inconsistency can be ex- 
 plained is, that this subject is discussed as if a 
 system of internal taxation were now in being ; 
 but I call upon gentlemen to remember, that 
 whatever their wishes or opinions as to the 
 relative merits of the two systems may be, the 
 impost system exists now in point of fact, whilst 
 the qther does not ; and I will add my wish, 
 that it never may, until it shall become indis- 
 pensably necessary, not by our forced legisla- 
 tion, but .by the natural course of events. I 
 have just said, that I would attempt to show 
 that the passage of this bill would diminish our 
 revenue ; I will now redeem nay pledge, or en- 
 deavor to do so. 
 
 The first proposition which I shall lay down 
 is this that it will lessen the amount of impor- 
 tations upon this obvious principle, that any 
 
 land and labor of the country will purchase 
 fewer commodities at a higher, than it would at 
 a lower price. That the imposition of the pro- 
 posed duties will raise the price of the com- 
 modities imported, no gentleman has questioned. 
 Our exportable produce remaining the same, 
 then, will purchase less than if the duty were 
 not raised ; and, consequently, the quantity of 
 articles must be diminished. If it be said that 
 the increased duties will compensate for the 
 diminished consumption, I answer, that, with 
 the exception of a few mere luxuries, the great 
 bulk of imported commodities is consumed by 
 that portion of our people, who, constituting 
 the middle class of society between poverty and 
 wealth, are, with various degrees of property, 
 only independent or moderately rich. Though 
 the very wealthy man might still continue to 
 purchase his luxuries as before, without regard 
 to price, yet, amongst the great class which I 
 
 have mentioned, (the very bone and sinew of 
 the community,) there is a spirit of prudence 
 and calculation which makes them value their 
 comforts and pleasures at a certain price only, 
 beyond which they will not go. What that is, 
 it is impossible to say, with any thing like pre- 
 cision, it being a mere question of quantity, of 
 more or less ; I venture, however, to say, that 
 the duties now proposed would pass this limit, 
 and consequently cause a great diminution of 
 consumption, and with it a diminution of com- 
 fort to our citizens, and of revenue to the Gov- 
 ernment. 
 
 I shall now endeavor to prove that it is in 
 violation of the general principles of political 
 economy to build up a manufacturing system by 
 the forced means of legislative interference, and 
 that there is nothing peculiar in the situation of 
 this country, whether considered in relation to 
 its political character or otherwise, which makes 
 our case an exception to the general rule. It 
 would seem, however, from what has been said 
 by the Speaker of the writers on political econ- 
 omy, that he reposes little or no confidence in 
 them. He has said that we derive our visionary 
 theories from European writers, whom their 
 own Governments do not acknowledge as guides 
 in legislation ; thus, that gentlemen, instead of 
 meeting and refuting the doctrines of Stuart, 
 Smith, and others, has at once put them under 
 the ban of his denunciation by a single con- 
 temptuous remark. Indeed, it might be said of 
 him, as was said of another distinguished man 
 upon another occasion, " that he put to flight 
 a host of syllogisms by a sneer." After all his 
 disparagement of European writers on the 
 science of political economy, I must be permit- 
 ted to say, that, if their manufactures of cotton 
 and wool exceed ours as far as their works upon 
 this interesting subject surpass ours, then indeed 
 we cannot sustain the competition to which we 
 aspire by any encouragement which we can 
 afford ; and though their Governments do not 
 follow their counsels, that surely is no reason 
 why we should not, if they be in themselves 
 correct, and calculated to enhance the prosper- 
 ity of the country. As well might it be said, 
 that we ought not to respect any of their prin- 
 ciples of ethics or morality, such, for example, 
 as the doctrines of Paley or Rutherford, because 
 they do not pursue them. There is, it is true, 
 no demonstration in the sciences of morals and 
 politics, as there is in the mathematics ; but there 
 are, in each of those sciences, certain truths so 
 obvious in themselves, and so universally as- 
 sented to by mankind, that they almost rank in 
 the class of axioms, and constitute the basis of 
 reasoning in questions of this kind ; such, for 
 example, is the principle, that the market price 
 of commodities is regulated by the proportion 
 between the actual demand and supply. It is 
 to principles as well settled as this that I shall 
 resort in the course of this argument, though 
 they may even be drawn from European wri- 
 ters. Without further remarks, I will proceed 
 directly to the general reasoning against legisla-
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 637 
 
 APRIL, 1820.] 
 
 Revision of the Tariff. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 tive interference to create and sustain a manu- 
 facturing system. 
 
 The strength of every country consists in the 
 number, the character, and the wealth of its 
 population. First, then, let us compare two 
 countries, the one agricultural, and the other 
 manufacturing, in relation to numbers. The 
 very obje'ct of agriculture is to procure the 
 means of subsistence; but it is agreed on all 
 hands that the quantity of subsistence is pre- 
 cisely the measure of the extent of population, 
 since without it they cannot exist; of conse- 
 quence, other things being equal, the country 
 which is agricultural, and which not only makes 
 its own subsistence, but a surplus for exporta- 
 tion ; which upon occasion, may be applied to 
 supply the deficiency of any year, will be more 
 populous than one, a great part of whose labor 
 is applied to manufactures, and which, there- 
 fore, in ordinary years, scarcely makes a suffi- 
 ciency, and, in any case of deficiency, depends 
 entirely upon a foreign supply, for the very 
 means by which to support life. If it be 
 said that this reasoning does not apply to the 
 present situation of the United States, I answer, 
 that it is the province of the statesman, not to 
 legislate merely for the present moment, but to 
 look forward to that state of things, which, ac- 
 cording to the course of human affairs, may fair- 
 ly be considered as inevitable ; and, according to 
 all experience, the time will come when it will 
 apply to us with full force as well as to other 
 nations. When, for example, the manufacturers, 
 together with their families, shall bear a large 
 proportion to the remaining population; for 
 let it be remembered, that while food only 
 increases, arithmetically, population increases 
 geometrically ; an idea which I shall have oc- 
 casion to dwell upon more at large hereafter. 
 
 Let us now compare the same two nations in 
 relation to the character of their population, 
 whether affected by moral or political causes. 
 The agriculturist, in this country, cultivates his 
 own farm ; he looks only to the beneficence of 
 the Deity, and the sweat of his own brow, for 
 the maintenance of himself and family ; by his 
 own will he regulates his conduct ; he knows 
 no superior except those who are clothed with 
 the authority of the law ; he thus acquires the 
 proud spirit of an independent freeman ; he has 
 the port, the stature, the dignity, of a man. 
 On the contrary, the manufacturer has no source 
 of revenue but his labor, which he must con- 
 stantly sell to a master ; not his own, but that 
 master's will, is the rule of his conduct. "While 
 independence, then, is the characteristic of the 
 agriculturist, mere servility is that of the man- 
 ufacturer. This is the difference in the moral 
 effects ; that in the physical is just as striking ; 
 the agriculturist, from the very nature of his 
 pursuits, enjoys the light and air of Heaven, in 
 all its purity ; he has his regular periods of la- 
 bor and rest ; ho has that strong and healthy 
 constitution which results from these. The 
 manufacturer, on the contrary, under the orders 
 of an avaricious task master, scarcely knows 
 
 the distinction of day and night. The ham- 
 mers of Birmingham are never at rest; the 
 wheels of Manchester never stand still. They 
 are pent up in task-houses during the day, amid 
 noxious effluvia, and crowded in huts at night 
 that is, such of them as are allowed to sleep ; 
 for a part, in alternate succession, pursue their 
 toils during the night. Such is the condition 
 of the adults engaged in these establishments. 
 That of the children is, if possible, still more 
 deplorable ; taken at an early period from their 
 parents they are cut off from the sacred moral- 
 ity of the hearth, and lose all benefit of parent- 
 al instruction, which instils the lessons of wis- 
 dom into the mind, and morality into the heart ; 
 thrown together into a crowd, where there is a 
 promiscuous intercourse between different ages 
 and sexes, fatigued with a degree of labor 
 which they can scarcely bear ; without the aid 
 of moral or religious instruction, they grow up 
 unfit to be members of society, and qualified 
 only to obey the will of a master themselves, 
 and to transmit that wretched inheritance to 
 their posterity. How different the condition of 
 the children of the agriculturist! The virtue 
 and independence of the parent are learned and 
 practised by them, and they become qualified 
 to act with propriety in all the various relations 
 in which they stand bound to society. But, 
 sir, I will not pursue this subject further. I 
 refer the committee to the feeling description 
 of those who have written upon it, and partic- 
 ularly to that of the celebrated Aikin. 
 
 Another decided recommendation of the 
 agricultural system over the manufacturing, is 
 this : the interest of the agriculturist is precisely 
 identified with that of the community ; that 
 of the manufacturer is not only not identified, 
 but is, in some degree, opposed to it. The in- 
 terest of the manufacturer is to narrow, as 
 much as possible, the competition in the sale 
 of his commodities ; the interest of the com- 
 munity is, obviously, to widen that competi- 
 tion. " Profit, too, is naturally low in rich, 
 and high hi poor countries ; and it is always 
 highest in countries which are going fastest to 
 rum." In a political point of view, then, it is 
 well worthy of consideration how far it is good 
 policy to create and sustain, by artificial means, 
 a class in society whose interests are thus, in 
 some degree, necessarily opposed to those of 
 the rest of the society. I do not mean to say, 
 that manufactures are not useful, and even 
 necessary, to agriculture; but I do mean to 
 contend, that it is better to let others manufac- 
 ture for us, as long as we can appropriate our 
 capital in a way which will be more profitable ; 
 and I do mean to contend, that, if Government 
 attempt to judge of this, it will be perpetually 
 subject to error, and may, by the aid which it 
 affords, force a comparatively unprofitable 
 appropriation of the capital of the country; 
 whereas, if it be left to individual sagacity, the 
 thermometer wih 1 scarcely mark the variations 
 in the temperature of the weather with more 
 accuracy than this will the variations in the
 
 638 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 Revision of the Tariff. 
 
 [APRIL, 1820. 
 
 rate of profit ; and, consequently, we have the 
 utmost security that capital will be applied to 
 manufactures, whenever it ought to be so ap- 
 plied ; that is, whenever, by such an application, 
 it will be more profitable than by any other. 
 And what equivalent are we promised for sub- 
 mitting to a measure subject to so many and 
 such strong objections? Why, it is said, that, 
 if we will protect manufactures, as soon as they 
 shah 1 be firmly established, they will afford us a 
 revenue from excise. In the first place, I an- 
 swer, that, if that promise should be realized, 
 the period would be altogether uncertain, and, 
 in the mean time, there would be an acknowl- 
 edged deficiency of revenue arising from im- 
 post ; and further, if I have shown that an ap- 
 propriation of capital in that way would be less 
 profitable, there would be an actual annihilation 
 of national wealth, to an amount equal to the 
 difference between the profit arising from that 
 and a different appropriation. It is said, how- 
 ever, that manufactures will become cheaper 
 than they now are : this is a downright inconsist- 
 ency ; for, at their present price, we are loudly 
 called upon to save them from sinking, and yet, 
 at the same moment, we are told that they will 
 actually be sold at a price, hereafter, less than 
 that for which they now sell, and a sale at 
 which, it is said, will produce ruin. There is 
 no inducement, then, in this promised equiva- 
 lent. I have already shown that the proposed 
 measure is wrong, upon general principles, and 
 I will now attempt to show, not only that there 
 is nothing peculiar in the situation of this coun- 
 try which would require us to depart from these 
 general principles; but that, on the contrary, 
 whatever distinguishing peculiarity there is, 
 either in our Government, people, or country, 
 it contributes rather to fortify than to weaken 
 their force, and to render them emphatically ap- 
 plicable to us. Our Government is Republican ; 
 next to the virtue of its citizens, equality is one 
 of the surest foundations upon which such a 
 Government can stand. Equality of rights is 
 actually attainable, and is practically enforced ; 
 but equality of property, also, as far as it can 
 be effected by constitutional and legal means, is 
 also greatly desirable; it is with a view to this 
 result, that the principle of primogeniture has 
 been abolished in the several States, which gave 
 to one member of a family the whole real estate ; 
 it is with the same view that the principle of 
 entails has been abolished, which perpetuated 
 the estate, so given, in the particular person, 
 and his heirs in a particular line. These princi- 
 ples are two of the strongest pillars upon which 
 a monarchy rests, because they concentrate the 
 property of the country, and with it the power 
 and influence of a few ; but the very reverse 
 of this is the proper policy in our Government; 
 with us not concentration, but the most exten- 
 sive and universal diffusion is the great deside- 
 ratum; the very same property which, when 
 broken into small parts, spreads plenty, com- 
 fort, and independence, over a whole country, 
 when accumulated in the hands of a few, be- 
 
 gets the extremes of great wealth and great 
 poverty ; by this, one portion of the society is 
 too much elevated, the other is too much de- 
 pressed ; the one feels arrogance, the other sub- 
 mission. In such a state of things, the force of 
 political institutions would be continually im- 
 paired by the aristocracy of wealth. Inasmuch, 
 then, as I believe that the effect of this bill 
 would be to produce this concentration of 
 wealth, so much to be reprobated, and thus 
 place the General Government in the attitude 
 of counteracting the policy of the States, which, 
 as I have said, consists in promoting a diffusion 
 of property in this point of view, I think there 
 is a strong political reason, derived from the 
 nature of our institutions, in aid of the general 
 principles which I have been discussing. 
 
 In relation to our people, they have, from a 
 combination of circumstances, the most impor- 
 tant of which, is the immense quantity of new 
 and fertile land, been always accustomed to the 
 pursuits of agricultural life. The force of habit, 
 then, co-operates with other causes to give 
 them a preference to that kind of labor ; but I 
 have already endeavored to prove that it is 
 more contributive to the health of the body 
 and the independence of the mind. If these 
 positions be correct, and especially the last, 
 agriculture is a pursuit which, more than man- 
 ufactures, fits the people for the Government 
 under which they live. Surely it cannot be 
 the part of a statesman, by legislation, to hold 
 out an inducement to the people to abandon 
 that pursuit which qualifies them for the station 
 in which they are placed by the social compact 
 under which they live ; not to perform the part 
 of mere servile obedience, but to fill the station 
 of independent freemen, who, by their repre- 
 sentatives, themselves make the laws by which 
 themselves are governed. 
 
 In relation to our country, let it be remem- 
 bered that Europe, particularly the manufac- 
 turing part of it, is well peopled, whilst our 
 population is extremely sparse. The population 
 of England, including Wales, in 1803, was 169 
 to the square mile ; in France it was 174 to the 
 square mile. In 1810, the population of Con- 
 necticut, the most populous State in the Union, 
 was 56.04 to the square mile ; that of Virginia 
 only 13 and a fraction ; and, admitting the su- 
 perficies of the United States to be two millions 
 of square miles, the whole population is only 
 three and eighty -three hundredths to a square 
 mile. [See Seybert's Statistical Annals.] The 
 whole land of England and Wales is estimated 
 by Bristed at 38,500,000 acres. I have already 
 said, that Seybert estimates the United States 
 at 2,000,000 square miles; this, reduced to 
 acres, amounts to 1,280,000,000 acres of land. 
 Now, sir, it seems to me, that it would be al- 
 most sufficient to state the relative population 
 and territory of the two countries, to convince 
 any man that what may be a correct policy in 
 relation to England, would be highly improper 
 for us to pursue. 
 
 The population of England and Wales, in
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 639 
 
 APRII,, 1820.] 
 
 Revision of the Tariff. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 1803, exceeded that of the United States in 
 1810, and yet the territory of the United States 
 is more than thirty tunes that of England and 
 Wales; whilst the population of the United 
 States, to the square mile, is more than forty 
 times less, including our whole superficies. 
 Manufactures suit a redundant population, with 
 a confined territory ; such is the case of Eng- 
 land ; they do not suit a sparse population and 
 a redundant territory ; such is the situation of 
 the United States. Manufactures, if not forced 
 into existence by artificial means, are the natu- 
 ral result of an overflowing capital; it never 
 can be said that the capital of any country can 
 be of that kind, whilst there are millions and 
 tens of millions of acres of the most fertile land 
 yet uncultivated ; such is the situation of the 
 United States. Whilst there is land of this sort 
 to cultivate, its cultivation is the most profitable 
 appropriation of capital. Take, for example, 
 a quarter section of land at its present price, 
 amounting to two hundred dollars; let but one- 
 half of this be well cultivated, and I know of no 
 application of the same capital, unconnected 
 with mere speculation, which would yield an 
 equal result; the mere maintenance of the 
 family, which would be derived from it, exclu- 
 sive of the produce which might be sold, under 
 ordinary circumstances, to an amount equal to 
 the capital invested, would be more than the 
 profit of any other appropriation with which I 
 am acquainted. What is true of one quarter 
 section, is equally true of every one in the 
 United States, as long as one of good quality 
 remains in an uncultivated state. There is 
 an argument derived from the influence of 
 machinery upon manufactures, which I beg 
 leave to present to the committee, because it 
 seems to ine to be entitled to very great weight. 
 To make the application, I will first present a 
 few facts. In a note to Lauderdale, on Public 
 Wealth, page 294, it is said, that a machine at 
 Derby contained 26,586 wheels, and 97,746 
 movements, that work 73,726 yards of silk 
 at every turn of the wheel ; that is to say, 
 318,504,960 yards in twenty-four hours. In 
 the same book, page 301, it is said that, in 
 Scotland, it was estimated that a still could be 
 discharged about once a day. In thirteen years 
 afterwards, they had arrived at such perfection 
 as to discharge it almost twenty-two times in 
 an hour that is, upwards of five hundred times 
 as often. These statements appear to be such 
 as almost to startle credibility. Let us take 
 Borne much more moderate, and which will 
 answer all the purposes of my argument. In 
 Ganilh's Political Economy,, it is said that Sir 
 Richard Arkwright's invention of the cotton- 
 spinning machine shortened that kind of labor 
 by two-thirds, and rendered it twenty tunes 
 more productive than it had been before. In a 
 supplement to the Philadelphia address of 1819, 
 it is said that a British spinner can, by the in- 
 tervention of labor-saving machinery, spin as 
 much by one person as requires in India sixty 
 persons. Finally, in the same book it is said, 
 
 upon the authority of a British writer, that the 
 whole laboring population of Great Britain has 
 its powers multiplied fourteen times by machi- 
 nery. The author makes an estimation which 
 would reduce it to about twelve-fold. The 
 general purpose for which I have made these 
 quotations is this to present to the advocates 
 of this bill a dilemma from which it seems to 
 me they cannot extricate themselves. The first 
 part of it is, that, if we have not the advantage 
 of labor-saving machinery, it is utterly impossi- 
 ble to sustain a competition against the foreign 
 manufacturer; the other is, that, if we have 
 that machinery, our other advantages are such 
 that our manufacturers do not need any further 
 protection from the Government. The first 
 proposition is, that it is impossible to sustain a 
 competition, unless we have the advantage of 
 machinery. If I were to take the case of the 
 still, which I have stated, and rely upon that, it 
 would be so striking that the mere statement 
 of the fact would supersede the necessity of 
 argument or comment; for all will agree at 
 once that distillation, carried on by a still, dis- 
 charged once a day, could not maintain a com- 
 petition against that carried on by a still dis- 
 charged five hundred times a day; that is to 
 say, could not maintain a competition where 
 the odds were five hundred to one. 
 
 The profits of manufacturing had been such 
 during the war, that many were allured to em- 
 bark in it, and a preat portion of them without 
 an adequate capital of their own, but deriving 
 resources from the facility of bank accommoda- 
 tions. The great depreciation of the currency, 
 on account of its excessive quantity, caused 
 every description of property to sell extrava- 
 gantly high. This would have been nominal 
 only, if the currency had continued of its then 
 value ; but its subsequent great and actual ap- 
 preciation has fatally proven that, what was 
 only a nominal high price in the commence- 
 ment, has turned out to be actually so, to the 
 ruin, or at least embarrassment of thousands. 
 Thus, a considerable portion of the investments 
 in manufacturing establishments was made 
 whilst every thing was at or near the acme of 
 extravagant price, and in many instances, too, 
 upon a borrowed capital. This was not con- 
 fined to manufacturers; every interest in the 
 country, and amongst others, the agricultural, 
 has been deeply affected by this state of things. 
 Whenever, from any cause, the circulating me- 
 dium of a country begins to undergo a rapid 
 depreciation, the immediate and necessary effect 
 is, that every kind of property begins to be rep- 
 resented by more dollars, the number of which 
 increases as the depreciation increases. This is 
 almost universally considered a rise in the ac- 
 tual value of property, and hence a spirit of 
 speculation is awakened amongst all classes of 
 the community ; purchases are made, contracts 
 are entered into, as if the present prices were 
 not only to continue, but to increase. Soon, 
 however, depreciation reaches its height, and, 
 according to the course of human affairs, the
 
 640 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF 
 
 Revision of the Tariff. 
 
 [APRIL, 1820. 
 
 currency begins to move in a contrary progress ; 
 appreciation now marches with as gigantic 
 strides as depreciation had done before ; and 
 the consequences are seen in the ruin of thou- 
 sands, who, but yesterday, as it were, seemed 
 to be in a tide of prosperity. The condition of 
 the United States is a practical commentary 
 upon this reasoning. Within three or four 
 years past, the farmer got two dollars per 
 bushel for his wheat ; the cotton planter thirty 
 cents for his cotton ; the tobacco planter from 
 twenty to thirty dollars per hundred for his to- 
 bacco; contracts and purchases were made, 
 predicated upon this state of things; lands 
 which, a few years before, had sold at ten and 
 fifteen dollars per acre, now sold for twenty 
 and thirty ; slaves, who had sold at four or five 
 hundred, now sold for eight hundred or a thou- 
 sand ; and so of all the other transactions in 
 society. The great bulk of society cannot dis- 
 tinguish between a rise in price, which is the 
 result of depreciation in the currency, and that 
 which proceeds, from actual appreciation in the 
 value of property. 
 
 We have been told, however, that England 
 has derived her immense wealth from manufac- 
 tures, and we have been, therefore, much 
 pressed with the weight of her example. I 
 have already endeavored to show that in this 
 country a different appropriation of capital is 
 more profitable, and that, therefore, it is impos- 
 sible to increase the national wealth by divert- 
 ing it to a less profitable one. If I have suc- 
 ceeded in this, whatever may be the case in re- 
 lation to England, her example is not for our 
 imitation. I beg leave, however, to tell gentle- 
 men that, although England has derived much 
 of her boasted wealth from manufactures, yet 
 she has derived a large portion of it from vari- 
 ous other sources ; she has had, for a long series 
 of years, with the unavoidable interruptions of 
 war only, the most extensive foreign commerce 
 in the world ; she for a long time had the mo- 
 nopoly of the commerce of the United States, 
 then her colonies ; she now has it of her Amer- 
 ican and West India colonies; but, above all, 
 she has derived immense wealth from her East 
 India possessions. Whatever may have been 
 the fate of her East India Company, the nation 
 itself, per fas aut nefas, by monopoly and op- 
 pression, have been much enriched from that 
 extended empire, embracing a native population 
 of forty millions of people. Let us for a mo- 
 ment inquire into this somewhat in detail: 
 Colquhoun, a modern British writer, informs 
 us, that the gross revenue of the East India 
 Company's possessions amounts to upwards of 
 18,000,000 ; the same writer states that there 
 are 6,000 British people, who, as civil and mili- 
 tary officers, receive salaries of from 200 to 
 10,000. Besides the East India Company, 
 there are in their territorial possessions 4,000 
 free British merchants ; from salaries, and from 
 the profits of the free trade, large sums are ac- 
 cumulated by individuals, which find their way 
 to the mother country. It is true, that almost 
 
 all the gross revenue is expended in the Com- 
 pany's possessions ; but I refer the committee 
 to the history of that suffering country, to con- 
 jecture of how much they have been plundered 
 by the natives of England, who return to their 
 native land to riot upon the spoils which their 
 rapine has produced. I speak upon the au- 
 thority of Colquhoun, when I say that England 
 has been much enriched from that source. 
 But, after all, what is this boasted wealth of 
 England? Is it distributed amongst the people 
 at large, so as " to scatter plenty over a smiling \ 
 land ? " No, sir, it is collected into the hands 
 of comparatively a few ; in the language of 
 another, " it sprouts into wens and tumors, and 
 collects in aneurisms which starve and palsy the 
 extremities." 
 
 Sir, the emblem of England is a painted 
 sepulchre fair without, but carious within. 
 View that country at a distance, and you see a 
 powerful navy, an extensive commerce, and a 
 great system of manufactures, promising almost 
 boundless wealth ; but lift the curtain take a 
 nearer view and you behold much more to re- 
 gret than to admire. Such a view will present 
 to you the following picture : the country 
 mortgaged as it were by a debt, the mere inter- 
 est of which is greatly more than the principal 
 of our national debt ; this interest paid to the 
 public creditors, who are less than one million 
 in number, whilst the whole population of Great 
 Britain and Ireland is between sixteen and 
 seventeen millions. To pay this interest and 
 the current expenses of Government a revenue 
 was raised for the year 1819, (which for that 
 single year was 54,000,000 sterling,) equal in 
 our currency to considerable more than double 
 the whole capital of our national debt, and then 
 leaving a deficiency of 14,000,000. The taxes 
 to meet this enormous expenditure, supposed to 
 be at least four pounds sterling to every man, 
 woman, and child; the poor rates for 1815, 
 estimated at 7,800,000, equal to $34,632,000 
 a sum considerably larger than the whole 
 annual expenditure of the United States 
 Government, including the Sinking Fund of 
 $10,000,000 the paupers estimated as being 
 between a fifth and a sixth part of the whole 
 population of England. Such are some of the 
 outlines of the picture which England presents. 
 There is indeed much wealth in the country, 
 but so distributed as to make extreme riches 
 and extreme poverty a state of things which I 
 ardently hope never to see existing in the land 
 which gave me birth. 
 
 Gentlemen have conceded, that the proposed 
 system would be improper, if it was not that 
 the nations of Europe, and especially England, 
 have pursued the plan of positive prohibition, 
 or high duties almost amounting to prohibition, 
 towards us, and they call upon us to imitate 
 their example. The first answer to this is, 
 what, I believe, has been already urged, _ that it 
 would be strange conduct, because foreign na- 
 tions have injured us by prohibition or high 
 duties, we should, therefore, injure ourselves
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 641 
 
 APRIL, 1820.] 
 
 Revision of the Tariff. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 still more by creating a monopoly in favor of a 
 part of our own citizens, at the expense of the 
 rest. But let us now trace the course of the 
 English policy, and the reasons which led to it, 
 together with the point at which it has now 
 arrived, and I think I shall be able to show that 
 it ought to be avoided, not pursued. Govern- 
 ments as well as individuals seem, at times, to 
 have their hobbies ; perhaps there are few sub- 
 jects in relation to which the hobby has been 
 oftener changed than that of political economy, 
 or the art of making a nation rich ; at one 
 time, the commercial or mercantile system is 
 the fashion of the day; at another time, the 
 doctrine of the French economists prevails, 
 that agriculture is the only source of wealth ; 
 now it seems that manufactures alone can save 
 us from ruin and bankruptcy. But I return to 
 the English policy, and the reasons which led 
 to it. During the prevalence of the mercantile 
 system, the general idea was, that wealth con- 
 sisted in gold and silver, and that a nation 
 having no mines could only get them by ex- 
 porting more than it imported. By the nse of 
 this kind of reasoning, persons interested in the 
 monopoly of the home market induced the Par- 
 liament either to prohibit or lay heavy duties 
 on importation; and those concerned in the 
 foreign market also prevailed, so as, in some in- 
 stances, to get bounties upon exportation. For 
 some time this was submitted to, but, at last, 
 the country gentlemen began to perceive these 
 operations, while they benefited certain classes, 
 were directly at their expense. With a view, 
 then, to counteract their effects, they have, 
 after struggling at different times, procured, 
 as offsets, the following provisions: the total 
 prohibition, except from Ireland, of cattle and 
 salted provisions, an exclusion of all foreign 
 corn, unless when the scarcity is such as to 
 raise the price to eighty shillings per quarter, 
 a monopoly price, and a bounty upon the ex- 
 portation of their own corn. Now, sir, I ask 
 the committee whether a system of policy can 
 be worthy of our imitation, which, setting out 
 upon entirely false principles, creates a mo- 
 nopoly in favor of one part of the community at 
 the expense of the other, and then seeks to re- 
 store the equality by a set of countervailing 
 provisions in favor of the injured party? 
 Equality is the desideratum; you may, after 
 having made one scale much heavier, restore 
 the equilibrium by putting an equal weight in 
 the other ; but, it you put a weight into neither 
 scale, the equilibrium has never been destroyed. 
 Thus it appears that all which can be hoped for, 
 after piles of regulations as high as Atlas, would 
 be, by legislation to restore an equality, which, 
 by legislation, we had destroyed. My course, 
 therefore, is, to remain where we are, and not 
 disturb the balance because we may afterwards 
 restore it ; if, however, we must imitate the 
 English system in part, I hope gentlemen will 
 give it all ; a part of which is a bounty upon 
 the exportation of their corn. If gentlemen 
 will give us a sufficient bounty on the exporta- 
 VOL. VI. 41 
 
 tion of our breadstuff, that would restore us to 
 our original equality. But, it is said that Eng- 
 land imposes a duty upon our wool. Do not 
 gentlemen see that, unless that duty is drawn 
 back, upon exportation, to the United States, it 
 operates to the advantage of the domestic 
 manufacturer, by increasing the cost of the 
 British article? And, if it be drawn back, 
 then it is entirely neutralized. England, also, 
 say gentlemen, gives her manufacturers a draw- 
 back upon exportation ; and, in some instances, 
 a bounty. It requires only to define the terms 
 drawback and bounty, to see that there is noth- 
 ing in this complaint. The drawback upon the 
 English manufacturer is, where an excise duty 
 is imposed by the British Government, which 
 raises the price at home ; but, as they cannot 
 regulate the foreign market, therefore, upon the 
 exportation, they draw back this excise, in or- 
 der that their people may come into foreign 
 competition, not encumbered with this increase 
 of cost. The case of the bounty is, if possible, 
 still plainer; it is given only where, without 
 this aid, the article could not, upon exportation, 
 withstand a foreign competition. Any article 
 thus situated, it is obvious, cannot injure the 
 American manufacturer ; that is, if the bounty 
 be not too large ; and, if it be, the British Gov- 
 ernment has injured its people in favor of a par- 
 ticular class, and then the argument is, that we 
 must inflict a like injury upon the American 
 citizen, in favor of the same class ; an argu- 
 ment, the weight of which it is submitted to 
 the committee to appreciate. 
 
 Mr. HAKDIN moved to postpone the bill inde- 
 finitely, and the House adjourned. 
 
 FBIDAY, April 28. 
 Revision of the Tariff'. 
 
 The House then took up the bill to regulate 
 the duties on imports, and the amendments re- 
 ported thereto by the Committee of the whole 
 House. 
 
 Mr. HARDIN'S motion to postpone the bill in- 
 definitely being under consideration 
 
 Mr. H. rose and delivered, in a speech of 
 nearly two hours in length, his sentiments in 
 opposition to the bill. 
 
 Mr. McLANE, of Delaware, addressed the 
 Chair as follows : 
 
 Mr. Speaker : I am too sensible of the value 
 of time, at this protracted period of the session, 
 to task the patience of the House longer than 
 may be absolutely necessary to submit the views 
 I entertain of this subject. When efforts so 
 zealous, urged as they are both by the force of 
 individual character and best talents of the 
 House, are made to defeat the principal object 
 of this bill, I owe it to that quarter of the coun- 
 try which I represent, and which is deeply in- 
 terested in the result of this question, to contrib- 
 ute my aid in behalf of a measure which I 
 believe is calculated to mitigate the national 
 distress, and promote the national prosperity.
 
 642 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 Revision of the Tariff. 
 
 [APRIL, 1820. 
 
 Besides the general principles which are in- 
 volved in this subject, there are other considera- 
 tions, to which I will beg leave first to refer, 
 why this motion should not prevail. 
 
 I am free to say that I do not entirely ap- 
 prove of the bill in its present form. It em- 
 braces too many subjects, and presents a com- 
 bination of objects which, I fear, will counteract, 
 in the extent of its range, some of the benefits 
 designed to be afforded to that portion of the 
 national labor which most imperiously requires 
 to be cherished. But, though it may be in 
 some measure true, that the bill proposes more 
 than the state of the country absolutely requires, 
 the present motion does not propose enough. 
 If the bill is too large, and calls upon us to do 
 too much, it is no reason why we should do 
 nothing. It is our duty to modify it, and 
 adapt it to the wants and condition of the 
 country. 
 
 And, though it be true, as has been urged, 
 that we are now near the close of a protracted 
 session, we should remember that it has been 
 characterized by few of those measures to which 
 the anxious eyes of the nation have been con- 
 stantly directed, and that the subject now be- 
 fore us is one neither of the first impression, nor 
 hastily got up. It has been before the people 
 and the councils of the country for many years. 
 and forced upon the reflectionof the least consid- 
 erate, by the pressure of the private and pub- 
 lic distress which this bill proposes to relieve. 
 The subject underwent a full investigation when 
 the existing tariff was established ; and the great 
 error at that time was, that there was not af- 
 forded a degree of protection commensurate 
 with the evils. The inadequacy of the existing 
 tariff has been fully tested by past experience, 
 and throughout the present session our powers 
 have been invoked to supply its defects. We 
 have already expended a week in investigating 
 the details of this bill, which will be worse than 
 loss of time if we separate without coming to 
 a decision. If the protecting arm of the Gov- 
 ernment is to be extended to the national labor, 
 the policy should be announced without delay ; 
 otherwise it may prove ineffectual for the ob- 
 ject. Considerable capital is already embarked 
 "in manufacturing establishments, and if it be 
 our interest to preserve it there, and to cherish 
 its employment, it is indispensably necessary 
 that we should inspire the capitalists with con- 
 fidence in our policy, to prevent them from 
 withdrawing it, or to save it from actual loss. 
 If we fail to do so now, the remedy may be 
 administered when the disease has sunk below 
 its efficacy. A determination to foster this 
 particular employment of the national capital, 
 may prove effectual now, even with an inade- 
 quate tariff, when, without such a determina- 
 tion, it may be impossible hereafter to repair 
 the ruins which might have been prevented by 
 seasonable aid. 
 
 I am willing to unite with gentlemen in par- 
 ing down this bill to reasonable limits, provided 
 it shall be allowed to give abundant encourage- 
 
 ment to the principal articles of public necessity, 
 and afford ample relief to the exigencies of the 
 national labor ; but I will take it as it is, rather 
 than get nothing. It is our duty to relieve the 
 distress which pervades the country, and there 
 is much greater danger, in my opinion, that we 
 shall do less, than more, than is necessary. 
 
 I beg leave, also, to divest this subject of the 
 particular character with which it has been in- 
 geniously attempted to stamp it. To associate 
 it with sectional interests and particular classes, 
 is treating it unfairly, and resembles much more 
 the indulgence of narrow prejudices than the 
 pursuit of a liberal policy for national purposes. 
 It is calculated more to increase a common evil 
 than to promote a general good, or to conduct 
 us to an enlightened decision. The object is 
 purely national, embracing the best interests of 
 all parts of the community. It is to promote a 
 common end, for a common benefit ; to cherish 
 the national labor and capital wherever they 
 may be found, and to conduct them to profitable 
 and national results. If the encouragement 
 of that portion of our labor which can be em- 
 ployed in the manufactures of the country, will 
 not do this, it ought not to be afforded. 1 claim 
 for them no particular aid beyond what may 
 contribute to the good of the whole mass of our 
 national industry. 
 
 Having said thus much, Mr. Speaker, in re- 
 gard to the objections against the tariff as a 
 whole, I will proceed now to consider the gen- 
 eral principles upon which, I think, its great 
 objects may be maintained and recommended 
 to our adoption. 
 
 I was fully aware of the principles of the 
 writers upon political economy, which have 
 been so earnestly and ably relied upon by the 
 opponents of the tariff; and though I am by no 
 means disposed to involve in a common censure 
 these principles and their authors, they appear 
 to me to be unsafe guides in this discussion, 
 where they are not sanctioned by experience, 
 and tested by the practical operation of national 
 policy. Much of the numerous treatises upon 
 political economy consists in plausible theories, 
 founded upon a state of things which, in fact, 
 have no existence, and, with regard to the most 
 of these theories, the greatest difference of opin- 
 ion prevails among the authors themselves. 
 Among these numerous theorists each is the 
 stout advocate of his own system, and the world 
 has not yet finally decided between them. One 
 contends that agricultural labor is the only profi- 
 table source of wealth, and that manufactur- 
 ing capital is unproductive ; this is denied by 
 another, who advocates some other favorite 
 branch of industry. A third is the advocate of 
 commercial capital ; another prefers the home 
 trade ; and the fifth contends for the superiority 
 of a foreign commerce; so that scarcely any 
 two of them agree, when they come to carry 
 their respective systems throughout the details, 
 and are yet litigating many of the principles 
 which have been so confidently relied upon in 
 this debate. Sir, it is the course of true wisdom
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 643 
 
 APRIL, 1820.] 
 
 Revision of the Tariff. 
 
 [H. or R. 
 
 in us to leave them to their employment; and 
 adopt those principles only which we find in 
 practical and successful use. With these as our 
 data, we must adapt our measures to our own 
 wants, and the actual condition of the world. 
 
 Now, sir, whatever contrariety of opinion 
 may prevail, in regard to the mass of the theo- 
 ries upon this subject, there is a common foun- 
 dation for them all : and that is, that the source 
 of individual and national wealth is labor, and 
 that the degree of the former will be in propor- 
 tion to the activity of the latter. We may also 
 disagree as to the particular mode of employ- 
 ment in which this labor will be most produc- 
 tive, but all will agree that it must be employed 
 in some way. It must be made active ; and, if 
 necessary, must be stimulated to activity. The 
 evils of an unemployed, inactive labor, are al- 
 ways in proportion to its capacity, and all the 
 vices which follow in the train of an idle pop- 
 ulation will soon chastise a nation whose coun- 
 cils are inattentive to the employment of its 
 labor. I am not the advocate of any particular 
 branch of labor. I believe it is best, in general, 
 that it should be diversified. I can have no 
 idea of a nation purely agricultural, commer- 
 cial, or manufacturing. Their interests are 
 mutual, and the advantage of each is always 
 promoted by encouraging, to a certain extent, 
 the prosperity of the others. I am free to say, 
 however, that, in the United States, the pre- 
 ference should be given to the agriculture of 
 the country. This should be the basis of our 
 strength, the great fountain of onr resources, 
 and in the nature of things it always must be 
 so. There is, therefore, no design to change 
 the agricultural character of the nation into a 
 manufacturing one, as has been so seriously 
 deprecated in this debate. Such fears are alto- 
 gether imaginary. At least nine-tenths of the 
 power and influence of this country are agricul- 
 tural, and it is is utterly impossible that a course 
 of policy can be pursued, for any length of time, 
 which shall, in any degree, subvert that inter- 
 est. The agriculturist understands his interests, 
 and will not be slow in resisting any serious 
 encroachment upon them. In a popular gov- 
 ernment like ours, his resistance will always be 
 prompt and effectual. Even in England, ex- 
 tended as are her manufactures, the agricultural 
 interest is always predominant ; and there is no 
 instance, in all the struggles with regard to the 
 grain laws, and other measures in which these 
 two great interests have been opposed, that the 
 agriculturists have not prevailed. 
 
 It is clearly among the first duties of a nation 
 to make the labor of its citizens active, and 
 direct it to the most profitable results. Not by 
 undue means to stimulate any particular branch 
 of labor, to the ruin and injury of any other; 
 but to stimulate the aggregate of its own against 
 the aggregate of foreign labor, and to protect 
 any particular branch of its own labor against 
 the rivalship of foreign policy. If a nation ex- 
 pects to become wealthy and powerful, it must 
 exert itself to supply its wants by its own la- 
 
 bor, rather than depend upon foreign labor for 
 articles of the first necessity. 
 
 The principle is not only sound in theory, but 
 is that which is in practical operation in every 
 nation which understands its own interest. 
 They sell all, and buy nothing with which their 
 own labor can supply them. Let us look to the 
 example of England. She is agricultural, com- 
 mercial, and manufacturing. The state of her 
 agriculture is equal to that of any part of the 
 globe ; her manufacturing interests more exten- 
 sive than in any other. Her policy uniformly 
 has been to cherish her manufacturing labor, as 
 auxiliary to her national wealth, and to resist 
 all foreign competition. It is manifested in the 
 earliest dawnings of her history. She began 
 with encouraging the manufacture of the coarse 
 articles which constituted her prime wants, and 
 afterwards followed up her policy with an un- 
 ceasing assiduity, until she not only shielded 
 her own labor from the competition of other 
 nations, but in a great measure crippled their 
 labor at home, and became the source of supply 
 for all the world. Have we not seen the effects 
 of this policy diffusing themselves throughout 
 every branch of her industry, and over every 
 part of her empire, until by this means there 
 has been reared up a mass of wealth and power 
 almost irresistible ? It is true, we have been 
 referred to England for an example of the evils 
 of what has been termed the manufacturing 
 system and her national debt ; her insurrectional 
 temper and mass of pauperism, have been in- 
 geniously urged in the debate. But these are 
 not the effects of her manufacturing system. 
 They are the result of the expensive wars in 
 which she has been perpetually involved, and 
 the insupportable weight of taxation conse- 
 quent upon them ; of a policy which has kept 
 her continually embroiled, by intermeddling in 
 the disputes of others, when she had none of 
 her own on hand ; a policy to which she would 
 long since have fallen a victim, but for those 
 abundant streams of wealth which her active 
 labor continually poured into her lap, and 
 which she so lavishly drained in the cause of 
 her unhallowed ambition. It does not follow- 
 that we are to imitate her in these respects, 
 because, like her, we afford protection to our 
 home labor ; and I cannot believe that we shall 
 be likely to beget treasonable insurrections by 
 rewarding the occupation of the citizen with 
 ease and cheerfulness. Insurrections are the 
 fruits of an idle, discontented population ; they 
 may be produced by the neglect, but not by the 
 watchful protection of the Government. The 
 same policy was early adopted, and has been 
 ever since pursued, by France, Holland, Prus- 
 sia, Italy, and many other powers of Europe ; 
 and all who are at all conversant with their 
 history, know that similar effects proved the 
 wisdom of affording national encouragement to 
 national labor. The famous continental sys- 
 tem of Bonaparte shows that he early discerned 
 this real source of national wealth and power. 
 When meditating the destruction of the British
 
 644 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 Revision of the Tariff. 
 
 [APRIL, 1820. 
 
 empire, he knew very well the source of her 
 strength, and he wisely conceived the policy of 
 drying it up. Had his ambition been tempered 
 with some portion of patience, and he had con- 
 sented to wait a few years for the gradual suc- 
 cess of his policy, it would have been more om- 
 nipotent than his arms. His example, however, 
 has not been lost upon the other nations of Eu- 
 rope; and though they did not yield to his 
 schemes, Kussia, and almost every other nation, 
 excepting Spain and Portugal, have voluntarily 
 adopted it. The principle of the Eussian tariff 
 is to receive nothing from abroad that she pos- 
 sesses skill and labor to make at home. Spain 
 and Portugal are the victims of a different pol- 
 icy. They adopt the principles which are 
 everywhere written and nowhere practised. 
 Spain stands a solitary beacon to warn us of 
 her fatal example, which buried the highest 
 spirit and best capacity in the miseries of idle- 
 ness and luxury, and drove her population to 
 seek a remedy through the dangerous paths of 
 revolt and insurrection. 
 
 The system is not a new one in the United 
 States. We have always deemed it our duty 
 to protect the home labor against foreign com- 
 petition. Our duties upon the agricultural pro- 
 ducts of foreign countries were not imposed for 
 purposes of revenue, but for the protection of 
 our own agricultural industry. And although 
 gentlemen may be disposed to regard these reg- 
 ulations lightly now, because of the peculiar 
 condition of foreign countries heretofore, they 
 are, nevertheless, indicative of the sense we 
 entertain of our true policy ; nor should it be 
 forgotten that East India cotton is already im- 
 ported into the United States cheaper than it can 
 be procured from the Southern States ; and that 
 the day may not be distant, when the com- 
 petition in this article will be much more for- 
 midable. 
 
 We have adopted the same system for the 
 protection of the commercial enterprise of the 
 country. The heavy foreign tonnage, the high 
 rate of duties upon merchandise imported in 
 foreign vessels; bounties allowed on the ex- 
 portation of fish ; tonnage and drawback grant- 
 ed to fishing vessels ; the exclusion of foreign 
 vessels from the coasting trade, and the entire 
 system of navigation laws, are evidently de- 
 signed to give a preference to American ships 
 and enterprise, over those of foreigners. I do 
 not refer to these in the spirit of complaint ; 
 far from it ; the wisdom of the policy is appa- 
 rent in its effects. Nor do I refer to them to 
 show that, because we have done much for 
 commerce, we should, therefore, do something 
 for manufactures ; but I refer to them, as dem- 
 onstrating the utility of the doctrine, of leaving 
 things to regulate themselves ; as evincing the 
 necessity of national protection for national la- 
 bor, and of counteracting the effect of foreign 
 competition upon our home enterprise, in what- 
 ever channel it may be employed. 
 
 Before the establishment of our independ- 
 ence, we relied for our supplies principally upon 
 
 the labor of England, whose policy it was to 
 preserve that state of dependence, and discour- 
 age all efforts in her colonies to manufacture 
 for themselves. But the successful termination 
 of that memorable conflict defeated her policy, 
 and gave a new spring to our enterprise, and 
 the same spirit by which it was achieved dic- 
 tated a resort to our own resources to give it 
 perpetuity. The subject was almost the first 
 that occupied our national deliberations ; and 
 the report of the illustrious man who then pre- 
 sided over the treasury, Mr. Hamilton, por- 
 trayed with a prophetic hand the true course 
 of national policy. It would have been pur- 
 sued long ago, but for those desolating wars 
 which soon afterwards broke out in Europe, 
 and which have continued ever since, until very 
 recently, with scarcely any intermission, and 
 cramped both the agricultural and commercial 
 enterprise of those nations. Their population 
 was drawn from these employments to man 
 their fleets and fill the ranks of their armies ; 
 they had little time for the cultivation of the 
 peaceful arts, and we became their growers and 
 carriers. In such a state of things, the popu- 
 lation of the country, at that time, found full 
 employment in the agricultural and commercial 
 pursuits, and in the multiplicity of handicraft 
 and other employments, to which a flourishing 
 state of those two great branches of industry 
 always give rise. 
 
 The demand abroad exceeded our means of 
 supply; we received high prices for all our 
 produce ; our commerce penetrated all parts of 
 the world ; every man found constant demand 
 for his labor; and the capital of the country 
 had a brisk circulation ; we exchanged all our 
 products for the fabrics of foreign countries, un- 
 der great advantages, and increased in wealth 
 and power with an unexampled rapidity. But 
 a new state of things has taken place. Those 
 wars have terminated, and the world is at 
 peace. The population which filled the fleets 
 and armies of Europe is withdrawn, and is now 
 turned to agricultural and commercial pursuits. 
 We no longer possess the exclusive advantages 
 in these respects ; they neither require our 
 ships nor our agricultural products. Their de- 
 mand for our surplus produce will diminish an- 
 nually ; for they are rapidly carrying into prac- 
 tical operation their policy of creating their 
 own supply. We all know, too, that the India 
 trade never did, and never will, require any 
 part of our products ; it deals principally in 
 money, and operates as a perpetual drain of our 
 specie. If, in connection with these causes, we 
 consider our increasing population, the result 
 is, that our wants of Europe are augmenting 
 and theirs of us are diminishing. As we can 
 export less, we must raise less ; we cannot em- 
 ploy the same quantity of labor, and all those 
 industrious people who are occupied in feeding 
 the demands of a prosperous state of agricul- 
 ture and commerce are cast~upon society with- 
 out the means of subsistence. The result is, 
 also, that, as foreign nations will not take our
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 645 
 
 APRIL, 1820.] 
 
 Revision of the Tariff. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 surplus produce in exchange for the articles for 
 which we rely upon them, we must go in debt 
 for the amount, and without any means that I 
 can discover of making payment. The balance 
 of trade against us last year was twenty-eight 
 millions of dollars : and every one must see 
 that, as the wants of foreign nations are annu- 
 ally diminishing, this balance must increase 
 with the same proportion. What, though it 
 may be true, as has been contended, that the 
 present embarrassments may be occasioned in 
 some degree by the inordinate extension of the 
 bank capital, and the imprudent speculations 
 of individuals, it neither makes the evil less, 
 nor varies the remedy. If the distress be at 
 all ascribable to this source, it is more because 
 of the capital having been suddenly withdrawn 
 from circulation, than because it was ever 
 thrown into use. No doubt much of the indi- 
 vidual embarrassment which now prevails 
 would have been spared, if such an accumulation 
 of bank capital had not been made. But it can- 
 not be disguised, that this capital had become 
 the standard of the business and transactions 
 of the country, and, if it had been permitted 
 to continue, the labor of the country would in 
 time have redeemed it. It has been, however, 
 suddenly taken up a stagnation of business, 
 scarcity of a circulating medium, sacrifice of 
 property, and want of employment ensue. The 
 necessity for the interposition of Congress is 
 only increased, therefore ; and, as we refuse to 
 create a national currency, the duty becomes 
 more imperious to provide another remedy. 
 The remedy is, to foster the national industry, 
 to create a market at home for our surplus, and 
 to make for ourselves what we should be 
 obliged otherwise to import from abroad. 
 
 The degree in which the encouragement shall 
 be afforded is, then, sir, the only remaining 
 question. I am willing that this should be 
 measured by the capacity of our labor, and the 
 obstacles with which it has to contend. But it 
 should be sufficient to produce a successful ri- 
 valship, and secure the preference in the home 
 market. I do not advocate the policy of pre- 
 maturely drawing the labor from one branch of 
 industry to another ; by extraordinary encour- 
 agement, or by high duties, to create a capacity 
 which is to be useful some twenty years hence. 
 But, where we possess the capacity, which, by 
 a due preference in our own market, would 
 supply our consumption with those articles, with 
 the raw material of which our own country 
 abounds ; there, I contend, the duty becomes 
 imperious to cherish the capacity, and stimulate 
 it to the highest activity. It is in this point of 
 view, among others, that the policy of the 
 friends of the tariff avoid the narrow construc- 
 tion now put upon the visionary theories of po- 
 litical economists ; it is not entirely giving a new 
 direction to the labor of the country, or creat- 
 ing new habits or employments at a great ex- 
 pense upon other classes. It finds the capacity 
 existing ; it looks to the direction which men's 
 own dispositions and the course of events have 
 
 given to the labor, and finding it struggling 
 with a foreign competition, it steps in to its aid, 
 cherishes its resources, and secures them the 
 scope of the home market. But the relief should 
 be prompt and effectual. If the first tariff had 
 gone to the extent now proposed, many of the 
 evils of which we now complain would have 
 been avoided. It is no answer to say that the 
 tariff was then deemed sufficient; and if the 
 manufacturers then believed it would be, it only 
 proves that they desired no extravagant aid. 
 One thing, however, is certain : that Congress 
 did not fix the duties at as high a rate as was 
 recommended by the Secretary of the Treasury, 
 and the result has clearly proved its entire in- 
 adequacy. 
 
 Mr. LOWNDES said, that, after the view which 
 had been taken of the question before the House 
 by his friends who had already spoken, he 
 should not attempt a systematic exposition of 
 the grounds of his vote ; because, in doing so, 
 he would be obliged to employ arguments which 
 they had stated more clearly and strongly than 
 he could do. On this account his observations 
 must be very desultory. 
 
 The question was not whether manufactures 
 were useful ; a great deal of trouble had been 
 taken to prove what nobody denied. Nor was 
 it even the question, whether it was the policy 
 of the Government to encourage them by duties 
 upon foreign importations. His friends had 
 shown, by arguments which had not been an- 
 swered, that that employment of industry which 
 afforded the most profit to the individual would 
 ordinarily conduce most to the wealth of the 
 State, and that the duties or prohibitions which 
 should direct any portion of the labor of the 
 country to a business which it could not other- 
 wise engage in, would usually be found to sub- 
 stitute a less profitable employment for one 
 which was more so. If they are right, the 
 present bill, which proposed a large additional 
 encouragement to particular branches of indus- 
 try, must be entirely indefensible ; but, if there 
 were doubt as to the correctness of opinions,, 
 (which they held in common with every politi- 
 cal economist, to whose work time had given 
 its sanction,) this doubt was enough to dissuade 
 the House from further interference on a subject 
 on which they had, perhaps, already gone too 
 far. While his principal object would be to 
 show that the encouragement already afforded 
 was as great as could reasonably be granted, he 
 wished, before he engaged in an inquiry into 
 the degree of encouragement, to advert to some 
 general principles which he supposed to be in- 
 volved in the discussion. 
 
 The gentleman from Delaware, (Mr. McLAXK,) 
 whose argument he had heard with as much 
 attention and pleasure as any of those who most 
 fully concurred in his opinions, had proposed no 
 partial or sectional objects. He wished to en- 
 courage the industry of the nation ; to raise the 
 value of labor and capital employed in every 
 pursuit. This was very patriotic, but very im- 
 practicable. We cannot create capital. We
 
 646 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 Revision of the Tariff 1 . 
 
 [APRIL, 1820. 
 
 are not magicians or alchymists. We can do 
 no more than to produce a change in the distri- 
 bution of labor among the different employ- 
 ments of life ; and, if we increase the profits of 
 any branch of industry by our legislation, it 
 must be by taking from one class what we give 
 to the other. Perhaps the general good might 
 be promoted by such an act, (he was not now 
 entering into this question ;) perhaps the class 
 at whose expense the interests of another class 
 were to be promoted, might ultimately be in- 
 demnified for a temporary sacrifice; but the 
 expectation must be utterly illusory, that a 
 bounty could be given to any branch of indus- 
 try without, at least, a temporary sacrifice by 
 some others. 
 
 It was plain that the defence of the bill be- 
 fore the House implied that the industry em- 
 ployed in manufactures at home, should be 
 more encouraged by the Government than that 
 which was engaged in procuring for us the pro- 
 duce of foreign countries in exchange for the 
 labor or produce of our own. The first was 
 called the home industry, and the phrase had 
 no small influence in the discussion. In pur- 
 chasing commodities imported from abroad, we 
 are supposed to encourage principally the indus- 
 try of a foreign State. Plausible as this view 
 might appear, he thought that even a slight ex- 
 amination of the subject would show that man- 
 ufactures and commerce might be equally pro- 
 ductive, and might equally encourage "home 
 industry." 
 
 Between the results of commercial and manu- 
 facturing industry, the difference is not as great 
 as it has been represented. In manufactures a 
 material of inferior value receives a change in 
 its form which adds greatly to its utility. The 
 fabrication which is completed in our country 
 affords a profit, which is equal to the difference 
 in value between the raw material and the 
 manufactured article, after deducting the ex- 
 pense of manufacture. In commerce a material 
 of inferior value is carried abroad, and converted 
 into an article (or exchanged for one) which to 
 us is much more valuable. The conversion af- 
 fords us, as in the first case, a profit, which is 
 equal to the difference in value between the 
 original article and the exchanged product, 
 after deducting the expense of the exchange. 
 If a thousand people, in a corner of our coun- 
 try, make among them all the provisions which 
 they consume, and in addition to these furnish, 
 by their industry, one hundred thousand dollars' 
 worth of broadcloth, it does not appear that 
 they add more to the wealth of the State than 
 the same number of people would do distributed 
 among the employments of merchants, sailors, 
 and farmers, who, after supporting themselves, 
 should exchange the surplns productions of a 
 part of them (enhanced in value by the other 
 part which transports and exchanges them) for 
 the same amount of one hundred thousand dol- 
 lars in broadcloth, the same value of the same 
 article. If, by high duties or by positive laws, 
 we could force these merchants and seamen to 
 
 stay at home, and their capital and industry 
 should produce, as before, the one hundred 
 thousand dollars' worth of broadcloth, the arti- 
 cle, although fabricated in the country, would 
 not more be the result of American industry 
 (for the purpose of this argument) than if it 
 had been obtained by the other process of mari- 
 time adventure. It is quite natural to consider 
 the foreign manufacture as entirely the product, 
 and its purchase as the encouragement of foreign 
 industry. But how did we get it? Whatever 
 may be the amount of foreign fabrics which are 
 spread over our country, if it be the industry of 
 Europe which produces, it is the industry of 
 America which acquires them. 
 
 The industry employed in commerce, then, is 
 American industry, and the acquisition even of 
 foreign fabrics is the result of American indus- 
 try and its encouragement. He should have an 
 opportunity of illustrating this view when he 
 came to treat of a branch of trade which the 
 bill before the House proscribed he meant the 
 East India trade. He could, for the present, 
 observe only that the importation of foreign 
 fabrics acquired by American industry, if they 
 were furnished at a lower price than our manu- 
 facturers could afford to sell at, produced the 
 same loss and the same benefit as the introduc- 
 tion of any new machinery, or of any simpler 
 process which would lessen the expense of fab- 
 rication. In employing the saw mill or the 
 spinning jenny, we acted upon the same princi- 
 ple of getting what we wanted as cheap as we 
 could, and we produced the same distress in 
 throwing out of employment the persons whose 
 ruder industry could not stand this new compe- 
 tition. There was one admission, however, 
 which he frankly made ; the effect upon home 
 industry was the same of improved machinery 
 or of foreign trade but the trade which bene- 
 fited ourselves benefited also the country whose 
 wants we supplied, or whose products we con- 
 sumed. Let this objection have whatever 
 weight it was entitled to. Its principle was 
 not so much anti-commercial as anti-social. 
 
 In encouraging, then, the manufactures of 
 the country by duties upon importation, his 
 friend from Delaware would do the very thing 
 which he meant to avoid he would promote 
 one branch of American industry at the ex- 
 pense of another. But whether this control of 
 individual industry was right, he meant to leave 
 to the arguments of his friends from Virginia. 
 It had been said that the plan of encouraging 
 particular branches of industry had been applied 
 to commerce as well as manufactures. This was 
 no decisive recommendation of it. If the na- 
 tion had been taxed to encourage commerce, it 
 was a poor indemnity, (it was not exactly a 
 compensation of errors,) that it should be taxed 
 for the support of manufactures. There was, 
 too, some little difference between the two 
 cases. Taxes for the support of Government 
 were laid upon commerce ; these were paid by 
 the consumers of foreign merchandise, and 
 whatever the expenses on account of commerce
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 647 
 
 ATRIL, 1820.] 
 
 Revision of the Tariff. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 may have been, they were expenses which com- 
 merce herself was made to pay. The merchant, 
 or the purchaser of foreign articles, received, if 
 you please, some relief from the credit which 
 was allowed upon the payment of duties ; but 
 he certainly received nothing from contributions 
 which were paid by any other class in the com- 
 munity. 
 
 Exclusive advantages, indeed, have been 
 given to the navigating interest. The principal 
 interest of it was the monopoly of the coasting 
 trade. This was connected with considerations 
 of defence, not of profit to support not our 
 merchants, but our navy. But what was the 
 extent of the bounty? In the direct trade 
 with the first navigating country in the world 
 (England) our ships obtained, without any dis- 
 crimination in the duties, the larger part of the 
 navigation. Could the ships of foreign nations, 
 unable successfully to compete witli ours in 
 foreign trade, have carried on the coasting 
 trade on lower terms than our own ? No other 
 interest has contributed a bounty to commerce, 
 and the discrimination in favor of American 
 navigation, in the only instances in which it 
 could be expected to operate, (if it ever op- 
 erated at all,) was a discrimination of ten per 
 cent. 
 
 The encouragement of manufactures in the 
 mode proposed, whether the thing were right 
 or wrong, must produce two effects the one, 
 that of withdrawing labor aud capital from 
 commerce or agriculture, and thus enlarging 
 the whole amount employed in manufactures ; 
 the other, that of effecting the distribution of 
 labor and capital among the different branches 
 of manufactures themselves. He would say 
 nothing of the first effect, but the second must 
 be allowed to be one of unmixed injury. Ad- 
 mit that it is our interest to manufacture arti- 
 cles which we could procure at cheaper rates 
 from abroad, it must be still more our interest 
 to manufacture such as prove themselves adapt- 
 ed to our circumstances by being able to bear 
 foreign competition. Our capital and labor are 
 limited, and, in directing the largest amount of 
 these into branches which require most encour- 
 agement, we really divert them from those into 
 which they would flow with most advantage. 
 Thus, every branch of industry which is en- 
 tirely safe from foreign competition, and in re- 
 spect to which protecting duties may be con- 
 sidered as nominal, must be injured by the 
 encouragement of those which draw from them 
 their resources of capital and labor. We have 
 many branches of industry among those which 
 may be expected to be first established in everv 
 country, which seem not to be more prosperous 
 now than they were thirty years ago, nor are 
 the articles which they furnish by any means 
 at so low a price. What are called the me- 
 chanic arts are generally in this class. Why is 
 this so? Because Government, in fact, bids 
 against them; because the operation of this 
 system of duties must be relative, and, in en- 
 couraging one branch of industry, \ve necessa- 
 
 rily discourage another. Look at the iron 
 manufactory as a proof of this. It is said to 
 want yet further encouragement, recently as the 
 duties have been raised, and, it is true, (he had 
 the proof of it upon his table,) that the profits 
 of the iron-master were greater before the Rev- 
 olution than they had been for some past years; 
 greater when our capital and population were 
 small, and foreign competition unrestricted, than 
 when all these circumstances were changed in 
 our favor. To all that industry, whether agri- 
 cultural or manufacturing, which is safe from 
 foreign competition, the system of " encourag- 
 ing domestic industry" can give no advantage, 
 but it must share in the burden without parti- 
 cipating in the profits. We exported the last 
 year, he believed, manufactured goods to the 
 amount of three millions. The establishments 
 which furnished these could not gain by duties 
 upon importation ; but their expenses would' be 
 increased, though their profits could not. 
 
 Mr. L. enlarged for some time upon this sub- 
 ject, and attempted to show that the system of 
 laying a high duty upon every process of manu- 
 facture must frequently produce this effect; 
 that, to encourage a manufacture which em- 
 ploys but a small number of hands, and is com- 
 paratively unimportant, we may raise so high 
 the price of an article which supports the in- 
 dustry and subserves the comfort of a large 
 class of the community, as to produce general 
 inconvenience. He appealed not to theory but 
 to fact. We were anxious in 1816 to encourage 
 the rolling of copper. We did so,. and laid a 
 duty upon copper in sheets. Our plan has, in 
 part, succeeded. Two establishments have 
 been maintained, which are said to employ 
 fifty-four workmen; and it is computed that 
 four thousand industrious men, the braziers who 
 work up this copper, (whose industry even be- 
 gan to furnish articles for exportation,) have 
 suffered heavy and general injury, which has 
 extended to all their customers to a large por- 
 tion of the community. 
 
 The view on which peculiar reliance appeared 
 to be placed for the defence of this bill was that 
 which was connected with the alleged failure 
 of our policy hitherto in respect both to the in- 
 dustry and revenue of the country. He had 
 heard these arguments with surprise. He 
 should hereafter make some observations upon 
 a comparison between our import duties and 
 those of the nations of Europe. But, was it 
 enough to condemn our policy that it was not 
 European? It is yet more true of internal 
 taxes than of impost, that the nations of Europe 
 are very far in advance of us. Their establish- 
 ments of other kinds differ more than their 
 tariffs from those of the United States. W V 
 had ventured, however rash it might be 
 thought, "to adopt principles which had not 
 been tested" by their experience. And, had 
 we suffered for our temerity ? Had our experi- 
 ment really failed? What nation in Europe 
 had advanced more rapidly to prosperity and 
 wealth by the most successful wars, than had
 
 6-18 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 Revision of the Tariff. 
 
 [APRIL, 1820. 
 
 the United States without a conquest, by the 
 mere development and natural growth of their 
 resources? Let their policy be changed if it 
 must be so, but let them not be ungrateful to 
 the wisdom which had directed, to the Provi- 
 dence which had favored them. The nominal 
 value of property might change ; the currency 
 might rise or depreciate ; but a' population 
 quadrupled in less than fifty years, and a pro- 
 duction increased in a yet larger proportion, 
 furnished no evidence to condemn the scheme 
 under which security had resulted. Independ- 
 ently of the protection of property, which our 
 laws afforded, the principal cause of a growth 
 so extraordinary must be found in the high re- 
 wards of labor. In new countries, where land 
 is yet' not fully appropriated, labor always ob- 
 tains a high price in the raw produce of the 
 earth, and generally but a small one in manu- 
 factured articles. It has been the happy pecu- 
 liarity of our situation and of our policy that 
 the laborer has obtained as large an amount as 
 anywhere else of the necessaries which agricul- 
 ture furnishes, and a much larger one of the 
 comforts which manufacturers provide. The 
 statesmen may mar his condition, but cannot 
 mend it. He cannot raise his wages estimated 
 in the produce of the earth, and by a large for- 
 eign import he must lower his wages if you 
 estimate them in the manufactures which he 
 must consume. 
 
 The revenue which the impost furnishes, is 
 paid by the consumer, and not by the mer- 
 chant. It-is paid in the enhanced price of the 
 article which he buys. The gentleman from 
 Pennsylvania seems to think, that, if, by exclud- 
 ing this article, he is forced to consume only 
 the domestic fabric, the Government, which has 
 not received its accustomed duty upon the im- 
 portation of foreign, may collect the same 
 ; amount by an excise upon domestic articles. 
 "The money has not been carried out of the 
 country." If, indeed, by ceasing to import the 
 foreign fabric, the domestic article is furnished 
 -to the consumer at a lower price, he may pay a 
 tax upon it but the tax which was paid in the 
 price of the article is not reduced by its exclu- 
 sion ; it is, indeed, so far as the farmer is con- 
 cerned, increased he pays more for the arti- 
 cles which he buys ; his expenses are greater ; 
 his -clear revenue less. Is there any legerde- 
 main 'by which, under these circumstances, his 
 ability to pay taxes can be increased? You 
 -tell him that he paid before a certain tax to the 
 Government, and that he does not pay it now ; 
 he answers you, that he pays a higher tax, be- 
 cause he pays a higher price now than he did 
 formerly, and that it is not his fault that this 
 tax goes into the pocket of the manufacturer, 
 and -not into the public treasury. If, in addi- 
 tion to the exclusion of the foreign article, you 
 lay an excise upon the domestic product, it is 
 evident that the country must pay a double 
 tax, although the Government will not receive 
 it. It is hardly possible, however, to reason 
 upon 'this subject. The ability to pay taxes 
 
 must be diminished by every thing which adds 
 to the expenses (as the exclusion of foreign 
 goods must do) of those who are to pay them. 
 
 Mr. L. said that he would return for a mo- 
 ment to the consideration of the question, how 
 far the propriety " of leaving things to them- 
 selves," was affected by the opposite system 
 which was pursued by foreign powers. If 
 China should by law admit all our produce, 
 manufactured or agricultural, it is plain enough 
 that we could not advantageously send there 
 any which we do not now send. Indeed, he 
 did not know that she prohibited any of our 
 produce, but if she did the prohibition was 
 nominal, and it was evident that its removal 
 could not change the policy which it was our 
 interest to pursue. But perhaps China be- 
 longed to a sphere of industry too different 
 from ours, for the application of these princi- 
 ples. "Would the admission of the products of 
 our industry by the nations of Europe justify, 
 in the estimation of the friends of this bill, the 
 reciprocal admission of theirs ? Of what avail 
 would it be to us that England should consent 
 to take our manufactures ? An engagement to 
 do so would " keep its promise to the ear, but 
 break it to the sense." Our breadstuffs she 
 takes now only when wheat is above ten shil- 
 lings, when, by the by, it is most our interest 
 to sell it. Suppose her laws permitted its im- 
 portation when the price was low ; would any 
 friend of the bill avow that this policy, which 
 would make the establishment of manufactures 
 here a matter of somewhat more difficulty, 
 would incline him to dispense with protecting 
 duties in favor of our manufactures? He put 
 it to the candor of his friends on the other side, 
 to say whether they would consent to a treaty 
 by which the raw produce of America and the 
 manufactures of England should be exchanged 
 without duty? They would not. Their objec- 
 tions to an intercourse unburdened by duties, 
 would be still stronger than they now are, if 
 Europe, in affording a better market for our 
 agriculture, should oppose still stronger diffi- 
 culties to the establishment of manufactures. 
 
 Yet it was true that those who wished to 
 impose heavier duties or prohibitions upon for- 
 eign manufactures, alleged that, by doing so, 
 the price of agricultural produce would be 
 raised. It was equally true, and more strange, 
 that a great many good people, interested in 
 agriculture, had believed the allegation. The 
 error was susceptible of easy refutation. If, 
 indeed, the allegation were just, the manufac- 
 turer would gain nothing by the change. If 
 the prices of what he buys and sells rise in the 
 same proportion, he might as well leave every 
 thing as it is. But the notion that the encour- 
 agement of manufactures will give a good price 
 to the productions of agriculture is entirely 
 fallacious. Whatever may be the domestic de- 
 mand for our grain, the supply will exceed it. 
 
 Mr. L. said that, in the detached observations 
 which he had offered, he had endeavored to re- 
 move the impression which some of the general
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 649 
 
 APRIL, 1820.] 
 
 Revision of the Tariff. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 arguments of the friends of the bill had made. 
 The propositions which, to his mind, it appeared 
 necessary that they should establish, they did 
 not prove they scarcely noticed. Grant that 
 it is right that the Government should encourage 
 all the manufactures of the country, that con- 
 siderable duties should be laid upon the impor- 
 tation of every article which can compete with 
 our own fabrics. This we have done already. 
 He believed that there was now no nation in 
 the world which, in proportion to its income, 
 paid so great a bounty to its manufacturers, as 
 the United States. Had it ever been contended, 
 not merely that manufactures should be en- 
 couraged, but that the bounty to be given 
 should not be limited by any determined rela- 
 tion to the necessity of the manufacture, or the 
 fair profits of the manufacturer? This mode 
 of defending the bill was, perhaps, judicious; 
 it was certainly embarrassing to its opponents. 
 You say that it is important to encourage the 
 manufacture of cotton. Be it so. We know 
 that, however it be disguised, this can be done 
 only at the expense of the other classes of so- 
 ciety. Is it not proper to inquire what expense 
 is necessary ; what would be adequate ? The 
 operation of a protecting duty was simple, but 
 he must detain the House for a few moments 
 upon the subject, trite and familiar as it was. 
 Where duties are laid upon the importation of 
 articles of a kind which is not produced within 
 the country, the additional price which is paid 
 by the community is received into the public 
 treasury, with a deduction only for the costs of 
 collection. Where a duty is laid upon the im- 
 portation of an article which is produced with- 
 in the country, it will cause the same rise in its 
 price as in the former case ; but, of the addi- 
 tional sum which is paid by the community, a 
 part will be received by the Government and a 
 part by the manufacturer or producer of the 
 domestic article. If, for instance, one hundred 
 millions of pounds of sugar were consumed an- 
 nually in the United States, and three-fourths 
 of this amount were furnished by domestic in- 
 dustry, an additional duty of one cent the pound 
 would cause the consumers of sugar throughout 
 the country to pay one million of dollars more 
 in the price of the article, than they would 
 otherwise do would impose upon the people a 
 new tax of one million ; but, of this sum, less 
 than $250,000 would be received by the Gov- 
 ernment, and $750,000 by the sugar planter. 
 
 What he regretted, Mr. L. said, most, in the 
 course pursued by the Committee of Manufac- 
 ture, was, that they suggested no standard by 
 which the sufficiency of the encouragement 
 which they proposed could be tested, and prom- 
 ised, therefore, no limitation to the burden 
 which might be imposed upon the country. 
 The chairman of that committee had, indeed, 
 more than once directed our attention to the 
 duties imposed by the laws of Russia, France, 
 and England models which we had not yet 
 learned to imitate. It was not extraordinary 
 that Governments which were obliged to drain 
 
 every resource of revenue, should lay heavier 
 duties upon importation than we had done. 
 There was no part, however, of their system of 
 exaction in which we approached so near them 
 as in our duties upon commerce. In attempting 
 any comparison between their duties and those 
 of the United States, it was obviously neces- 
 sary to consider the difference of our circum- 
 stances. 
 
 Mr. L. said that he would say no more as to 
 the degree of additional encouragement which 
 was required by our manufactories. 
 
 But he had a few observations to make as to 
 the principles which appeared to have been 
 adopted in the tariff proposed by the Committee 
 of Manufactures. 
 
 Among the most objectionable of these was 
 what he considered as the proscription of the East 
 India trade, the principal articles afforded by 
 which were subjected to a duty of forty per cent. 
 
 The ground of this proscription was, that the 
 East Indies took from us scarcely any article of 
 our produce. 
 
 He had occasion on a former day to advert to 
 one of the most interesting branches of this 
 trade to that in which neither specie nor pro- 
 duce was exported, but in which the enterprise 
 and industry of our seamen formed the capital 
 which a harsh, and, he thought, a mistaken 
 policy would condemn to inactivity. They took 
 nothing from your country ; but they explored 
 the most distant seas they climbed almost in- 
 accessible rocks they pursued their hardy and 
 dangerous employment between the ports of 
 savage nations, and earned by their freights a 
 capital 'which fortune had not given them. 
 You would encourage manufacturing industry 
 because it was productive ; but the industry of 
 the brave men of whom he spoke created the 
 capital which they brought back to our country. 
 They did not twirl the spindle, or fling the 
 shuttle ; but when they brought home a cargo 
 of India fabrics, (peculiarly suited to the wants 
 of the poorest class of our society,) was their 
 industry less worthy of encouragement, because 
 they had made these fabrics on tempestuous 
 seas, or because, in pursuing their own interests, 
 they acquired and perfected the naval excellence 
 which made them our pride and our defence ? 
 We gave them the hospitality of our ports : they 
 might take in wood and water, and sail in search 
 of some strange land, from which these products 
 of American industry are not yet excluded ! 
 The policy appeared to him unjust and cruel. 
 
 But the other branches of the East Indian 
 trade merited encouragement rather than pro- 
 hibition. He had already spoken of the fallacy 
 which represented a trade to be injurious, in 
 which the imports exceeded the exports ; and 
 the East Indian trade furnished a good illustra- 
 tion of the fallacy. It takes, if you please, 
 nothing of domestic produce from us ; it gave 
 to the consumption of the country, in the year 
 when he had last examined the subject, an 
 amount of goods to the value of five millions. 
 How were these goods paid for ? Specie had
 
 650 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 Revision of the Tariff. 
 
 [APRIL, 1820. 
 
 undoubtedly been shipped both from America 
 and Europe for their purchase. But our sales 
 of East India articles in foreign countries had 
 exceeded the amount of our purchases in India. 
 Five millions of goods then consumed in the 
 United States were paid for by the mere profits 
 of the trade. Three thousand seamen, support- 
 ed by the requisite capital, added in one year 
 five millions to the clear amount of national in- 
 come. There was no exportation of our pro- 
 duce to pay for these fabrics, because they were 
 paid for already ; they were the acquisitions of 
 American industry. 
 
 He would not detain the House by talking of 
 the injury which the Indian trade was supposed 
 to do us by draining our specie. How the pur- 
 chase of merchandise, either in India or any- 
 where else, of which we kept the part that we 
 wanted, and sold the remainder for more than 
 we gave for the whole, could lessen the specie 
 which we retained, it would be a little difficult 
 to explain. 
 
 Another characteristic of the proposed tariff, 
 is its raising the duty on articles which had 
 been lowered in the act of 1816, because from 
 their small bulk, in proportion to their value, it 
 had been found impracticable to prevent their 
 being smuggled into the country. Watches, 
 jewelry, and laces, had, among other articles, 
 been reduced to seven and a half per cent. 
 The reduction had been proposed by the Secre- 
 tary of the Treasury, and adopted by the House 
 on this ground. Had any examination into the 
 fact been made by the Committee of Manufac- 
 tures? They had raised other articles also 
 which were known even at the present duties 
 to have been introduced clandestinely for in- 
 stance, coffee from five to six cents, segars from 
 $2 50 to $5. A large class of articles, of which 
 the supply is almost exclusively afforded by the 
 industry of the country, and on which an in- 
 creased duty if it have "any effect at all can only 
 have that of unnecessarily increasing the price, 
 is taxed in the proposed tariff considerably 
 higher than now. Thus, carriages and furniture 
 are raised from thirty to thirty-five per cent. ; 
 boots from $1 50 to $2 ; candles from three to 
 five cents ; molasses from five to ten cents ; 
 nails from four to five ; soap from three to four ; 
 brown sugar from three to four. He might 
 make the list much longer. 
 
 Mr. BALDWIN replied to Mr. LOWKDES and 
 others. 
 
 Mr. FOOT observed, having spent the whole 
 .of his life in commercial and agricultural pur- 
 suits, and being a practical friend to domestic 
 manufactures, he felt it to be his duty to state 
 the reasons which induced him to move the 
 postponement of this bill to the first day of next 
 
 Sir, this subject is not only very important, 
 but very intricate, involving the interest of 
 every portion of the community. A radical 
 or very material alteration of a commercial 
 tariff must of necessity produce a sensible shock 
 in every community. It ought never to be 
 
 adopted without much deliberation, and a care- 
 ful attention to its effects upon the several in- 
 terests which must of necessity be affected by 
 any change in the system. 
 
 If the Committee of Manufactures had con- 
 fined their attention to the several articles of 
 foreign manufacture which interfere with our 
 domestic manufactures alone, the bill would 
 have received my vote without any hesitation. 
 But, sir, when it is proposed to alter the whole 
 system, ostensibly for the encouragement of 
 American manufacturers, and proposes, among 
 the first articles, to impose an additional duty 
 of 6 per centum on the dyeing materials essen- 
 tial to our own manufacture, and increases the 
 duty on the most necessary articles, while it re- 
 duces the duty on wines and luxuries ; and 
 when we are told by the chairman that our sys- 
 tem of revenue from imports is rotten, and that 
 our dependence on commerce as a source of rev- 
 enue must be abandoned, sir, I think we 
 should pause before we rashly adopt a measure 
 calculated yes, sir, and even avowed as a meas- 
 ure to prohibit the importation of many 
 articles from which most of our revenue has 
 always been obtained, to the amount of more 
 than three hundred millions of dollars; and 
 when we have been also sarcastically threatened, 
 that if we complained of a duty of ten cents on 
 a gallon of molasses, because of its unequal and 
 partial operation upon the interests of our con- 
 stituents, that fifteen cents should be imposed. 
 Sir, I think the system, as well as the views of 
 those who advocate it, demand our serious at- 
 tention. 
 
 Sir, gentlemen declare this measure has been 
 requested by the merchants of our country, and 
 that the agricultural interest does not object 
 to it. If, sir, the commercial and agricultural 
 interests of this country had as many Represent- 
 atives on this floor as there are gentlemen of 
 one prof ession in Congress, you would hear their 
 voice in " tones of thunder 1 ' against the pa.-sage 
 of this bill. Would they consent to pay direct 
 taxes to the amount of twenty millions of dollars 
 annually? Who must pay your additional du- 
 ties? The consumers, all will acknowledge: 
 and it has been truly said, that the agricultural 
 interest composes nine-tenths of the whole 
 population. If gentlemen who so strenuously 
 advocate this bill would encourage domestic 
 manufactures, by using them in their dress, 
 rather than those very articles of foreign manu- 
 facture which have driven the American manu- 
 facturer to ruin, sir, you would afford them 
 more efficient aid than by any legislative provi- 
 sions. 
 
 Sir, it is with a view of affording to those 
 who are interested in this subject an opportunity 
 to be heard, and for a fair investigation of the 
 merits of this bill, (which has been before the 
 public but about one week ;) and as at this late 
 period of the session there is not sufficient time 
 to digest and mature a proper system ; and with 
 a full conviction that this bill will not aid the 
 manufacturer, but will materially inj ure the two
 
 DEBATES OF CONGKESS. 
 
 651 
 
 MAY, 1820.] 
 
 Small Vessels of War, 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 great interests of agriculture and commerce, 
 and most sensibly affect the revenue of the 
 country, that this motion is made. And I do 
 hope gentlemen will consent to its postponement 
 until the next session. 
 
 I presume a large majority of this House will 
 support the bill for laying duties on sales at 
 auction, which, in my opinion, will afford essen- 
 tial encouragement to the manufacturing in- 
 terest and the regular merchant, without any 
 material injury to any portion of the coun- 
 try. 
 
 But, sir, I am not prepared to give my vote 
 in favor of this bill, which will, in my opinion, 
 materially affect the interests of the agricultu- 
 ral and commercial portion of the Eastern sec- 
 tion of the Union, by its unequal operation 
 upon the East India trade, with but a doubtful 
 prospect of benefit to the manufacturer. 
 
 Mr. SILSBEE, of Massachusetts, made a few 
 remarks in reply to Mr. BALDWIN ; when 
 
 Mr. SIMKTNS moved that the bill and amend- 
 ments be postponed until the first day of the 
 next session. In favor of which motion, Mr. 
 HAKDIN withdrew his motion for indefinite post- 
 ponement. 
 
 Mr. PARKER, of Virginia, then demanded the 
 previous question, but the call was not sustained 
 by a majority of the House. 
 
 The question was then, about six o'clock, 
 taken on the motion to postpone the bill until 
 the first day of the next session, and was de- 
 cided in the negative. 
 
 The amendments reported from the Commit- 
 tee of the Whole to the said bill, were then 
 concurred in by the House. 
 
 Mr. EDWARDS, of North Carolina, then moved 
 further to amend the bill, by reducing the duty 
 on salt imported, from twenty-five cents per 
 bushel to twenty cents per bushel. 
 
 The yeas and nays being ordered on this 
 question, Mr. METCALF moved the previous 
 question, (the effect of which would be to de- 
 cide forthwith the main question, viz., the en- 
 grossment of the bill for a third reading ;) but 
 the call was negatived 71 to 60. 
 
 The question was then taken on reducing 
 the salt duty, and decided in the affirmative, by 
 yeas and nays For the amendment 93, against 
 it 71. 
 
 Mr. HILL, of Massachusetts, moved to amend 
 the bill by reducing the duty on imported mo- 
 lasses from " ten" cents to " five" cents a gal- 
 lon ; on which motion the yeas and nays were 
 ordered. 
 
 Mr. PARKER, perceiving that all the amend- 
 ments which had been discussed and rejected 
 in Committee of the Whole would probably be 
 again offered, and the time of the House occu- 
 pied in the tedious process of deciding them 
 again, by yeas and nays, moved again for the 
 previous question. 
 
 The call for the previous question was sus- 
 tained by a vote of 86 to 62 ; and the previous 
 question, "Shall the main question be now 
 put?" was stated accordingly, and was decided, 
 
 by yeas and nays, in the affirmative ayes 92, 
 noes 71. 
 
 The said main question was then put, to wit : 
 " Shall the bill be engrossed, and read a third 
 time?" and passed in the affirmative 
 nays 69, as follows : < 
 
 YEAS. Messrs. Adams, Allen of New York, Baker, 
 Baldwin, Bateman, Beecher, Bloomfield, Boden, 
 Brown, Brush, Campbell, Case, Clark, Cook, Dar- 
 lington, Dennison, Dewitt, Dowse, Eddy, Edwards of 
 Connecticut, Edwards of Pennsylvania, Ervin, Fay, 
 Folger, Ford, Forrest, Gross of New York, Gross of 
 Pennsylvania, Guyon, Hackley, Hall of New York, 
 Hall of Delaware, Hazard, Hemphill, Hendricks. 
 Herrick, Hibshman, Heister, Hostetter, Kendall, 
 Kinsey, Kinsley, Little, Linn, Lyman, Maclay, 
 McLane of Delaware, McLean of Kentucky, Mar- 
 chand, Mason, Meigs, Metcalf, R. Moore, S. Moore, 
 Monell, Morton, Mosely, Murray, Newton, Parker 
 of Massachusetts, Patterson, Phelps, Philson, Pitcher, 
 Rich, Richmond, Rogers, Ross, Russ, Sampson, 
 Sawyer, Sergeant, Shaw, Sloan, Smith of New Jer- 
 sey, Southard, Stevens, Storrs, Strong of New York, 
 Tarr, Taylor, Tomlinson, Tompkins, Tracy, Trimble, 
 Van Rensselaer, Wallace, Wendover, and Wood. 
 
 NAYS. Messrs. Alexander, Allen of Tennessee, 
 Anderson, Archer of Maryland, Archer of Virginia, 
 Ball, Barbour, Bayley, Bryan, Buffum, Burton, Bur- 
 well, Butler of New Hampshire, Butler of Louisiana. 
 Cannon, Clagett, Cobb, Cocke, Crafts, Crawfordj 
 Crowell, Culbreth, Culpeper, Cushman, Cuthbert, 
 Davidson, Earle, Edwards of North Carolina, Fisher, 
 Floyd, Foot, Fullerton, Hall of North Carolina, 
 Hardin, Hill, Holmes, Hooks, Johnson, Jones of Ten- 
 nessee, Kent, Livermore, Lowndes, McCoy, McCreary, 
 Mallary, Mercer, Neale, Nelson of Massachusetts, 
 Overstreet, Parker of Virginia, Plumer, Rankin, 
 Reed, Rhea, Robertson, Settle, Silsbee, Simkins, Slo- 
 cumb, B. Smith of Virginia, Smith of North Caro- 
 lina, Swearingen, Terrell, Tucker of Virginia, Tucker 
 of South Carolina, Tyler, Whitman, Williams of Vir- 
 ginia, and Williams of North Carolina. 
 
 The House then (having rejected ten or 
 twelve previous motions to adjourn, at various 
 stages of the evening proceedings) adjourned be- 
 tween 7 and 8 o'clock, after a sitting of more 
 than nine hours. 
 
 FRIDAY, May 12. 
 Small Vessels of War. 
 
 The bill from the Senate, authorizing the 
 building of certain small vessels of war, passed 
 through a Committee of the Whole, after being 
 amended, so as to reduce the number from seven 
 to five. 
 
 [The object of these vessels is to protect the 
 revenue, and pursue pirates, &c., in the waters 
 of our Southern coast, which are too shal- 
 low to be navigated by the vessels now in 
 service.] 
 
 The bill was opposed by Mr. CANNON, as un- 
 necessary, and also because the cost of the ves- 
 sels ($60,000) was not to be taken from the 
 moneys already appropriated for repairs. It 
 was supported by Messrs. SILSBEE, JOHNSON, and 
 NEWTON, on the ground of its being required
 
 652 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 H. OF R.] 
 
 Thanks to the Speaker. 
 
 [MAY, 1820. 
 
 for the security of the revenue, and the detec- 
 tion of smugglers and pirates. 
 
 The question on ordering the bill to be en- 
 grossed for a third reading, was decided by yeas 
 and nays 78 votes to 37. 
 
 Seven o'clock, P. M. 
 
 The bill to amend the act for the reservation 
 of timber lands for naval purposes ; the bill to 
 continue in force the act to provide for persons 
 disabled by known wounds in the Kevolutionary 
 war; and the bill to provide for repairing the 
 General Post Office building, passed through 
 Committees of the Whole, and were ordered to 
 be engrossed for a third reading. 
 
 MONDAY, May 15. 
 Treasury Department. 
 
 The House, on motion of Mr. SERGEANT, re- 
 solved itself into a Committee of the Whole, on 
 the bill from the Senate, in addition to the acts 
 providing for the better organization of the 
 Treasury Department. 
 
 [This bill provides a summary process for the 
 recovery of moneys belonging to the United 
 States, in the hands of individuals, collectors, 
 and other public agents, &c.] 
 
 The bill gave rise to a debate, begun by Mr. 
 EDWARDS, of North Carolina, in opposition to 
 the bill, which was supported by Mr. SERGEANT 
 and others. 
 
 The objection set up to the bill was, that it 
 proposed to violate the right, secured by the 
 constitution, of a trial by jury, &c., and also the 
 other right, that no man should be deprived of 
 his property without due process of law. 
 
 In reply to this objection, it was argued, that 
 there was nothing proposed but what was 
 sanctioned by numerous precedents, such as 
 sales for non-payment of taxes, &c. The mo- 
 ment a man receives the public money, he is 
 the agent or instrument of the Treasury, and 
 ought to be subject to its power, so far as to 
 compel him to account for the money which 
 he has received, and refuses or neglects to ac- 
 count for. 
 
 The bill having been reported to the House, 
 a motion was made by Mr. CROWELL to post- 
 pone the further consideration thereof to the 
 first day of the next session ; which was nega- 
 tived. 
 
 The bill was then ordered to be read a third 
 time ; and was subsequently read a third time, 
 and passed by yeas and nays 89 to 14. 
 
 Thanks to the Speaker. 
 
 The House having got through the business 
 before it 
 
 Mr. WARFIELD, of Maryland, rose and ob- 
 served, that although it had been customary, 
 whenever there existed a disposition on the part 
 of the House by a unanimous vote to express 
 their unqualified approbation of the course pur- 
 sued by the Speaker, to delay the expression of 
 
 that opinion until the termination of the period 
 for which he was elected, yet he was induced, 
 on this occasion, to depart from that course, 
 having distinctly understood that it was the in- 
 tention of the Speaker to decline the duties of 
 the chair at. the close of the present session. 
 Any observations, said Mr. W., to enforce the 
 justice and propriety of unanimously adopting 
 the resolution would be altogether superfluous. 
 Every member of the House, in common with 
 himself, had witnessed, during the present 
 laborious and protracted session, the dignity, 
 ability, and impartiality, with which the Speaker 
 had discharged the duties of his station ; and 
 he was persuaded there was not a member of 
 that body to whom it would not afford the 
 truest gratification to offer the small tribute of 
 respect and approbation intended to be expressed 
 in the resolution then before them. Mr. W. 
 then submitted the following resolution, the 
 question on which being put by the Clerk, it 
 was adopted unanimously : 
 
 Resolved, unanimously, by the House f Representa- 
 tives of the United States of America, That the thanks 
 of this House be given to the honorable HENRY CLAY, 
 Speaker thereof, for the dignity, ability, and impar- 
 tiality with which he has discharged the duties of 
 that station. 
 
 Upon which Mr. CLAY rose, and addressed 
 the House as follows : 
 
 GENTLEMEN: The House of Representatives has, 
 on former occasions, honored me by a vote of its 
 thanks. I then felt that the sole claim which I had 
 to a testimony of the public approbation, so distin- 
 guished, was the zeal with which I have ever sought 
 to discharge the highly responsible duties of the 
 chair ; and I am now sensible that I am indebted to 
 your belief of the continued exertion of that zeal for 
 the fresh proof of your favorable sentiments towards 
 me, in the resolution which you have just adopted. 
 
 If, gentlemen, the traveller parts with regret from 
 those agreeable acquaintances which he casually 
 makes, as he journeys on his way, how much more 
 painful must be the separation of those who have co- 
 operated many months in the anxious endeavor to 
 advance the prosperity of a common country ; who 
 have been animated by mutual sympathies ; and 
 who have become endeared to each other by an in- 
 terchange of all the friendly offices incident to the 
 freest social intercourse ? Addressing you, as I now 
 do, probably the last time from this place, I confess 
 I feel a degree of emotion which I am utterly unable 
 to express. I shall carry with me into that retirement 
 which is necessary to the performance of indispensa- 
 ble private duties, a grateful recollection of all your 
 kindnesses; of the respectful and affectionate con- 
 sideration of me which you have always evinced ; of 
 the generous and almost unlimited confidence which 
 you have ever reposed in me ; and of the tenderness 
 with which you have treated even my errors. But, 
 interesting as have been the relations in which I 
 have stood, for many years, to this House, I have 
 yet higher motives for continuing to behold it with 
 the deepest solicitude. I shall regard it as the great 
 depositary of the most important powers of our ex- 
 cellent constitution; as the watchful and faithful 
 sentinel of the freedom of the people; as the fairest
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 653 
 
 MAY, 1820.] 
 
 Adjournment. 
 
 [H. OF R. 
 
 and truest image of their deliberate will and wishes ; 
 and as that branch of the Government where, if our 
 beloved country shall unhappily be destined to add 
 another to the long list of melancholy examples of the 
 loss of public liberty, we shall witness its last strug- 
 gles and its expiring throes. 
 
 Gentlemen, I beg yon to carry with you my sin- 
 cerest wishes for your individual happiness, and the 
 prosperity of your respective families. 
 
 Mr. SMITH, of Maryland, and Mr. VAN EEXS- 
 SELAER having been appointed to wait on the 
 President, reported to the House that the 
 President had no further communication to 
 make; and 
 
 The House adjourned to the second Monday 
 in November next, being the thirteenth day of 
 the month.
 
 654 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 Proceedings. 
 
 [NOVEMBER, 1820. 
 
 SIXTEENTH CONGRESS -SECOND SESSION. 
 
 BEGUN AT THE CITY OF WASHINGTON, NOVEMBER 13, 1820. 
 
 PKOCEEDDsTGS Ds THE SENATE. 
 
 MONDAY, November 13, 1820. 
 
 The second session of the Sixteenth Congress 
 commenced this day, at the city of Washing- 
 ton, conformably to the act, approved the 
 thirteenth of May, one thousand eight hundred 
 and twenty, entitled " An act fixing the time for 
 the next meeting of Congress," and the Senate 
 assembled. 
 
 PRESENT : 
 
 DAVID L. MORRILL and JOHN F. PAREOTT, from 
 the State of New Hampshire. 
 
 JAMES BURRILL, jr., from Rhode Island. 
 
 ISAAC TIOHENOR, from Vermont. 
 
 RUFUS KINO and NATHAN SANFORD, from 
 New York. 
 
 MAHLON DICKER SON and JAMES J. WILSON, 
 from New Jersey. 
 
 JONATHAN ROBERTS and WALTER LOWRIE, 
 from Pennsylvania. 
 
 OUTERBBIDGE HORSEY and NICHOLAS VAN 
 
 DYKE, from Delaware. 
 
 JAMES BABBOUR and JAMES PLEASANTS, from 
 Virginia. 
 
 NATHANIEL MACON, from North Carolina. 
 
 JOHN GAILLARD and WILLIAM SMITH, from 
 South Carolina. 
 
 RICHARD M. JOHNSON, from Kentucky. 
 
 JOHN HENRY EATON, from Tennessee. 
 
 BENJAMIN RUGGLES and WILLIAM A. TRIMBLE, 
 from Ohio. 
 
 JAMES BROWN and HENRY JOHNSON, from 
 Louisiana, 
 
 WALLER TAYLOR and JAMES NOBLE, from In- 
 diana. 
 
 THOMAS H. WILLIAMS and DAYID HOLMES, 
 from Mississippi. 
 
 NINIAN EDWARDS and JESSE B. THOMAS, from 
 Illinois. 
 
 WILLIAM R. KING and JOHN W. WALKER, from 
 Alabama. 
 
 JOHN CHANDLER and JOHN HOLMES, from 
 Maine. 
 
 JOHN GAILLABD, President pro tempore, re- 
 sumed the chair. 
 
 The new members having qualified and taken 
 their seats, they were classed, by lot, as is usual. 
 The result was, that the term of service of Mr. 
 HOLMES will expire on the 3d March next, and 
 that of Mr. CHANDLER on the 3d of March two 
 years thereafter. 
 
 Mr. KING, of Alabama, moved the appoint- 
 ment of a committee to acquaint the President 
 of the United States of the organization of the 
 Senate, and of its readiness to receive any com- 
 munication from him ; whereupon, Messrs. KING, 
 of Alabama, and MACON were appointed. 
 
 TUESDAY, November 14. 
 
 WILLIAM A. PALMES, from the State of Ver- 
 mont, and JOHN WILLIAMS, from the State of 
 Tennessee, severally attended. 
 
 The PRESIDENT communicated a copy of the 
 constitution, as adopted for the government of 
 the State of Missouri, which was read. 
 
 Whereupon, on motion of Mr. SMITH, 
 
 Resolved, That a committee be appointed to 
 inquire whether any, and if any, what, legisla- 
 tive measures may be necessary for admitting 
 the State of Missouri into the Union. 
 
 Messrs. SMITH, BTJBEILL, and MACON, were 
 appointed the committee. 
 
 WEDNESDAY, November 15. 
 
 SAMUEL W. DANA, from the State of Connec- 
 ticut^ attended. 
 
 Mr. BURRILL communicated a resolution, 
 passed by the Legislature of the State of Rhode 
 Island and Providence Plantations, instructing 
 their Senators, and requesting their Representa- 
 tives in Congress, to exert their influence to re- 
 duce the compensation of members of Congress 
 to six dollars per day ; and the resolution was 
 read. 
 
 On motion by Mr. WALKER, of Alabama, 
 the Senate adjourned to one o'clock in the af- 
 ternoon.
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 655 
 
 NOVEMBER, 1820.] 
 
 President's Message. 
 
 [SENATE. 
 
 One o'clock in the afternoon. 
 
 A message from the House of Representa- 
 tives informed the Senate that a quorum of the 
 House of Representatives is assembled, and have 
 elected JOHN W. TAYLOR, one of the Representa- 
 tives from the State of New York, their Speaker, 
 in the place of Henry Clay, resigned, and are 
 ready to proceed to business; and that they 
 have appointed a committee on their part to 
 join the committee appointed on the part of the 
 Senate, to wait on the President of the United 
 States, and inform him that a quorum of the 
 two Houses is assembled, and ready to receive 
 any communications he may be pleased to make 
 to them. 
 
 Mr. KING, of Alabama, reported, from the 
 joint committee, that they had waited on the 
 President of the United States, and that the 
 President informed the committee that he 
 would make a communication to the two Houses 
 forthwith. 
 
 President's Message. 
 
 The following Message was received from the 
 PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: 
 Fellow-citizens of the Senate 
 
 and of the House of Representatives : 
 
 In communicating to you a just view of public af- 
 fairs, at the commencement of your present labors, 
 I do it with great satisfaction ; because, taking all 
 circumstances into consideration which claim atten- 
 tion, I see much cause to rejoice in the felicity of our 
 situation. In making this remark, I do not wish to 
 be understood to imply that an unvaried prosperity 
 is to be seen in every interest of this great commu- 
 nity. In the progress of a nation, inhabiting a terri- 
 tory of such vast extent and great variety of climate, 
 every portion of which is engaged in foreign com- 
 merce, and liable to be affected, in some degree, by 
 the changes which occur in the condition and regula- 
 tions of foreign countries, it would be strange if the 
 produce of our soil and the industry and enterprise of 
 our fellow-citizens received at all times, and in every 
 quarter, a uniform and equal encouragement. This 
 would be more than we would have a right to expect, 
 under circumstances the most favorable. Pressures 
 on certain interests, it has been admitted, has been 
 felt ; but allowing to these their greatest extent, they 
 detract but little from the force of the remarks al- 
 ready made. In forming a just estimate of our pres- 
 ent situation, it is proper to look at the whole, in the 
 outline, as well as in the detail. A free, virtuous, 
 and enlightened people know well the great principles 
 and causes on which their happiness depends ; and 
 even those who suffer most, occasionally, in their 
 transitory concerns, find great relief under their suf- 
 ferings, from the blessings which they otherwise en- 
 joy, and in the consoling and animating hope which 
 they administer. From whence do these pressures 
 come ? Not from a Government which is founded by, 
 administered for, and supported by the people. We 
 trace them to the peculiar character of the epoch 
 in which we live, and to the extraordinary occur- 
 rences which have signalized it. The convulsions 
 with which several of the powers of Europe have Iwen 
 shaken, and the long and destructive wars in which 
 all were engaged, with their sudden transition to a 
 state of peace, presenting, in the first instance, un- 
 
 usual encouragement to our commerce, and with- 
 drawing it in the second, even within its wonted 
 limit, could not fail to be sensibly felt here. The 
 station, too, which we had to support through this 
 long conflict, compelled as we were finally to become 
 a party to it with a principal power, and to make 
 great exertions, suffer heavy losses, and to contract 
 considerable debts, disturbing the ordinary course of 
 affairs, by augmenting, to a vast amount, the circu- 
 lating medium, and thereby elevating, at one time, 
 the price of every article above a just standard, and 
 depressing it at another below it, had likewise its due 
 effect. 
 
 It is manifest that the pressures of which we com- 
 plain have proceeded, in a great measure, from these 
 causes. When, then, we take into view the pros- 
 perous and happy condition of our country, in all the 
 great circumstances which constitute the felicity of a 
 nation every individual iu the full enjoyment of all 
 his rights : the Union blessed with plenty, and rapidly 
 rising to greatness, under a national Government, 
 which operates with complete effect in every part, 
 without being felt in any, except by the ample pro- 
 tection which it affords, and under State governments 
 which perform their equal share, according to a wise 
 distribution of power between them, in promoting the 
 public happiness it is impossible to behold so grati- 
 fying, so glorious a s spectacle, without being pene- 
 trated with the most profound and grateful acknowl- 
 edgments to the Supreme Author of all good for such 
 manifold and inestimable blessings. Deeply impressed 
 with these sentiments, I cannot regard the pressures 
 to which I have adverted otherwise than in the light 
 of mild and instructive admonitions ; warning us of 
 dangers to be shunned in future ; teaching us lessons 
 of economy, corresponding with the simplicity and 
 purity of our institutions, and best adapted to their 
 support; evincing the connection and dependence 
 which the various parts of our happy Union have on 
 each other, thereby augmenting daily our social in- 
 corporation, and adding, by its strong ties, new 
 strength and vigor to the political ; opening a wider 
 range, and with new encouragement, to the industry 
 and enterprise of our fellow-citizens at home and 
 abroad ; and more especially by the multiplied proofs 
 which it has accumulated of the great perfection of 
 our most excellent system of government, the power- 
 ful instrument, in the hands of our all-merciful Crea- 
 tor, in securing to us these blessings. 
 
 Happy as our situation is, it does not exempt us 
 from solicitude and care for the future. On the con- 
 trary, as the blessings which we enjoy are great, pro- 
 portionably great should be our vigilance, zeal, and 
 activity, to preserve them. Foreign wars may again 
 expose us to new wrongs, which would impose on us 
 new duties, for which we ought to be prepared. The 
 state of Europe is unsettled, and how long peace may 
 be preserved is altogether uncertain ; in addition to 
 which we have interests of our own to adjust, which 
 will require particular attention. A correct view of 
 our relations with each power will enable you to form 
 a just idea of existing difficulties, and of the meas- 
 ures of precaution best adapted to them. 
 
 Respecting our relations with Spain, nothing ex- 
 plicit can now be communicated. On the adjourn- 
 ment of Congress in May last, the Minister Plenipo- 
 tentiary of the United States, at Madrid, was instructed 
 to inform the Government of Spain that, if His 
 Catholic Majesty should then ratify the treaty, this 
 Government would accept the ratification, so far a*
 
 656 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 President's Message. 
 
 [NOVEMBER, 1820. 
 
 to submit to the decision of the Senate, the question, 
 whether such ratification should be received in ex- 
 change for that of the United States, heretofore given. 
 By letters from the Minister of the United States 
 to the Secretary of State, it appears that a commu- 
 nication, in conformity with his instructions, had been 
 made to the Government of Spain, and that the 
 Cortes had the subject under consideration. The re- 
 sult of the deliberations of that body, which is daily 
 expected, will be made known to Congress as soon as 
 it is received. The friendly sentiment which was 
 expressed on the part of the United States, in the 
 Message of the 9th of May last, is still entertained 
 for Spain. Among the causes of regret, however, 
 which are inseparable from the delay attending this 
 transaction, it is proper to state that satisfactory in- 
 formation has been received, that measures have 
 been recently adopted, by designing persons, to con- 
 vert certain parts of the Province of Florida into 
 depots for the reception of foreign goods, from whence 
 to smuggle them into the United States. By open- 
 ing a port within the limits of Florida, immediately 
 on our boundary, where there was no settlement, the 
 object could not be misunderstood. An early ac- 
 commodation of differences will, it is hoped, prevent 
 all such fraudulent and pernicious practices, and 
 place the relations of the two countries on a very 
 amicable and permanent basis. 
 
 The commercial relations between the United 
 States and the British colonies in the West Indies, 
 and on this continent, have undergone no change ; 
 the British Government still preferring to leave that 
 commerce under the restriction heretofore imposed 
 on it, on each side. It is satisfactory to recollect 
 that the restraints resorted to by the United States 
 were defensive only, intended to prevent a monopoly, 
 under British regulations, in favor of Great Britain ; 
 as it likewise is to know that the experiment is ad- 
 vancing in a spirit of amity between the parties. 
 
 The question depending between the United States 
 and Great Britain, respecting the construction of the 
 first article of the Treaty of Ghent, has been referred, 
 by both Governments, to the decision of the Emperor 
 of Russia, who has accepted the umpirage. 
 
 An attempt has been made with the Government of 
 France, to regulate, by treaty, the commerce between 
 the two countries, on the principle of reciprocity and 
 equality. By the last communication from the Min- 
 ister Plenipotentiary of the United States at Paris, 
 to whom full power had been given, we learn that 
 the negotiation had been commenced there ; but, se- 
 rious difficulties having occurred, the French Govern- 
 ment had resolved to transfer it to the United States, 
 for which purpose the Minister Plenipotentiary of 
 France had been ordered to repair to this city, and 
 whose arrival might soon be expected. It is hoped 
 that this important interest may be arranged on just 
 conditions, and in a manner equally satisfactory to 
 both parties. It is, submitted to Congress to decide, 
 until such arrangement is made, how far it may be 
 proper, on the principle of the act of the last session, 
 which augmented the tonnage duty on French ves- 
 sels, to adopt other measures for carrying more com- 
 pletely into effect the policy of that act. 
 
 The act referred to, which imposed new tonnage 
 on French vessels, having been in. force from 
 and after the first day of July, it has happened that 
 several vessels of that nation which had been de- 
 spatched from France before its existence was known, 
 have entered the ports of the United States, and been 
 
 subject to its operation, without that previous notice 
 which the general spirit of our laws gives to individ- 
 uals in similar cases. The object of that law having 
 been merely to countervail the inequalities which 
 existed to the disadvantage of the United States, in 
 their commercial intercourse with France, it is sub- 
 mitted, also, to the consideration of Congress, whether, 
 in the spirit of amity and conciliation which it is no 
 less the inclination than the policy of the United 
 States to preserve, in their intercourse with other 
 powers, it may not be proper to extend relief to the 
 individuals interested iu those cases, by exempting 
 from the operation of the law all those vessels which 
 have entered our ports without having had the 
 means of previously knowing the existence of the 
 additional duty. 
 
 The contest between Spain and the Colonies, ac- 
 cording to the most authentic information, is main- 
 tained by the latter with improved success. The 
 unfortunate divisions which were known to exist 
 some time since, at Buenos Ayres, it is understood, 
 still prevail. In no part of South America has Spain 
 made any impression on the colonies, while, in many 
 parts, and particularly in Venezuela and Xew Gra- 
 nada, the colonies have gained strength and acquired 
 Sutation, both for the management of the war, in 
 ich they have been successful, and for the order of 
 the internal administration. The late change in the 
 Government of Spain, by the re-establishment of the 
 constitution of 1812, is an event which promises to be 
 favorable to the Revolution. Under the authority of 
 the Cortes, the Congress of Angostura was invited to 
 open a negotiation for the settlement of differences 
 between the parties, to which it was replied, that 
 they would willingly open the negotiation, provided 
 the acknowledgment of their independence was made 
 its basis, but not otherwise. Of further proceedings 
 between them we are uninformed. No facts are 
 known to this Government, to warrant the belief, 
 that any of the powers of Europe will take part in 
 the contest ; whence, it may be inferred, considering 
 all circumstances, which must have weight in pro- 
 ducing the result, that an adjustment will finally take 
 place, on the basis proposed by the colonies. To 
 promote that result, by friendly counsels, with other 
 powers, including Spain herself, has been the uniform 
 policy of this Government. 
 
 In looking to the internal concerns of our country 
 you will, I am persuaded, derive much satisfaction 
 from a view of the several objects to which, in the 
 discharge of your official duties, your attention will 
 be drawn. Among these, none holds a more impor- 
 tant place than the public revenue, from the direct 
 operation of the power, by which it is raised, on the 
 people, and by its influence in giving effect to every 
 other power of the Government. The revenue de- 
 pends on the resources of the country, and the facility 
 by which the amount required is raised, is a strong 
 proof of the extent of the resources, and the efficiency 
 of the Government. A few prominent facts will 
 place this great interest in a just light before you. 
 On the 30th of September, 1815, the funded and 
 floating debt of the United States was estimated at 
 one hundred and nineteen millions six hundred and 
 thirty-five thousand five hundred and fifty-eight dol- 
 lars. If to this sum be added the amount of five per 
 cent stock subscribed to the Bank of the United 
 States, the amount of Mississippi stock, and of the 
 stock which was issued subsequently to that date, the 
 balances ascertained to be due to certain States, for
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 657 
 
 NOVEMBER, 1820.] 
 
 President's Message. 
 
 [SENAI 
 
 military services, and to individuals, for supplies fur- 
 nished, and services rendered during the late war, the 
 public debt may be estimated as amounting, at that 
 date, and as afterwards liquidated, to one hundred 
 and fifty-eight millions seven hundred and thirteen 
 thousand forty-nine dollars. On the 30th of Septem- 
 ber, 1820, it amounted to ninety-one millions nine 
 hundred and ninety- three thousand eight hundred 
 and eighty-three dollars, having been reduced in 
 that interval, by payments, sixty-six millions eight 
 hundred and seventy-nine thousand one hundred and 
 sixty-five dollars. During this term, the expenses of 
 the Government of the United States were likewi&e 
 defrayed, in every branch of the civil, military, and 
 naval establishments ; the public edifices in this city 
 have been rebuilt, with considerable additions ; ex- 
 tensive fortifications have been commenced, and are 
 in a train of execution; permanent arsenals and 
 magazines have been erected in various parts of the 
 Union ; our Navy has been considerably augmented, 
 and the ordnance, munitions of war, and stores, of the 
 Army and Navy, which were much exhausted during 
 the war, have been replenished. 
 
 By the discharge of so large a proportion of the 
 public debt, and the execution of such extensive and 
 important operations, in so short a time, a just esti- 
 mate may be formed of the great extent of our na- 
 tional resources. The demonstration is the more 
 complete and gratifying, when it is recollected that 
 the direct tax and excise were repealed soon after the 
 termination of the late war, and that the revenue 
 applied to these purposes has been derived almost 
 wholly from other resources. 
 
 The receipts into the Treasury, from every source, 
 to the 30th of September last, have amounted to six- 
 teen millions seven hundred and ninety-four thousand 
 one hundred and seven dollars and sixty-six cents ; 
 whilst the public expenditures, to the same period, 
 amounted to sixteen millions eight hundred and 
 seventy-on> thousand five hundred and thirty-four 
 dollars and seventy-two cents ; leaving in the Treas- 
 ury, on that day, a sum estimated at one million nine 
 hundred and fifty thousand dollars. For the prob- 
 able receipts of the following year, I refer you to 
 the statement which will be transmitted from the 
 Treasury. 
 
 The sum of three millions of dollars authorized to 
 be raised by loan, by an act of the last session of 
 Congress, has been obtained npon terms advantage- 
 ous to the Government, indicating, not only an in- 
 creased confidence in the faith of the nation, but the 
 existence of a large amount of capital seeking that 
 mode of investment, at a rate of interest not exceed- 
 ing five per centum per annum. 
 
 It is proper to add, that there is now due to the 
 Treasury, for the sale of public lands, twenty-two 
 millions nine hundred and ninety-six thousand five 
 hundred and forty-five dollars. In bringing this sub- 
 ject to view, I consider it my duty to submit to Con- 
 gress, whether it may not be advisable to extend to 
 the purchasers of these lands, in consideration of the 
 unfavorable change which has occurred since the 
 sales, a reasonable indulgence. It is known that the 
 purchases were made when the price of every article 
 had risen to its greatest height, and that the instal- 
 ments are becoming due at a period of great depres- 
 sion. It is presumed that some plan may be devised, 
 by the wisdom of Congress, compatible with the pub- 
 lic interest, which would afford great relief to these 
 purchasers. 
 
 You VL 42 
 
 Considerable progress has been made, during the 
 present season, in examining the coast and its various 
 bays and other inlets ; in the collection of materials, 
 and in the construction of fortifications for the defence 
 of the Union, at several of the positions at which it 
 has been decided to erect such works. At Mobile 
 Point and Dauphin Island, and at the Rigolets, lead- 
 ing to Lake Pontchartrain, materials to a considerable 
 amount have been collected, and all the necessary 
 preparations made for the commencement of the 
 works. At Old Point Comfort, at the mouth of 
 James River, and at the Rip-Rap, on the opposite 
 shore, in the Chesapeake Bay, materials to a vast 
 amount have been collected ; and at the Old Point 
 some progress has been made in the construction of 
 the fortification, which is on a very extensive scale. 
 The work at Fort Washington, on this river, will be 
 completed early in the next spring ; and that on the 
 Pea Patch, in the Delaware, in the course of the next 
 season. Fort Diamond, at the Narrows, in the har- 
 bor of New York, will be finished this year. The 
 works at Boston, New York, Baltimore, Norfolk, 
 Charleston, and Niagara, have been in part repaired ; 
 and the coast of North Carolina, extending south to 
 Cape Fear, has been examined, as have likewise 
 other parts of the coast eastward of Boston. Great 
 exertions have been made to push forward these 
 works with the utmost despatch possible ; but, when 
 their extent is considered, with the important pur- 
 poses for which they are intended, the defence of the 
 whole coast, and in consequence of the whole interior, 
 and that they are to last for ages, it will be manifest 
 that a well-digested plan, founded on military princi- 
 ples, connecting the whole together, combining se- 
 curity with economy, could not be prepared without 
 repeated examinations of the most exposed and diffi- 
 cult parts, and that it would also take considerable 
 time to collect the materials at the several points 
 where they would be required. From all the light 
 that has been shed on this subject, I am satisfied that 
 every favorable anticipation which has been formed 
 of this great undertaking will be verified, and that 
 when completed it will afford very great, if not com- 
 plete, protection to our Atlantic frontier in the event 
 of another war ; a protection sufficient to counter- 
 balance in a single campaign with an enemy power- 
 ful at sea the expenses of all these works, without 
 taking into the estimate the saving of the lives of so 
 many of our citizens, the protection of our towns and 
 other property, or the tendency of such works to pre- 
 vent war. 
 
 Our military positions have been maintained at 
 Belle Point, on the Arkansas, at Council Bluffs, on 
 the Missouri, at St Peter's, on the Mississippi, and at 
 Green Bay, on the Upper lakes. Commodious bar- 
 racks have already been erected at most of these 
 posts, with such works as were necessary for their 
 defence. Progress has also been made in opening 
 communications between them, and in raising sup- 
 plies at each for the support of the troops by their 
 own labor, particularly those most remote. 
 
 With the Indians peace has been preserved, and a 
 progress made in carrying into effect the act of Con- 
 gress, making an appropriation for their civilization, 
 with the prospect of favorable results. As connected 
 equally with both these objects, our trade with those 
 tribes is thought to merit the attention of Congress. 
 In their original state, game is their sustenance and 
 war their occupation ; and if they find no employ- 
 ment from civilized powers, they destroy each other.
 
 658 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 Admission of Missouri. 
 
 [DECEMBER, 1820. 
 
 Left to themselves, their extirpation is inevitable. 
 By a judicious regulation of our trade with them, we 
 supply their wants, administer to their comforts, and 
 gradually, as the game retires, draw them to us. By 
 maintaining posts far in the interior, we acquire a 
 more thorough and direct control over them ; with- 
 out which it is confidently believed that a complete 
 change in their manners can never be accomplished. 
 By such posts, aided by a proper regulation of our 
 trade with them, and a judicious civil administration 
 over them, to be provided for by law, we shall, it is 
 presumed, be enabled not only to protect our own 
 settlements from their savage incursions, and pre- 
 serve peace among the several tribes, but accomplish 
 also the great purpose of their civilization. 
 
 Considerable progress has also been made in the 
 construction of ships of war, some of which have been 
 launched in the course of the present year. 
 
 Our peace with the powers on the coast of Barbary 
 has been preserved, but we owe it altogether to the 
 presence of our squadron in the Mediterranean. It 
 has been found equally necessary to employ some of 
 our vessels for the protection of our commerce in the 
 Indian sea, the Pacific, and along the Atlantic coast. 
 The interests which we have depending in those quar- 
 ters, which have been much improved of late, are of 
 great extent, and of high importance to the nation, 
 as well as to the parties concerned, and would un- 
 doubtedly suffer if such protection was not extended 
 to them. In execution of the law of the last session, 
 for the suppression of the slave trade, some of our 
 public ships have also been employed on the coast of 
 Africa, . where several captures have already been 
 made of vessels engaged in that disgraceful traffic. 
 JAMES MONROE. 
 
 WASHINGTON, November 14, 1820. 
 
 The Message was read, and three thousand 
 copies thereof ordered to be printed for the use 
 of the Senate. 
 
 FBIDAY, November 17. 
 JAMES LANMAN, from the State of Connecti- 
 cut, arrived yesterday, and attended this day. 
 
 MONDAY, November 20. 
 JOHN ELLIOTT, and also, FBEEMAN WALKEB, 
 from the State of Georgia, severally arrived, on 
 the 17th instant, and attended this day. 
 
 THURSDAY, November 23. 
 
 Restriction of Slavery. 
 
 Mr. SANFOBD communicated the following 
 resolutions, passed by the Legislature of the 
 State of New York ; which were read : 
 STATE OF NEW YORK, 
 In Assembly, November 13, 1820. 
 Whereas the Legislature of this State, at the last 
 session, did instruct their Senators and request their 
 Representatives in Congress to oppose the admission, 
 as a State into the Union, of any Territory not com- 
 prised within the original boundaries of the United 
 States, without making the prohibition of slavery 
 therein an indispensable condition of admission : 
 And whereas this Legislature is impressed with the 
 correctness of the sentiments so communicated to 
 our Senators and Representatives ; therefore, 
 
 Resolved, (if the honorable the Senate concur here- 
 in,) That this Legislature does approve of the princi- 
 ples contained in the resolutions of the last session ; 
 and, further, if the provisions contained in any pro- 
 posed constitution of a new State deny to any citizens 
 of the existing States the privileges and immunities 
 of citizens of such new State, that such proposed con- 
 stitution should not be accepted or confirmed; the 
 same, in the opinion of this Legislature, being void 
 by the Constitution of the United States. And that 
 our Senators be instructed, and our Representatives 
 in Congress be requested, to use their utmost exer- 
 tions to prevent the acceptance and confirmation of 
 any such constitution. 
 
 Resolved, (if the honorable the Senate concur here- 
 in,) That the President of the Senate and the Speaker 
 of the Assembly do cause copies of these resolu- 
 tions, duly certified by them, to be transmitted to 
 the Senators and Representatives in Congress from 
 this State. 
 
 Ordered, That the clerk deliver a copy of the pre- 
 ceding resolutions to the honorable the Senate, and 
 request their concurrence in the same. 
 
 PETER SHARPE, Speaker. 
 
 Attest DL. VAN DU WEYDER, 
 
 Clerk of Assembly. 
 STATE OF NEW YORK, 
 In Senate, November 15, 1820. 
 
 Resolved, That the Senate do concur with the hon- 
 orable the Assembly, in their said resolutions and 
 recitals. 
 
 Ordered, That the clerk deliver a copy of said reso- 
 lution of concurrence to the honorable the Assembly. 
 JOHN TAYLER, President. 
 
 Attest JOHN F. BACON, 
 
 Clerk of tJie Senate. 
 
 MONDAY, November 27. 
 
 HARBISON GRAY OTIS, from the State of Mas- 
 sachusetts, arrived on the 25th instant ; and 
 WILLIAM HUNTER from the State of Khode 
 Island and Providence Plantations, arrived on 
 the 24th instant, severally attended this day. 
 
 ISHAM TALBOT, appointed a Senator by the 
 Legislature of Kentucky to supply the vacancy 
 occasioned by the resignation of William Logan, 
 produced his credentials, was qualified, and took 
 his seat in the Senate. 
 
 WEDNESDAY, November 29. 
 
 EDWARD LLOYD, from the State of Maryland, 
 attended. 
 
 Admission of Missouri. 
 
 Mr. SMITH, from the committee to whom was 
 referred the constitution, as adopted for the 
 government of the State of Missouri, reported 
 a resolution declaring the admission of the State 
 of Missouri into the Union ; and the resolution 
 was read, and passed to the second reading. 
 
 FRIDAY, December 1. 
 
 ELIJAH H. MILLS, appointed a Senator by the 
 Legislature of the State of Massachusetts, to 
 supply the vacancy occasioned by the resigna- 
 tion of Prentiss Mellen, produced his creden-
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 659 
 
 DECEMBER, 1820.] 
 
 Admission of Missouri. 
 
 [SENATE. 
 
 tials, was qualified, and took his seat in the 
 Senate. 
 
 MONDAY, December 4. 
 
 WILLIAM PIXKNEY, from the State of Mary- 
 land, took his seat in the Senate. 
 
 Admission of Missouri. 
 
 The Senate, according to the order of the 
 day, proceeded to the consideration of the reso- 
 lution declaring the admission of the State of 
 Missouri into the Union on an equal footing 
 with the original States. 
 
 Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina, (chairman of 
 the select committee which reported the reso- 
 lution,) observed that the resolution was con- 
 formable to those adopted on similar occasions 
 heretofore, and he hoped there would be no 
 difficulty or delay in its passage. The constitu- 
 tion of the new State was republican, and no 
 objection, he presumed, could arise to it : it was 
 unnecessary to detain the Senate with any re- 
 marks on the subject, unless any explanations 
 were desired by gentlemen, which he would 
 with pleasure afford, so far as he was able. 
 He trusted the resolution would now be acted 
 on, and the members from the new State, 
 who had been waiting for a considerable 
 time, be admitted to their seats in the National 
 Councils. 
 
 Mr. EATON, of Tennessee, disclaimed any dis- 
 position to create delay on this subject ; but it 
 was proper, Mr. E. said, that the mind of every 
 member should be satisfied on a question of 
 so much importance before he was called on 
 to give his vote. His own mind, he confessed, 
 was not satisfied; and, to obtain time for re- 
 flection, and to mature his opinion on it, he 
 should move to postpone the resolution to a 
 future day. At present, he repeated, he was 
 not prepared to vote either in the affirmative 
 or negative, with the conviction of being right. 
 There were 'controverted points in the constitu- 
 tion presented by the new State, and he wished to 
 see whether it was in all respects conformable to 
 the Constitution of the United States. Another 
 reason which Mr. E. offered in favor of a post- 
 ponement of the question here, was, that the 
 House of Representatives (if he might refer to 
 its proceedings without being out of order) had 
 fixed on Wednesday next for going into the 
 consideration of the subject, and he did not 
 consider it expedient or proper for both Houses 
 to be discussing the same question contempora- 
 neously. He deemed it a more eligible course 
 that the subject should be acted on in one 
 House first, and then be taken up in the other. 
 To obtain time for himself, however, as he at 
 first intimated, he should ask the Senate to 
 postpone the resolution to Wednesday next 
 only, and accordingly made a motion to that 
 effect. 
 
 Mr. SMITH would not oppose the motion, but 
 he objected to that reason of the gentleman, for 
 postponement, which referred to the purposes 
 of the other House. There was no such comity 
 
 due to that House from this, as to wait until it 
 had decided a question before it should be taken 
 up here. This opinion was not incompatible 
 with perfect respect for the other House ; and 
 such an argument ought not to govern the 
 Senate or any other body. This question, Mr: 
 S. remarked, had, in another shape, at the last 
 session occupied a vast portion 'of the time of 
 the Senate, and there was no authority for be- 
 lieving that the present would be a debated 
 question. If gentlemen had any objections to 
 the constitution, let them state them at once, 
 and it would then be known whether any dis- 
 cussion was to ensue. Heretofore, States had 
 come into the Union without being stopped at 
 the threshold. He referred to the State of 
 Indiana, in 1816; while the resolution for the 
 admission of Indiana was under progress in the 
 Senate, the House of Representatives had the 
 member from that State in his seat debating 
 and voting. There was no reason why the 
 Senate, in the present case, should wait for the 
 other House ; let this branch go on and decide 
 whether the new members have a right to their 
 seats. It was only when this ill-fated Missouri 
 presented itself for admission, that a desire was 
 expressed for procrastination and delay. He 
 hoped the Senate would not agree to the mo- 
 tion, unless divested of the reason given by the 
 mover in relation to the other House. 
 
 Mr. BABBOUR, of Virginia, was never opposed 
 to allowing gentlemen time to make up their 
 opinions on all matters of deliberation ; but in 
 this case he concurred with Messrs. SMITH and 
 JOHNSON, in their opposition to the motion, for 
 the reasons they had assigned. The argument 
 used by Mr. EATON, that it was proper to wait 
 the decision of the other House, amounted al- 
 most to an indefinite postponement of the sub- 
 ject here. He was averse to delay on that 
 ground. The question, he thought, had been 
 forever sealed at the last session ; so fully was 
 he persuaded of this, that he had supposed ac- 
 cursed would have been the hand that should 
 again open this fountain of bitter waters. Mr. 
 B. then proceeded into a brief argument to show 
 that it was right and proper, under every con- 
 sideration of courtesy towards the members 
 from the new State, now kept waiting at the 
 bar for admission, and towards the State itself, 
 to decide the question without more delay. A 
 contrary course, he urged, would be a departure 
 from the proceeding in all pre-existing cases ; 
 and he could not believe that a mere technical 
 exception could operate on the wisdom of the 
 Senate, of which he entertained the most ex- 
 alted opinion, to prevent it from eternally bury- 
 ing the brand of discord which had been lighted 
 up at the last session. Mr. B. said, as their 
 was no good reason for the postponement ask- 
 ed for, he must vote against it. He hoped the 
 time would never come when the opinion of 
 this body, solemnly expressed, would not have 
 a great moral effect out of doors as well as in 
 doors. This question was looked at by the nation 
 with much anxiety and some degree of alarm, and
 
 660 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 Case of Matthew Lyon under the Sedition Law. 
 
 [DECEMBER, 1820. 
 
 he hoped the Senate would not keep the public 
 mind in suspense, but decide it without delay. 
 
 Mr. EATON having again varied his motion 
 to its original shape, for Wednesday 
 
 Mr. JOHNSON, of Kentucky, said, as the gen- 
 tleman had placed his motion on the ground of 
 personal indulgence, he would cheerfully with- 
 draw his opposition to the postponement, as he 
 was always ready to accord to any gentleman 
 reasonable time for preparation. 
 
 The question was then taken on postponing 
 the resolution to Wednesday, and was agreed 
 to, nem. con. 
 
 TUESDAY, December 5. 
 Case of Matthew Lyon under the Sedition Law. 
 
 Mr. BARBOUR from the committee to whom 
 was referred the petition of Matthew Lyon, 
 submitted the following report ; which was 
 read: 
 
 The claim of the petitioner to redress rests on the 
 facts, that he was convicted under the law commonly 
 called the sedition act, and suffered in his body by a 
 long and loathsome confinement in jail, and in his 
 estate by the payment of a large fine. He asserts 
 that the law under which he suffered was unconsti- 
 tutional ; and proceeds to infer that when a citizen 
 has been injured by an unconstitutional stretch of 
 power he is entitled to indemnity. 
 
 Although this be the case of an individual, its cor- 
 rect decision involves general principles, so highly 
 important as to claim a profound consideration. 
 
 Under this solemn impression, a majority of the 
 committee, after the severest investigation, have de- 
 cided that the petitioner is entitled to relief. 
 
 They owe it to themselves and to the occasion, to 
 present succinctly to the Senate some of the promi- 
 nent reasons which have produced this determination. 
 The first question that naturally presents itself in the 
 investigation is, Was the law Constitutional ? The 
 committee have no hesitation in pronouncing, in their 
 opinion, it was not. They think it is not necessary 
 at this day to enter into an elaborate disquisition to 
 sustain the correctness of this opinion. They will 
 content themselves by referring to the history of the 
 times in which the law originated, when both its 
 constitutionality and expediency underwent the strict- 
 est scrutiny. The opponents of the law challenged 
 its advocates to point out the clause of the constitu- 
 tion which had armed the Government with so for- 
 midable a power as the control of, or interference 
 with the press. A Government, said they, of limit- 
 ed powers, and authorized to execute such only as 
 are expressly given by the constitution, or such as 
 are properly incident to an express power, and neces- 
 sary to its execution, has exercised an authority over 
 a most important subject, which, so far from having 
 been delegated, has been expressly withheld. That 
 the patriots contemporary with the adoption of the 
 constitution, not content with the universally receiv- 
 ed opinion, that all power not granted had been with- 
 held, to obviate all doubt on a point of such moment, 
 insisted that an amendment to that effect should be 
 inserted in the constitution ; and still jealous of that 
 propensity, incident to all Governments, no matter 
 what may be the form of its organization, or by 
 whom administered, to enlarge the sphere of its au- 
 thority, they, by express provisions, guarded from 
 
 violation some of the cardinal principles of liberty ; 
 among these, as most important, they placed the 
 liberty of conscience and of the press. Profoundly 
 versed in the history of human affairs, whose every 
 page made known that all Governments had seized 
 on the altar and the press, and prostituted them into 
 the most formidable engines against the liberty of 
 mankind, they resolved, and most wisely so, as the 
 sequel has evinced, to surround these great, natural, 
 and inalienable rights by impassable barriers ; and, 
 to that end, have expressly declared, that Congress 
 should have no power to legislate on them ; and, not- 
 withstanding these great obstacles, you have passed 
 this act. The advocates of the law vainly endeavored 
 to defend themselves by a technical discrimination 
 between the liberty and licentiousness of the press. 
 The American people, by overwhelming majorities, 
 approaching, indeed, unanimity, denounced the law 
 as a palpable and an alarming infraction of the consti- 
 tution ; and, although no official record of that de- 
 cision can be produced, it is as notorious as a change 
 of their public servants, which took place at that 
 time, and to which this obnoxious measure so essen- 
 tially contributed. 
 
 The committee are aware, that, in opposition to 
 this view of the subject, the decision of some of the 
 judges of the Supreme Court, sustaining the constitu- 
 tionality of the law, has been frequently referred to, 
 as sovereign and conclusive of the question. 
 
 The committee entertain a high respect for the 
 purity and intelligence of the judiciary. But it is 
 a rational respect, limited by a knowledge of the 
 frailty of human nature, and the theory of the consti- 
 tution, which declares, not only that judges may err 
 in opinion, but also may commit crimes, and hence 
 has provided a tribunal for the trial of offenders. 
 
 In times of violent party excitement, agitating a 
 whole nation, to expect that judges will be entirely 
 exempt from its influence, argues a profound igno- 
 rance of mankind. Although clothed with the er- 
 mine, they are still men, and carry into the judgment 
 seat the passions and motives common to their kind. 
 Their decisions, on party questions, reflect their in- 
 dividual opinions, which frequently betray them un- 
 consciously into error. To balance the judgment of 
 a whole people, by that of two or three men, no mat- 
 ter what may be their official elevation, is to exalt 
 the creature of the constitution above its creator, and 
 to assail the foundation of our political fabric, which 
 is, that the decision of the people is infallible, from 
 which there is no appeal, but to Heaven. 
 
 Taking it, therefore, as granted, that the law was 
 unconstitutibnal, we are led to the next question, 
 growing out of the inquiry, is the petitioner entitled 
 to relief? This question, as a general one, is not sus- 
 ceptible of that precise answer, which might establish 
 a uniform rule, applying equally to all times, and to 
 all occasions. On the contrary, it must be decided 
 by the peculiar circumstances of every case to which 
 its application is attempted. 
 
 The committee, for instance, would themselves de- 
 cide that relief was impracticable, where, from a long 
 course of tyranny, attended with a rapacity far and 
 wide, society had become so impoverished that the 
 attempt to relieve might blight every prospect of fu- 
 ture prosperity. Nor could they advocate relief, 
 where the authority exercised admitted of a rational 
 doubt as to its constitutionality, upon powers not ex- 
 pressly inhibited, nor in cases, perhaps, where the 
 amount of the injuries complained of could not be as-
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 661 
 
 DECEMBER, 1820.] Constitution of Missouri Citizenship of Free Colored Persons. 
 
 [SEHATE. 
 
 certained with a reasonable precision. None of these 
 difficulties, however, present themselves in this case. 
 The law tinder which the petitioner suffered, as has 
 been previously asserted, and attempted to be shown, 
 was palpably xinconstitutional, as being directly hi op- 
 position to an express clause of the constitution. The 
 amount of the injury sustained, in so far as relates 
 to the fine paid by the petitioner, is fixed and certain, 
 and the sum equal to a reimbursement is insignifi- 
 cant to the nation. In this case, therefore, the com- 
 mittee think the Government is under a moral obli- 
 gation to indemnify the petitioner. An indemnity as 
 consistent with policy as with justice, inculcating an 
 instructive lesson to the oppressor and the oppressed. 
 Successful usurpation yields, indeed, to but fewchecks ; 
 among the few is the justice to posterity, who take 
 cognizance equally of the crimes of the usurper, and 
 of the sufferings and the virtues of his victim con- 
 demning the former, and administering relief to the 
 latter. And what more consolatory to the suffering 
 patriot, what better calculated to inspire constancy 
 and courage, than a conviction, founded on facts, that 
 his wrongs, on the restoration of sound principles, will 
 attract the regard of the successful asserters of free- 
 dom, and who will cheerfully indemnify him for the 
 injuries he has sustained ? Such examples are not 
 wanting in Governments less beneficent than ours 
 that of England is replete with instances of this kind. 
 Acts of Parliament, passed in times of heat and ex- 
 citement, are frequently reversed, and the individuals 
 on whom they had operated are restored to the rights 
 of which they had been deprived. Succeeding Par- 
 liaments do not hesitate to indemnify the victims of 
 oppression, because they had suffered under the forms 
 of law. Acts of their Legislature, whose power is 
 omnipotent, form no obstacle with those to whom 
 their injustice is made manifest, in granting relief. 
 An American Congress will not suffer itself to be ex- 
 ceeded by any Government in acts of justice or bene- 
 ficence. 
 
 The committee have only further to remark, that 
 the Executive interposed its authority in various 
 cases, and granted a full pardon to those convicted 
 under the act in question, by which their fines were 
 either remitted, or restored ; relief, therefore, to the 
 petitioner, would be only a common measure of jus- 
 tice. According to information received from the 
 Department of State, no money has ever been paid 
 into the Treasury by the officer who received the fines 
 imposed under the sedition act It is submitted to 
 the discretion of the Senate, whether provision shall 
 be made by law to indemnify the petitioner, by direct- 
 ing the amounting of his fine to be paid out of the 
 Treasury, or to reclaim it from the delinquent officer 
 or officers ; and, in the latter event, to be at liberty 
 to use the name of the United States in any prose- 
 cution to which resort may be had, with a view to 
 that end. 
 
 Inasmuch, however, as the relief proposed to be 
 given in this case is on general principles, the com- 
 mittee are of opinion it should be afforded also to 
 every sufferer under the law. 
 
 They, therefore, beg leave to submit the following 
 resolutions : 
 
 Resolved, That so much of the act, entitled " An 
 act for the punishment of certain crimes against the 
 United States," approved the 14th of July, 17U8, as 
 pretends to prescribe and punish libels, is unconstitu- 
 tional. 
 
 Resolved, That the fines collected under that act 
 
 ought to be restored to those from whom they were 
 exacted ; and that these resolutions be re-committed 
 to the committee who brought them in, with ins 
 tions to report a bill to that effect. 
 
 WEDNESDAY, December 6. 
 
 Constitution of Missouri Citizenship of Free 
 
 Colored Persons. 
 
 Mr. BABBOUR, of Virginia, rose merely to sug- 
 gest, as there was no doubt the mind of every 
 gentleman was fully made up on the subject, 
 that the question should *be decided without 
 consuming the time of the Senate in further 
 debate. 
 
 Mr. EATON, of Tennessee, said, before the ques- 
 tion was taken, he would ask leave to offer the 
 following proviso to the resolution : 
 
 Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be 
 so construed as to give the assent of Congress to any 
 provision in the constitution of Missouri, if any such 
 there be, which contravenes that clause in the Con- 
 stitution of the United States, which declares that 
 " the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all 
 privileges and immunities of citizens in the several 
 States." 
 
 Mr. KING, of New York, thought this amend- 
 ment of too much importance to be decided 
 without a moment's reflection. Some little 
 time, he thought, ought to be allowed to see its 
 bearing ; to see whether it meant any thing or 
 nothing, and, if any thing, what that was. He 
 hoped the question would be postponed at least 
 until to-morrow. 
 
 Mr. EATON observed, that there was a feature 
 in the constitution of Missouri which presented 
 a difficulty to the minds of some gentlemen, and 
 to his among the number. Doubts were enter- 
 tained whether that constitution was not re- 
 pugnant to the Constitution of the United States, 
 and some might not be willing to adopt the un- 
 conditional terms of the resolution which de- 
 clared the new constitution to be republican, 
 and in conformity to the Constitution of the 
 United States. It was to obviate difficulty on 
 this point, by avoiding a declaration one way 
 or the other on the questionable clause, that he 
 offered the* amendment. 
 
 Mr. KING, of New York, confessed himself at 
 some loss how to decide on this amendment. If 
 he voted in the affirmative, it might seem as if 
 the Senate could pass a resolution contrary to 
 the constitution ; if in the negative, it would 
 declare that a clause should have no effect 
 which could have none, and must be nugatory. 
 He thought a day, at least, should be given to 
 consider the matter. For himself, he had ask- 
 ed no delay of the resolution ; he was ready to 
 vote on it ; and he took this occasion to say he 
 had not desired the subject to be reopened in 
 the Senate ; he believed it would do no good, 
 but, on the contrary, that the public tranquillity 
 would be promoted by deciding it quietly ; the 
 subject, he conceived, had been exhausted, and 
 his opinion had undergone no change. He re-
 
 662 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 Constitution of Missouri Citizenship of Free Colored Persons. [DECEMBER, 1820. 
 
 gretted that these sentiments had not been felt 
 elsewhere, and where* he thought they ought 
 to have been felt. As to the amendment, he 
 thought a moment's delay should be allowed to 
 examine it, and he moved its postponement until 
 to-morrow. 
 
 Mr. BUEKILL was in favor of a longer post- 
 ponement, but hoped until to-morrow at least 
 would be permitted. He, too, expressed his re- 
 gret that the question had been reopened, and 
 added a few remarks on the propriety of giving 
 some time to consider this amendment, which 
 was certainly of an important character. 
 
 Mr. MOBRILL moved a postponement of the 
 question to Monday, and spoke a few words in 
 favor of that course. 
 
 Messrs. SMITH and BAEBOTJB opposed so long 
 a postponement as to Monday, but were willing 
 to allow until to-morrow. 
 
 .The motion to postpone the subject to Mon- 
 day was lost; and the resolution and amend- 
 ment were postponed until to-morrow. 
 
 THTJESDAY, December 7. 
 Missouri State Constitution CitizensJdp of 
 
 Free Colored People. 
 
 The Senate then resumed the consideration 
 of the resolution for the admission of Missouri 
 into the Union ; the question being on the fol- 
 lowing proviso, offered yesterday by Mr. EATON : 
 
 " Provided, That nothing herein contained shall 
 be so construed as to give the assent of Congress to 
 any provision in the constitution of Missouri, if any 
 such there be, which contravenes that clause in tiie 
 Constitution of the United States which declares that 
 ' the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all 
 privileges and immunities of citizens in the several 
 
 Mr. KING, of New York, observed that the 
 decision had been deterred yesterday at his re- 
 quest. For himself, he could discover no good 
 effect which the proviso would produce. Such 
 a declaration could not weaken the effect of the 
 repugnant article of the constitution adopted by 
 Missouri, or alter in any respect, he conceived, 
 the question as it already stood before the Sen- 
 ate, concerning the admission of the new State. 
 He therefore could not, viewing it as he did, as- 
 sent to this proposition. 
 
 Mr. WJLSON, of New Jersey, offered the fol- 
 lowing substitute, by way of amendment to the 
 proposition of Mr. EATON, which, Mr. "W. said, 
 would answer better his view of the subject, 
 being more specific and particular than the pro- 
 viso already offered : 
 
 That nothing herein contained shall be construed 
 as giving the assent of Congress to so much of the 
 constitution of the State of Missouri making it the 
 duty of the Legislature of said State to pass a law 
 ' to prevent free negroes and mulattoes from coming 
 to and settling in said State, under any pretext what- 
 soever,' as may be repugnant to that provision of 
 the Constitution of the United States which pre- 
 scribes that ' the citizens of each State shall be en- 
 
 titled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens 
 in the several States.' " 
 
 Mr. EATON said his wish was that Congress 
 should avoid giving an opinion at all on the 
 doubtful clause, or any particular clause of the 
 constitution of Missouri ; and the amendment 
 offered by Mr. WILSON differed from his own in 
 this only, that it did designate a particular fea- 
 ture in the constitution which was declared 
 unacknowledged, lie did not think this course 
 so eligible as the one suggested by his own mo- 
 tion, and therefore could not accept the amend- 
 ment in lieu of his. 
 
 Mr. PINKNET was opposed to the amendment 
 offered by Mr. WILSON, because the clause which 
 it pointed out was not before Congress in any 
 manner whatever, and he would accompany the 
 resolution of admission with no opinion on that 
 clause, even should the Legislature of Missouri 
 legislate to the utmost verge of the clause. The 
 first amendment being general, he had no ob- 
 jection to it. 
 
 On the question to agree to Mr. WILSON'S 
 amendment, the Senate divided, and there ap 
 peared nine only in the affirmative ; so it was 
 rejected, and the question recurred on the pro- 
 viso offered by Mr. EATON. 
 
 Mr. SMITH viewed this amendment as inoffen- 
 sive, and therefore had no strong objection to 
 it ; but as he saw nothing in the constitution of 
 Missouri which was not republican and conform- 
 able to the Constitution of the United States, 
 and of the correctness of which opinion he was 
 convinced, without assuming any thing on the 
 score of talents, he could satisfy any member of 
 the Senate he could not vote for an amendment 
 which implied a doubt of the constitutionality 
 of that document. 
 
 The question was then taken on adopting Mr. 
 EATON'S proviso, and was decided in the nega- 
 tive, by yeas and nays, as follows : 
 
 YEAS. Messrs. Brown, Chandler, Dana, Eaton, 
 Edwards, Gaillard, Holmes of Maine, Holmes of 
 Mississippi, Horsey, Hunter, Johnson of Louisiana, 
 King of Alabama, Lloyd, Parrott, Pinkney, Taylor, 
 Thomas, Trimble, Van Dyke, Walker of Alabama, 
 and Williams of Mississippi 21. 
 
 NAYS. Messrs. Barbour, Burrill, Dickerson, Elliott, 
 Johnson of Kentucky, King of New York, Lanman, 
 Lowrie, Mason, Mills, Morrill, Noble, Otis, Palmer, 
 Pleasants, Roberts, Kuggles, Sanford, Smith, Talbot, 
 Tichenor, Walker of Georgia, Williams of Tennessee, 
 and Wilson 24. 
 
 The question being then stated on the reso- 
 lution going to a third reading 
 
 Mr. SMITH made a few remarks, to say that 
 as it seemed to be the wish of the Senate to 
 take the question without debate, he would not 
 thwart that wish, although it might be expect- 
 ed of him, from his situation of chairman of 
 the committee which reported the resolution, 
 to enter into some defence of it against the ob- 
 jections which had been indicated. As a mem- 
 ber of the Southern States, he was ready to 
 maintain the ground he had assumed, but
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 663 
 
 DECEMBER, 1820.] Constitution of Missouri Citizenship of Free Colored Persons. 
 
 would yield to the desire for a quiet decision, 
 unless called out by gentlemen on the oppo- 
 site side. 
 
 Mr. BUKEILL, of Khodc Island, addressed the 
 Chair. 
 
 [Mr. B., in attempting to rise and address the 
 President, found his surtout entangled by his 
 chair, and was so long detained by the embar- 
 rassment, that the Secretary had begun to call 
 the yeas and nays, and one gentleman had act- 
 ually answered. Mr. B. apologized to the Presi- 
 dent for not rising sooner, by stating the em- 
 barrassment, when Mr. BA'RBOUB, of Virginia, 
 jocularly observed across the House, that the 
 gentleman ought to regard it as an omen of de- 
 feat, and yield to it accordingly ; to which Mr. 
 B. replied : " I fear no omen in my country's 
 cause.''] 
 
 Mr. B. proceeded. No other gentleman, he 
 said, seemed disposed to address the Senate in 
 defence of the opinions which he entertained 
 on this question, and as he was a member of 
 the committee which reported the resolution, 
 from which he dissented, it was in some meas- 
 ure incumbent on him to submit briefly the 
 reasons which governed him, especially after 
 the remarks of gentlemen on the other side. 
 We conceive, said Mr. B., that it would be con- 
 trary to the Constitution of the United States 
 to accept this constitution sent up by the people 
 of Missouri. The people of Missouri did not 
 assemble under their own authority to frame 
 this constitution, but under the authority of 
 Congress. After performing this duty in a 
 way that they deemed proper, they had sent 
 it here for acceptance, and it was the duty 
 of Congress, Mr. B. conceived, to examine and 
 pronounce upon the legality of the instrument 
 presented. He stated that it had been the prac- 
 tice heretofore to admit the members from new 
 States to their seats in both Houses, in various 
 ways; but inquiry had generally been made 
 into the constitutions adopted by new States, 
 and Congress satisfied that they were conforma- 
 ble to the acts authorizing them to be formed. 
 The States had been admitted into the Union, 
 some in one way, some in another ; the latest 
 mode, Mr. B. thought, ought to be the one 
 which should have most weight on the present 
 occasion. The three States last formed had 
 been admitted much in the same mode ; their 
 constitutions had been formed nearly in the 
 same way, and on the same models ; Louisiana 
 only was an exception to the usual form of ad- 
 mission in her case more form was observed, 
 and obvious reasons made it necessary. 
 
 It appeared to him, Mr. B^ continued, to be 
 right and proper for Congress to examine the 
 constitution now presented, and ascertain 
 whether it was in conformity with the Consti- 
 tution of the United States, and republican : in 
 other words, whether it was conformable to 
 the terms on which the people of that Territory 
 were authorized by Congress to form a consti- 
 tution and State government. Some gentle- 
 men entertained a different opinion. New 
 
 States, said Mr. B., are admitted into the Union 
 by the consent of Congress that consent was 
 given to 'Missouri at the last session ; by it she 
 had many things to do. She had first to decide 
 whether she would accept the terms offered to 
 her ; by it she was prohibited from interfering 
 with the rights of navigating the Mississippi ; 
 she was confined to certain boundaries, which 
 she could not change or exceed ; she was re- 
 strained from any interference with the public 
 lands. These things were all in the act ; and 
 Mr. B. asked if it would not be idle to insert 
 conditions, if Congress possessed no right to as- 
 certain and decide if they had been complied 
 with by the people to whom they were offered? 
 It was in the nature of a contract between the 
 United States and the people of Missouri, and 
 it was competent for Congress, and was its duty 
 to see if that contract had been faithfully ob- 
 served. It was held by some gentlemen that, 
 as soon as the convention cf Missouri was dis- 
 solved, it became a State, and had a right to all 
 the immunities and attributes of a State. But 
 suppose, Mr. B. said, the people of Missouri had 
 taken no notice of those conditions of the act 
 which he had referred to, but had disregarded 
 or contravened them, would gentlemen then 
 say the constitution ought to be received? Mr. 
 B. offered some other arguments to show that 
 the consent of Congress was necessary to the 
 admission of the State ; otherwise it admitted 
 the strange doctrine, that the State might come 
 into the Union in spite of Congress. This con- 
 sent, he contended, ought not to be given, un- 
 less all the conditions of the act had been com- 
 plied with. 
 
 In general, Mr. B. said, this constitution was 
 sufficiently republican ; and, in one respect, he 
 might say, it was almost too much so; for it 
 took no notice whatever of the act under which 
 the convention assembled which formed it. Its 
 language is : " We, the people of Missouri, do 
 mutually agree to form and establish a free and 
 independent Republic." In Alabama, where 
 every thing in the formation of their State gov- 
 ernment was conducted with much propriety, 
 their convention set out by saying they assem- 
 bled under the authority of an act of Congress. 
 The constitution of Missouri is entirely silent 
 on this point, although some of its language 
 could not be understood without referring to 
 the act of Congress authorizing a convention ; 
 they declare that they establish, ratify, and 
 confirm, certain boundaries, but they nowhere 
 recognize the authority which prescribed these 
 boundaries to them. Mr. B. repeated, that he 
 thought Congress ought not to vary from the 
 former mode of declaring its assent to the ad- 
 mission of new States. They would have to 
 admit other States hereafter, and a departure 
 now from the practice of the Government in 
 receiving the constitutions of new States, would 
 form a precedent which might, in future cases, 
 be deplored. 
 
 But proceeding to the question, whether this 
 constitution was such a one as ought to be
 
 664 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 Constitution of Missouri Citizenship of Free Colored Persons. [DECEMBER, 1820. 
 
 accepted, Mr. B. said his objections to it arose 
 on the following clause, which he found in the 
 26th section of the 3d article : " That ft shall be 
 the duty of the General Assembly of the State, 
 as soon as may be, to pass such laws as may be 
 necessary (among other things) to prevent free 
 negroes and mulattoes from coming to and set- 
 tling in this State, under any pretext whatso- 
 ever." This clause, Mr. B. conceived to be en- 
 tirely repugnant to the Constitution of the 
 United States. It prohibits a very large class 
 of persons from entering the State at all ; it 
 does not say what shall be done when they get 
 there, but it peremptorily prohibits their enter- 
 ing it under any pretext whatsoever. Even if 
 soldiers of the United States, people of this 
 proscribed class cannot enter Missouri without 
 violating the constitution of the State. It was 
 well known, Mr. B. said, that we have colored 
 soldiers and sailors, and good ones, too, but 
 under no pretext, whether of duty or any other 
 motive, can they enter Missouri. He did not 
 suppose if people of this description, in the 
 service of the country, should enter the State, it 
 would be attempted by the State authorities to 
 exclude them ; but it was sufficient, he thought, 
 to show the unconstitutionally of the clause. 
 
 Great difficulty seemed to arise in deciding 
 the question, as to what constituted citizens in 
 the different States. Citizens of one State 
 were entitled to the rights of citizens of all the 
 States; yet the different States exercised the 
 power of prescribing certain probationary rules 
 to those coming from another State, to entitle 
 them to all the privileges. If a citizen of Mas- 
 sachusetts removes to another State, he cannot 
 vote as soon as he enters it a certain residence 
 is required of him and the people of Missouri 
 were competent by law to impose a residence 
 of one or more years on a citizen going there, 
 to entitle him to all the privileges of citizens 
 of the State ; he complies with no more than is 
 exacted of all, and which the State has a right 
 to require. This was a question, however, 
 which they did not touch ; they avoided it al- 
 together, and bave declared that a certain class 
 shall not come into their State at ah 1 , even 
 though they may be citizens of other States, 
 enjoying all the privileges of such. 
 
 Mr. B. did not himself conceive it difficult to 
 define what constituted a citizen. If a person 
 was not a slave or a foreigner but born in the 
 United States, and a freeman going into Mis- 
 souri, he has the same rights as if born in 
 Missouri ; after complying with the conditions 
 prescribed by the laws to qualify him for the 
 exercise of these rights, he stands precisely on 
 the same footing, and his rights are in every 
 respect the same as if he had been born there. 
 The question then was, Mr. B. said, had the 
 people of Missouri the constitutional right to 
 prohibit from entering that State a large class 
 of persons who were citizens of the Common- 
 wealth of Massachusetts? To establish the 
 negative of this proposition, Mr. B. adduced 
 various other arguments in addition to the 
 
 I preceding, and endeavored to show that even 
 many laws of the United States would become 
 
 j inoperative in Missouri, if the clause which he 
 
 I opposed could be maintained in force ; and, as 
 an instance, he referred to the laws against kid- 
 
 j napping. In regard to this crime of kidnap- . 
 ping, Mr. B. remarked, the constitution of Mis- 
 
 i souri had done nothing ; for, according to it, all 
 people of color who are carried there, must, 
 ipso facto, be slaves, inasmuch as a free negro 
 could in nowise go there, admitting the clause 
 to have its full effect. 
 
 Mr. B. said he was not prepared at present to 
 affirm that Missouri might not pass laws to pro- 
 hibit persons from carrying there negro or mu- 
 latto convicts, or, perhaps, foreigners from com- 
 ing into the State ; this was a question on 
 which no opinion now was necessary ; but he 
 contended that the clause as it stood prohibited 
 the entrance of a large portion of people who 
 were, to all intents and purposes, citizens in 
 other States. Admit the legality of this clause, 
 and, Mr. B. said, the Legislature of Missouri 
 might, with the same right, go still further, 
 and pass laws to exclude citizens born in cer- 
 tain portions or districts of the United States. 
 This was a measure, he argued, which one in- 
 dependent nation could not adopt towards 
 another. England could not pass such a law 
 against the people of France, or of any other 
 friendly nation; such a measure would be too 
 offensive to be borne, and would be considered 
 to amount almost to a declaration of war. If 
 distinct and independent nations dare not enact 
 such laws towards each other, how was it pos- 
 sible, Mr. B. said, that the power could be ex- 
 ercised by one of these States towards other 
 States of the Union ? 
 
 All the distinctions among citizens which 
 arise from color, rested, Mr. B. said, on State 
 laws alone there was nothing in the Constitu- 
 tion of the United States which recognized dis- 
 tinctions. In Massachusetts there was no dis- 
 tinction ; a man of color possessed there pre- 
 cisely and identically the same rights as a white 
 man born in the same State, and he asked if it 
 was possible for Missouri, consistently with 
 the Constitution of the United States, to ex- 
 clude any of those people from that State, who 
 should think proper to remove from Massachu- 
 setts to Missouri ? The States of this Union 
 were not distinct and independent nations 
 they are, said Mr. B., a confederacy of kindred 
 republics ; when they formed their constitution 
 of government, they used the language, " We, 
 the people of the United States," and it is not 
 in the power of one of the members of this con- 
 federacy to enforce the clause Missouri has 
 adopted, and it is the duty of Congress to re- 
 ject it. 
 
 Mr. B. said he would add nothing more about 
 the right of Congress to decide this question ; 
 lie would merely say, Congress must from ne- 
 cessity decide it; it must admit the members 
 of Missouri; in that act the question was in- 
 volved, and they were obliged, therefore, to de-
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 DECEMBER, 1820.] Missouri State Constitution Citizenship of Free Colored Persons. 
 
 cide it. It was useless, therefore, to talk of re- 
 ferring the question to the judiciary. As Con- 
 gress " might admit new States" into the 
 Union, it was clear to his mind that Congress 
 must determine the conditions on which they 
 should come in. 
 
 Mr. B. said he would offer a few words as to 
 the dangers which were apprehended by some 
 gentlemen from a rejection of the constitution 
 offered by Missouri. What were the conse- 
 quences, Mr. B. asked, which would follow the 
 rejection? The only one which he could per- 
 ceive was, that Missouri must remain one year 
 longer out of the Union. Was this such a hard- 
 ship ? And to avoid this trifling consequence, 
 must we, said Mr. B., give a vote which will 
 violate the constitution we have sworn to sup- 
 port, and which we are all so deeply interested 
 in maintaining ? As a Territory the people of 
 Missouri had gone on, he said, very prosper- 
 ously, and no great inconvenience could result 
 from continuing in the territorial condition one 
 year longer. It is said they have formed a con- 
 stitution, and under it have elected a Governor 
 and Legislature, and, having assumed the func- 
 tions and character of a State, if they are not 
 now admitted into the Union, they will go on 
 without our consent. Mr. B. said he presumed 
 the people of Missouri felt the same attachment 
 to the Union, and to the tranquillity, and honor, 
 and glory of it as we do ; and he would not be- 
 lieve, he would not do them the injustice 
 to believe, that rather than endure the small 
 inconvenience of retaining the territorial char- 
 acter a few months more, they would rashly 
 throw away all the interest they had in the 
 greatness and glory of their country. They 
 might possibly still think that their constitution 
 ought not to have been rejected on account of 
 this offensive clause, and may feel some excite- 
 ment on the occasion ; yet they must see the 
 necessity and-propriety of some sacrifice to the 
 conscientious opinion of Congress, and would 
 consent to qualify their constitution in the ob- 
 jectionable feature. But, said Mr. B., if we 
 ratify it as it is, we establish a precedent and 
 admit a point that the judiciary will never be 
 able to overthrow ; do not then leave to an- 
 other tribunal the decision of a question which 
 belongs to us, but let us meet and decide it our- 
 selves. 
 
 If the constitution were not accepted, Mr. B. 
 said it would be easy to obviate any difficulty 
 by passing an additional act authorizing the 
 people of Missouri to form another convention 
 and revise their constitution ; and he was confi- 
 dent this odious feature would be expunged. 
 These people, Mr. B. said, were not Missourians, 
 properly so distinguished, but were Americans, 
 collected there from all the States, the same 
 people as ourselves. They would appreciate 
 the motives of Congress, and do them justice; 
 they would recollect, also, that this act passed 
 in a spirit of compromise and accommodation, 
 from a desire to preserve peace and quietness 
 in. every part of tho Union ; and re-assembling 
 
 with such views, finding the clause could do no 
 good, they would repeal it. Sanction this im- 
 proper clause now, said he, and you sanction it 
 for all time to come ; and however we may 
 desire hereafter to avoid it, it will be irrevoca- 
 bly established. 
 
 Mr. B. said the little he had spoken had ex- 
 hausted his strength, and he could add nothing 
 more if he wished to do so. 
 
 When Mr. B. had concluded 
 
 Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina, intimated an 
 intention of replying to Mr. B. ; but, as he 
 would have to refer to several constitutions and 
 other authorities, in the course of his argument, 
 he asked a short time to prepare them, and 
 moved the postponement of the subject until 
 to-morrow; which motion prevailed, and it 
 was postponed accordingly. 
 
 FEIDAY, December 8. 
 
 Missouri State Constitution Citizenship of 
 Free Colored Persons. 
 
 The Senate then resumed the consideration 
 of the resolution declaring the admission of the 
 State of Missouri into the Union on an equal 
 footing with the original States. 
 
 Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina, addressed the 
 Senate, as follows : 
 
 He observed that, on any subject, however 
 interesting it might be, he could not flatter him- 
 self with a hope that he could entertain the 
 Senate. But, what he had to offer at present, 
 on this very important occasion, would consist 
 very much of references, and he feared might 
 prove tedious ; therefore he felt more necessity 
 than on most occasions to ask for a little pa- 
 tience and their kind indulgence. 
 
 The resolution declaring the admission of 
 Missouri into the Union, he thought, was noth- 
 ing more than a matter of form, and might be 
 dispensed with. He had examined the jour- 
 nals of the Senate and House of Kepresentatives 
 for the course heretofore pursued by Congress 
 on the admission of new States into the Union, 
 and found it had been various. He would give 
 their history. 
 
 Vermont was the first new State admitted 
 after the adoption of the Federal Constitution. 
 On the 9th of February, 1791, President WASH- 
 INGTON laid before Congress documents received 
 from the Governor of Vermont, expressing the 
 consent of the Legislature of New York, and of 
 the Territory of Vermont, that the said territory 
 shall be admitted to be a distinct member of 
 our Union.* On the 18th of the same monthf 
 an act of Congress was approved for the admis- 
 sion of Vermont into the Union, without any 
 of this formality, that her constitution should be 
 republican, &c. The act says, " Vermont, hav- 
 ing petitioned Congress, &c., on the 4th day of 
 March, &c., shall be received and admitted iuto 
 this Union, as a new and entire member of the 
 
 * Senate Journal, 241. 
 
 t Public Laws, 2<i vol. page 193.
 
 666 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 Missouri State Constitution^- Citizenship of Free Colored Persons. [DECEMBER, 1820 
 
 United States of America." On the 31st of 
 October following, Mr. Robinson took his seat 
 in the Senate,* and on the 4th of November Mr. 
 Bradley took his eeat.f There was no constitu- 
 tion either submitted to, or required by, Con- 
 gress. Nor were there any traces of a consti- 
 tution of that new State to be found previous 
 to the 9th of July, 1793. Congress never sup- 
 posed at that day they had a power to re- 
 quire a constitution from a new State coming 
 into the Union, nor to examine if such consti- 
 tion was republican. Mr. S. said he knew 
 very well that the people of that respectable 
 State contend it was one of the original States. 
 We know of none but thirteen original States. 
 Vermont would have made fourteen; and it 
 was treated of, and so called at the time, as a 
 territory. It was detached from New York, 
 and, by the express consent of the Legislature 
 of New York, she was received into the 
 Union. 
 
 Kentucky was the next new State admitted 
 into the Union. On the 18th of December, 
 1789 1 , and after the adoption of the Federal 
 Constitution, the Legislature of Virginia passed 
 the act authorizing Kentucky to form a sepa- 
 rate State.J On the 4th of February, 1791, 
 Congress passed an act of consent that Ken- 
 tucky should become a separate State, and be 
 admitted into the Union on the first day of June, 
 1792. On the 19th of April, 1792, its consti- 
 tution was formed, but was never submitted to 
 Congress. On the 5th of November, 1792, 
 Messrs. Brown and Edwards, as Senators from 
 that State, took their seats in the Senate, with- 
 out even an inquiry for a constitution. 
 
 Tennessee formed her constitution on the 6th 
 of February, 1796. This was the. first consti- 
 tution of a new State submitted to Congress. 
 There does not appear to have been any refer- 
 ence, made of this constitution to any committee. 
 or any other order taken upon it. There is to be 
 found in the debates of the 5th and 6th of May, 
 1796, an objection made to one provision of that 
 constitution, inasmuch as it was repugnant to 
 the Constitution of the United States. This 
 objection was made by a member from South 
 Carolina, and was replied to by Mr. Baldwin of 
 Georgia, " that, if repugnant to the Constitu- 
 tion of the United States, it was a nullity, be- 
 cause the Constitution of the United States was 
 paramount." And this appears to have put an 
 end to the objection. 
 
 Ohio was the next new State adopted into 
 the Union. On the 30th of April, 1802, the 
 law passed authorizing Ohio to form a constitu- 
 tion and State government. On the 29th of 
 November, 1802, she formed her constitution^ 
 On the 7th "January, 1803, it was laid before 
 
 * Vide 1 vol. new ed. Senate Journal, 882. 
 
 t Ib. 886. 
 
 Laws of the U. S. 3d. vol. 191. 
 
 Ib. 192. 
 
 I Vide Journal, 451. 
 
 [ Laws of the U. S. vol. 3d, page 496. 
 
 the Senate, and was referred to a committee* 
 which never reported on it.* On the 19th of 
 February, 1803, Congress passed a law " to 
 provide for the due execution of the laws of the 
 United States within the State of Ohio.''t In 
 this last law, it is declared that, by the law of 
 30th April, 1802, authorizing the people of the 
 Territory of Ohio to form a constitution and 
 State government, Ohio had become one of the 
 United States of America. This law says noth- 
 ing about her being admitted into the Union on 
 an equal footing with the original States ; but 
 simply says, " whereby the said State has be- 
 come one of the United States of America." 
 
 Louisiana was authorized, by an act of Con- 
 gress of the 20th of February, 1811, to form a 
 constitution and State government, and formed 
 her constitution on the 28th January, 1812. 
 On the 8th of April, 1812, was admitted 
 into the Union by a law.J This was the 
 first State admitted with formality. The new 
 mode of declaring this State to be admitted, 
 by law, seems to have been dictated from mo- 
 tives of interest. Louisiana had within her 
 limits the Mississippi and other valuable navi- 
 gable rivers. By that law, which admits her 
 into the Union, the free navigation of all those 
 rivers is secured forever to all the old States, 
 free from " any tax, duty, impost, or toll ;" 
 whilst the old States retain the right to these 
 exactions, and some of them do actually exact 
 it. The State of New York now exacts, as a 
 toll, one dollar upon every passenger in the 
 steamboats that go up the North River, and de- 
 rives from that source an immense revenue, 
 laying the whole United States under contribu- 
 tion; whilst her own citizens are navigating 
 the Mississippi and its waters, under the act of 
 Congress, without being subjected to any such 
 duty. And this is what they have been pleased 
 to call admitting her " into the Union upon an 
 equal footing with the original States, in all 
 respects whatsoever." 
 
 Indiana was admitted into the Union by a 
 joint resolution of both Houses of Congress, on 
 the llth of December, 1816; but its history 
 proves beyond a doubt that it was considered a 
 State, to all intents and purposes, before the 
 resolution passed. An act in the usual form 
 had passed for its admission ; and it had, by a 
 convention, formed a constitution on the 20th 
 of June, 1816. Congress assembled on the 2d 
 of December, 1816; on that day the House of 
 Representatives admitted Mr. Hendricks, the 
 member elect, to take the oath of office, and 
 take his seat in the House. On the 4th, the 
 resolution originated in the Senate ; on the 6th 
 it passed; was sent to the House on the 9th, 
 and passed that day eight'days after the mem- 
 ber had been admitted to his seat ; nor had the 
 House of Representatives ever taken up the 
 subject at all. On the llth, the resolution was 
 
 . * Vide Senate Journals, 
 t Laws U. S. page 524. 
 $ Laws U. S. TO! 4, page 402.
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 667 
 
 DECEMBER, 1820.] Missouri State Constitution Citizenship of Free Colored Persons. 
 
 approved. Here, it is evident there was a 
 great falling off in vigilance ; but, it is to be re- 
 marked, we were going north about. Louisi- 
 ana could not be admitted by any thing less 
 solemn than a law. Indiana did not require a 
 resolution, for the House of Representatives at 
 least. On the 12th of February, 1817, the 
 Presidential votes were counted in the Repre- 
 sentatives' Chamber, whither the Senate, in a 
 body, had gone for that purpose. All the votes 
 of the several States were counted, except the 
 votes of Indiana. Here Mr. S. said, he would 
 read from the Journals of the House of Repre- 
 sentatives, what passed on that occasion, as there 
 were several gentlemen of the Senate who had 
 taken their seats since.* 
 
 Mr. S. said, in consequence of this proceed- 
 ing, the Senators had a very solemn procession 
 down the stairs and up again, and there it 
 ended ; for they unanimously concurred in con- 
 sidering it so frivolous that they forbid it a 
 place on the Journals. The Electors of Presi- 
 dent and Vice President were elected by the 
 State of Indiana, and the electoral votes given 
 before the resolution was offered for its admis- 
 sion into the Union. This act was solemnly 
 sanctioned by both Houses of Congress. It 
 was the highest act which a State, in its politi- 
 cal capacity, can perform. Who, then, can 
 doubt for a moment that Indiana was a State, 
 as perfect as it is possible for this Government 
 to make ? It' Indiana was so, why should not 
 Missouri be so, under the same circumstances ? 
 It cannot be doubted. She is a State, and you 
 cannot disfranchise her. But, it is said she can- 
 not be admitted into the Union, because her 
 constitution is repugnant to the Constitution of 
 the United States, and is not republican; and 
 that Congress, by the Federal Constitution, is 
 to guarantee to every State a republican form 
 of government ; therefore, it is the province of 
 Congress to examine for this quality in the con- 
 
 * Journal II. R. 2d session, 14th Congress, pages 885, 
 886, 887. 
 
 " \V hen the President of the Senate was about to open the 
 votes of that State, for the purpose of having the same 
 counted, 
 
 "Mr. Taylor, one of the Representatives from the State of 
 New York, rose, and objected to the same, and stated that, 
 in his opinion, the votes of the Electors of Indiana, for 
 President and Vice President, ought to be received. 
 
 " Upon which objection being made, the Senate, on mo- 
 tion of one of its members, withdrew; and, being absent, a 
 resolution was then submitted by Mr. Sharp, in the fol- 
 lowing words: 
 
 " Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives, 
 &c., That the votes for the electors for theStateof I,i>li<m,i, 
 for President and Vice President of the United States, 
 were properly and legally given, and ought to be counted. 
 
 "A motion was made DV Mr. Taylor, of New York, to 
 amend the said resolution, by striking out all thereof after 
 the enacting clause, and inserting the following : ' That the 
 votes of the Electors of the State of Indiana, for President 
 and Vice President of the United States, having been given 
 previous to tho admission of that Stain into the Union, 
 ought not to be received and counted? And debate arising 
 thereon, a motion was made by Mr. Ingham, that the reso- 
 lution ! postponed indefinitely. And tho question being 
 taken thereon, it passed in the affirmative. 
 
 -Tin- Senate again attended, Ac. And the President of 
 
 the Senate, in the presence of both Houses, proceeded to 
 
 open the certificates of the Electors of the State of Indiana, 
 
 , which he delivered to the tellers, by whom it was read, and 
 
 who took lists of the votes therein end- 
 
 stitution of any State which applies for admis- 
 sion into the Union. 
 
 If, sir, Congress has to decide upon the re- 
 publican form of government of the new States, 
 it has also to decide upon it for all the old 
 States. The language of the constitution is, 
 " the United States shall guarantee to every 
 State in this Union a republican form of gov- 
 ernment." This applied immediately to the 
 old States ; and, if it is the duty of Congress, 
 why did not Congress examine all the constitu- 
 tions of the several States ? Why not require 
 each State, when it alters or new-models its con- 
 stitution, to submit it to that tribunal to decide 
 whether it is republican ? Nine of the States 
 have altered their constitutions since the adop- 
 tion of the Constitution of the United States. 
 New Hampshire, in February, 1792 ; Connec- 
 ticut, in September, 1818 ; Vermont, in July, 
 1793, or rather formed one; Pennsylvania, in 
 September, 1792; Delaware, in June, 1792; 
 Maryland, at sundry times ; South Carolina, in 
 June, 1790 ; Georgia, in May, 1798 ; and Ken- 
 tucky, in August, 1799. None of these States 
 have ever submitted their renewed constitu- 
 tions to Congress for its approbation. It is the 
 duty of Congress, under the term " guarantee," 
 to look into any constitution. Who will be 
 bold enough to say it is not its duty to see that 
 no State shall alter its constitution, but by its 
 permission and authority ? It would be to lit- 
 tle purpose to say the United States shall guar- 
 antee the republican form of government, un- 
 less its control can be continued. Every State 
 has the power to revise its constitution when- 
 ever it shall think proper. And, if you look at 
 the constitution of Missouri to-day, and pass it 
 as republican, and that State should alter it to- 
 morrow, and destroy its republican features, 
 and defy your control, this power has been 
 given to very little purpose, and had much bet- 
 ter been withheld. 
 
 Mr. S. said, upon looking into the constitu- 
 tion of the thirteen original States, he had dis- 
 covered that Rhode Island had no constitution ; 
 nor had she ever any. She has what the good 
 people of that State call the " charter of Rhode 
 Island," granted by King Charles the Second ; in 
 which he has made certain reservations, as an 
 acknowledgment of his sovereignty. And 
 throughout the whole instrument, the people 
 are treated of, and called subjects. They can 
 have no claim to a republican form of govern- 
 ment under such a charter. 
 
 Why, then, does not Congress issue its writ 
 of quo warranto to the Governor or the Legis- 
 lature of Rhode Island, calling on them to show- 
 by what authority they claim to be one of tho 
 United States ? Or to show cause, if any they 
 can, why that State should not be disfranchised 
 for holding her government under a foreign 
 Prince? Or else issue some process to compel 
 her to form such a constitution as shall guaran- 
 tee to her a republican form of government ? 
 Congress has as much power to do this as it has 
 to reject the constitution of Missouri.
 
 668 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 Missouri State Constitution Citizenship of Free Colored Persons. [DECEMBER, 1820. 
 
 If Congress has the power to guarantee the 
 republican form of government, and it can only 
 be exercised when a State presents itself for ad- 
 mission into the Union, there ought to be a 
 uniformity in its course. The same State of 
 Rhode Island refused to adopt the Federal Con- 
 stitution for some time after the organization of 
 this Government. Then Rhode Island stood 
 precisely on the ground on which Missouri now 
 is said to stand. Missouri is a State, but it is 
 said is not in the Union ; Rhode Island was a 
 State, and acknowledged on all hands to be out 
 of the Union at that time. Why did not Con- 
 gress exercise this salutary control when Rhode 
 Island came into the Union ; and abrogate her 
 English charter, and give her a constitution, 
 with at least some semblance of a republican 
 form of government in it, and blot out the odi- 
 ous words, sovereign and subject, monarchical 
 vestiges which still characterize it ? It is evi- 
 dent, to a demonstration, that Congress is not 
 the tribunal to decide this constitutional ques- 
 tion. It must be left to the judicial department, 
 whose province alone it is to judge the private 
 rights of individuals. There are no govern- 
 mental rights to be involved, but the rights of 
 persons only, if any ; and shall Congress erect 
 itself into a tribunal to investigate whether by 
 chance some free negro or mulatto, fifty years 
 hence, might suffer, and put this whole Union 
 in jeopardy? He viewed such a crisis with 
 awe. Mr. S. said he would be amongst the last 
 to invoke it, but we could not shut our eyes 
 
 of this* Union. At the time they were fulmi- 
 nating their threats to dissolve the Union, if 
 Missouri should be admitted into it, they were 
 declaring to the world that the Southern States 
 were endeavoring to intimidate, but would not 
 dare to disturb the Confederacy. One printer, 
 of Philadelphia, tired of waiting for some post 
 of honor or profit under the old government, 
 has divided the Union on paper, and laid out a 
 snug government for himself and his friends, 
 under which, perchance, he may be better pro- 
 vided for. Another fellow has called himself 
 Patrick Henry, and writes as if it belonged to 
 him to dissolve this empire, if he should so will 
 it. He intends to bring about in this country a 
 succession of Patrick Henrys, in imitation of 
 the Caesars of the Roman world; and he is to 
 be Patrick Henry the second. This Patrick 
 Henry the second has declared if Missouri with 
 her constitution is received, it is of itself a dis- 
 solution of the Union. If ever this Union is 
 disturbed, it will be by such monsters as these. 
 It is not here that revolution is to commence ; 
 it is to begin with the people, by means of mis- 
 representations by imposing on their honesty. 
 Let those who are fanning this flame beware of 
 the consequences. If the torrent begins to roll, 
 there is no telling where it is to stop. 
 
 We are told this constitution is not republi- 
 can; therefore it cannot be sanctioned, because 
 it is the duty of the Government to guarantee to 
 every State of this Union a republican form of 
 
 government. The evidence of this, it is said, is 
 manifested in the third and fourth clauses of the 
 twenty-sixth section of the third article of the 
 constitution of Missouri, which authorizes the 
 Legislature to pass laws " to prevent free negroes 
 and mulattoes from coming to and settling in 
 this State under any pretext whatsoever." 
 
 The Convention, which formed our Federal 
 Constitution, has not been as explicit as we 
 could wish in defining what a republican form 
 of government is. But we have always under- 
 stood that sort of government which is admin- 
 istered by the people to be a republican form 
 of government, and does not obtain nor lose 
 this form when the free negroes and mulattoes 
 are excluded from a participation. This is a 
 case sui generic. The history of the ancient 
 world furnishes no precedent. The Grecian 
 Republics abounded in slaves ; but they had no 
 share in the political concerns of the nation. 
 Sparta was said to approach nearer to a pure 
 democracy than any other government that 
 ever existed. Yet they had slaves in thousands 
 and hundreds of thousands, who had no share 
 in political affairs. They were white, and what 
 of them were not sold to foreign nations, or 
 butchered by their masters, who had the abso- 
 lute control over their persons and lives, with- 
 out account, were finally suffered to mingle 
 with the free men, and became one people. 
 But the difference of color forbids that course 
 with us, and will operate as a perpetual bar- 
 rier, until time shall overcome it. Although 
 they are not slaves themselves, who were pro- 
 hibited by this constitution to settle in Missou- 
 ri ; yet they are the late offspring of slaves, and 
 have been placed and considered in the body 
 politic upon the same footing and no other. 
 Their parents were slaves during the Revolu- 
 tionary war. They were in a state of slavery 
 from Boston to the St. Mary's, laboring in your 
 fields. It was not then slaveholding States and 
 non-slaveholding States, but all were slavehold- 
 ing States. It is true since that time the 
 Northern States, finding it their interest to do 
 so, have- sold the greater part of them to the 
 Southern people, and have freed the rest. 
 These freed negroes and mulattoes are now, for 
 the first time, called citizens of the United 
 States ; and are, it is said, by the Constitution 
 of the United States, entitled to all the privi- 
 leges and immunities of citizens of the several 
 States. 
 
 As no example is to be found in the his- 
 tory of any other nation, and this being the 
 first time this question has occurred in our 
 own Government, whether free negroes and 
 mulattoes are, as such, citizens, must be ascer- 
 tained by such evidences as, from the nature 
 of things, we are compelled to give the highest 
 credence to. Mr. S. said this was to be found 
 in the Constitution and laws of the United 
 States, and in the constitutions or laws of the 
 several States. They furnish a mass of evi- 
 dence, which nobody could doubt but a sceptic, 
 that free negroes and mulattoes have never
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 DECEMBER, 1820.] Missouri State Constitution Citizenship of free Colored Persons. 
 
 [SESATB. 
 
 been considered as a part of the body politic ; 
 neither by the General Government nor the 
 several State governments. All their laws, and 
 all their constitutions, contain marked distinc- 
 tions by which this class of people are excluded 
 from all participation in your political institu- 
 tions ; not in the Southern States, but in the 
 Eastern ' States, the Northern States, and the 
 Western States. Almost all the States in the 
 Union have excluded them from voting in elec- 
 tions. There is no State that admits them into 
 the militia. Very few States admit them to 
 give evidence. No State had passed any law 
 constituting them citizens. Mr. S. said he 
 would not inquire in what department the pow- 
 er existed, if it existed anywhere, whether in 
 the State governments or in the General Gov- 
 ernment, to naturalize them ; but at present 
 neither the one nor the other had done so ; and, 
 until some supreme power should do so, they 
 could not claim " the privileges and immunities 
 of citizens of the several States." He would 
 now ask the Senate for their further indulgence, 
 till he could examine this subject more minute- 
 ly, from the written documents themselves, 
 which he would beg leave to read severally. 
 In doing so, he would begin with the Declara- 
 tion of Independence itself. This sacred instru- 
 ment says : " We hold these truths to be self- 
 evident : that all men are created equal ; that 
 they are endowed by their Creator with cer- 
 tain inalienable rights; that among these are 
 life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." 
 
 If this was a declaration of independence for 
 the blacks as well as the whites, why did you 
 not all emancipate your slaves at once, and let 
 them join you in the war. But we know this 
 was not done. We know that slavery was as 
 much cherished in Massachusetts, and the other 
 New England States, as it was anywhere else 
 in the Union. In fine, there was a universal 
 consent, at that day, that these people were 
 slaves, and were our personal property, and had 
 no share in the body politic. No gentleman 
 will now be bold enough to say otherwise. 
 New York is yet seeking for remuneration from 
 the British Government for their slaves, by that 
 name, which were plundered from that State 
 during the Revolutionary war. The very con- 
 stitution under which we are now assembled, 
 which Avas formed for the better cementing the 
 Government, derived from that Declaration of 
 Independence, has not only sanctioned the 
 slavery which then existed in the United State?, 
 but, by the ninth section of the first article, ex- 
 pressly permitted the whole of the States, 
 twelve years after this Declaration of Inde- 
 pendence, to open their ports to the African 
 slave trade for a succession of twenty years. 
 But it is said these free negroes and mulattoes 
 are citizens. The most of them were born 
 slaves, and the act of manumission by the mas- 
 ters could not constitute them citizens. If the 
 master can make a citizen, it must be by some 
 other process than his sign manual on paper. 
 By the act of Congress, passed on the 14th of 
 
 April, 1802, to establish a uniform rule of 
 naturalization, the Congress itself has guarded 
 against naturalizing any but white population. 
 The first clause of the act is these words: 
 "That any alien, being a free white person, 
 may be admitted to become a citizen of the 
 United States, or any of them, on the following 
 conditions,"* Ac. The Government of Hayti 
 was then an independent Empire ; and why 
 were they excluded this privilege, if all men 
 were created equal 1 
 
 Mr. SMITH said he would now examine the 
 constitutions of those States which had been 
 admitted into the Union since the adoption of 
 the Federal Constitution ; the most of which 
 bad passed under the eye of Congress, and had 
 their solemn sanction; and would show how 
 assiduously they had kept up the distinction 
 between the white and black population, and 
 how carefully the colored people were ex- 
 cluded from all share in the affairs of the body 
 politic in the State governments. 
 
 In the eighth section of the second article of 
 the constitution of Kentucky, are these words : 
 " In all elections for Representatives, every free 
 male citizen, (negroes, mulattoes, and Indians, 
 excepted,) &c., shall enjoy the right of an 
 elector." 
 
 In the first section of the seventh article of 
 that constitution it is said : " The General As- 
 sembly shall have no power to pass laws for 
 the emancipation of slaves without the consent 
 of their owners, or without paying their own- 
 ers a full equivalent in money for the slaves so 
 emancipated." 
 
 In the first section of the fourth article of the 
 constitution of Ohio, it is said : " In all elec- 
 tions, all white male inhabitants, &c., shall en- 
 joy the right of an elector." 
 
 In the constitution of Louisiana, it is said: 
 " No person shall be a Representative who, at 
 the time of his election, is not a free white male 
 citizen of the United States." 
 
 This constitution was submitted to Congress^ 
 and was examined with more than ordinary 
 vigilance. So much so, that the State could 
 not gain admittance into the Union without 
 passing a very special and a very rigid law ; in 
 which Louisiana was laid under injunctions im- 
 posed on no other State, before or since. Yet, 
 with all this vigilance, she is suffered to ex- 
 clude from the right of representing the State, 
 all colored people. If there are black and yel- 
 low citizens, how could Congress permit that 
 constitution to exclude from so valuable a 
 privilege men who, perhaps, had all the requi- 
 sites of a representative except that of color 1 
 Who can estimate the difference between being 
 denied a residence in a State, or denied the val- 
 uable privilege of being a representative, or 
 even the right of being represented 1 
 
 In the 1st section of the 8d article of the con- 
 stitution of the State of Mississippi, you find the 
 same in substance. The words are, "Every 
 
 * Laws of the United States, 3d volume, page 4T5.
 
 670 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 'Missouri State Constitution Citizenship of Free Colored Persons. [DECEMBER, 1820. 
 
 free white male person, &c., shall be deemed a 
 qualified elector." 
 
 In the 1st section of the 2d division of the 
 6th article of the same constitution, are the 
 words: "The General Assembly shall have no 
 power to pass laws for the emancipation of 
 slaves without the consent of their owners." 
 Mr. S. observed, that he read this last part of 
 that constitution because it was nearly in the 
 same words as the 26th section of the 3d arti- 
 cle of the constitution of Missouri, to which he 
 had heard great objections because it prevented 
 the desirable work of emancipation. When 
 the constitution of Mississippi was before the 
 Senate, only three years ago, there was not a 
 dissenting voice, nor a murmur in the commu- 
 nity. 
 
 In the constitution of Indiana, which passed 
 the scrutiny of the Senate only four years ago, 
 in the 1st section of the 1st article, it is said, 
 " That all men are bora equally free and inde- 
 pendent, and have certain natural, inherent, 
 and inalienable rights ; among which are the 
 enjoying and defending life and liberty, and of 
 acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, 
 and pursuing and obtaining happiness and 
 safety." 
 
 How very incompatible would these two 
 clauses of that constitution appear, if it were 
 not for that universal assent which prevails 
 throughout the Union, that free negroes and mu- 
 lattoes are not known in your political institu- 
 tions. This is a more marked distinction than 
 any of the preceding. They, for^the most part, 
 say, "free white male," &c., but 'this is simply 
 a distinction between white and black, Avith the 
 utter exclusion of the colored man. What 
 citizen of the United States would prefer this 
 degrading distinction to exile ? The people of 
 Indiana had been eulogized by a gentleman of 
 the Senate, (Mr. KING, of New York,) on this 
 very question, at the last session of Congress, 
 and, Mr. S. said he believed, very deservedly, 
 as a wise and prudent people. These people 
 could have had no prejudices from habitual 
 slavery. They had been nursed in the lap of 
 freedom. When that territory was ceded by 
 Virginia to the United States, there was a stip- 
 ulation to exclude slavery; notwithstanding 
 which, their men of color are excluded from 
 any portion of political rights. As a further 
 evidence of the degraded condition of free ne- 
 groes and mulattoes, in Indiana, below that of 
 a citizen, he would beg leave to read a law of 
 that State, passed about two years after it was 
 elevated from its territorial government. He 
 read as follows : " No negro, mulatto, or In- 
 dian, shall be a witness, except in pleas of the 
 State against negroes, mulattoes, or Indians, or 
 in civil cases where negroes, mulattoes, or In- 
 dians, alone, shall be parties." They have, by 
 another clause of the same law, graduated the 
 mulatto. It says, " Every person other than a 
 negro, of whose grandfathers or grandmothers 
 any one is, or shall have been a negro, although 
 all his other progenitors, except that descending 
 
 from a negro, shall have been white persons, 
 shall be deemed a mulatto, and so every person 
 Avho shall have one-fourth part or more of ne- 
 gro blood, shall in like manner be deemed a mu- 
 latto." Can any possible doubt exist that the 
 people of Indiana consider that free negroes and 
 mulattoes are not citizens ? 
 
 Mr. S. said he would now beg leave to advert 
 to some laws of Congress, of recent dates, which 
 would show, as strongly as can be shown, that 
 Congress have not only believed them to be de- 
 graded below the level of -citizens, but have ac- 
 tually placed them there, by their laws. Con- 
 gress required all territorial laws to come under 
 its revision, and particularly so the laws of the 
 Territory of Orleans, before it became the State 
 of Louisiana. By one of the territorial laws of 
 Orleans, of the Yth of June, 1806, it is enacted, 
 " That free people of color ought never to 
 insult or strike white people, nor presume to 
 conceive themselves equal to the white; but, 
 on the contrary, that they ought to yield to 
 them on every occasion, and never speak or an- 
 swer to them but with respect, under the pen- 
 alty of imprisonment, according to the nature 
 of the offence."* This is a law which 
 under the immediate inspection of Congress. 
 
 He would now turn to the act of Congress, of 
 last session, which passed on the 15th of May, 
 1820, and not long after the heated debate upon 
 the bill for admitting Missouri into the Union, 
 when the minds of all the members were filled 
 with this subject, for incorporating the inhabi- 
 tants of the City of Washington, &c., by which 
 they were continued to be a body politic and 
 corporate. In this act is to be found these 
 words: ''Any person shall be eligible to 
 the office of Mayor who is a free white male 
 citizen of the United States." t In another part 
 of the same act it says, " That no person shall 
 be eligible to a seat in the Board of Aldermen, 
 or Board of Common Council, unless he shall 
 be more than twenty-five years of age, a free 
 white male citizen of the United States," &c. In 
 another part of that act, in enumerating the 
 powers of the corporation, it is said it shall 
 have full power and authority " to prescribe the 
 terms and conditions upon which free negroes 
 and mulattoes may reside in the city." 
 
 Mr. SMITH observed, that, when this law was 
 before the Senate, it was thoroughly investi- 
 gated by an honorable gentleman from the J];i~t, 
 (Mr. BUEEILL.) Seeing it in such hands, he 
 paid but little attention to it himself ; but he 
 found, upon examining it, free negroes and mu- 
 lattoes were not only excluded from all share in 
 the offices, but were placed under the inspection 
 of the corporation, to prescribe the terms and 
 conditions upon which they may reside in the 
 city. Giving power to prescribe the terms, is, 
 in effect, giving power to expel. This is an un- 
 answerable proof of the degraded condition in 
 which Congress consider free negroes and mu- 
 
 * Territorial Laws of Orleans, vol. 1, p. 183, 190. 
 + Acts 1st session IGth Congress, page 14.
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 671 
 
 DECEMBER, 1820.] Missouri State Constitution Citizenship of Free Colored Persons. 
 
 [SENATE. 
 
 lattoes ought to be placed. "With this strong 
 and peculiar example before their eyes, well 
 might the people of Missouri conceive they had 
 a right to provide against this evil. The ex- 
 ample is peculiar, because Congress have sat 
 here for the last twenty years ; during which 
 time, he had understood, a swarm of mulattoes 
 had been reared in the city ; many of whom, 
 no doubt, had as illustrious fathers as any In the 
 nation. These mulattoes have been under the 
 parental care of Congress, until some of them 
 have nearly arrived to the years of maturity ; 
 and, if their education has been equal to their 
 parentage, might, in a few years, fill the mayor- 
 alty with great dignity. Instead of which, 
 they are now to be placed at the disposal of a 
 petty corporation. All their hopes are blasted, 
 and themselves drove to seek their fortunes in 
 the wilds of Missouri, on account of their color. 
 And shall a mulatto to whom Congress will deny 
 a residence in the City of Washington, unless 
 he is specially licensed by the corporation, be 
 considered by that same Congress, if he will 
 only emigrate to the State of Missouri, entitled 
 to all the privileges and immunities of the most 
 distinguished citizens of the United States ? 
 
 He supposed gentlemen who contended for 
 the rights of these sable brethren in Missouri, 
 and who had denied them a residence at Wash- 
 ington, could have no objection to see x>ne 
 of them returned as a member of this honor- 
 able body. And if they are entitled to all priv- 
 ileges and immunities of the citizens of the 
 several States, wheresoever they would go, it 
 would be infringing much upon the republican 
 principle to refuse them this honor. Had 
 Christophe, the famous chief of Hayti, come to 
 some sections of our country, before he blew his 
 own brains out, if he could have obtained the 
 naturalization which our free negroes and mu- 
 lattoes have done, by a residence merely, he 
 might, under the spirit of these times, soon have 
 found his way liere. He had seen in this 
 morning's paper some high encomiums on his 
 rival and successor, Boyer, his present Majesty 
 of Hayti, by a correspondent of his, in the State 
 of Connecticut, who seems to invite an alliance 
 with his Excellency. This correspondent thinks 
 it would be very useful to this country. 
 
 In the very law which authorized Missouri 
 to elect the convention which formed the con- 
 stitution now before you, is the following pro- 
 vision : " that all free white male citizens of 
 the United States, &c., shall be qualified to be 
 elected, and they are hereby qualified and 
 authorized to vote and choose representatives 
 to form a convention."* We find nothing in 
 that law for tho free negroes and mulattoes. 
 Mr. S. said he had not been able to obtain the 
 statute laws of Ohio and Illinois, but was in- 
 formed that both those States had laws impos- 
 ing penalties upon, and degrading free negroes 
 and mulattoes. So far he had confined his ob- 
 servations and references to the Declaration of 
 
 * Laws 1st session 16th Congress, page 14. 
 
 Independence, the Constitution and laws of the 
 United States, and to the constitutions and laws 
 of such of the separate States as had been 
 formed, under the authority, and since the 
 adoption of the Federal Constitution. He had 
 done so for the purpose of showing the uni- 
 formity of sentiment and of action, which had 
 so invariably prevailed, on every political occa- 
 sion, to give d decisive character to the degraded 
 condition of free negroes and mulattoes. He 
 had, as yet, offered no evidence derived from 
 the laws and constitutions of the original States. 
 He would now do so, and see how far they 
 maintained the arguments of the gentleman from 
 Ehode Island, (Mr. BUBKILL,) that the constitu- 
 tion of Missouri is repugnant to the Constitution 
 of the United States, and wants the republican 
 form, which it is the duty of Congress to guar- 
 antee ; because it provides for prohibiting free 
 negroes and mulattoes from going to, and settling 
 in that State. We were taught to believe that 
 no State in the Union, besides Missouri, had had 
 the boldness to restrain the ingress or egress 
 of any citizen ; or that any distinction had 
 been made between the white citizens and 
 the yellow and black citizens. He would 
 endeavor to show the gentleman's arguments 
 were incorrect. In this examination he would 
 pass by all those States which held slaves. 
 It was known, and would be admitted, that each 
 of them had, either in their laws or constitution, 
 deprived free negroes and mulattoes of all the 
 political rights of citizens ; such as denying 
 them the right to vote at elections ; or depriv- 
 ing them of the liberty to give evidence against 
 a white person ; forbidding them to bear arms ; 
 and several of these States have compelled them 
 to depart, and forbidden them to return. For 
 this we have been often reproached. To pro- 
 ceed with the course he had laid out to himself, 
 he would begin with New Hampshire. 
 
 New Hampshire had said in her constitution 
 "that all men are born equally free and inde- 
 pendent. Have certain, natural, .essential, and 
 inherent rights among which are the enjoying 
 and defending life and liberty," &c. 
 
 In the year 1808 she passed a law to regulate 
 her militia, in which it is, amongst other things, 
 enacted " that each and every free able-bodied 
 white male citizen of this State, resident there- 
 in, who is, or shall be, of the age of sixteen 
 years, and under the age of forty, &c., shall be 
 enrolled." 
 
 If the white man and the black man are born 
 equally free and independent, and have the 
 same natural rights, &c., among which are the 
 enjoying and defending his life and liberty, how 
 is the colored man to defend his life if ho is pre- 
 vented from the means given to the white man ? 
 This absurdity is so palpable that no man will 
 attempt to reconcile it. No other conclusion 
 can result, but that New Hampshire, too, has 
 yielded her assent, that free negroes and mn- 
 lattoes are not citizens ; but that these govern- 
 ments are constituted of white citizens only. A 
 man deprived of his arms, or deprived of the
 
 672 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 Missouri State Constitution Citizenship of Free Colored Persons. [DECEMBER, 1820. 
 
 means of using them as his fellow-citizens do, is 
 deprived at least of half his defence. Republi- 
 can New Hampshire would never do that. 
 
 He would next examine the laws and consti- 
 tution of Vermont. Although this was one of 
 the new States, on account of her local situation 
 and political habits, he had classed her with the 
 States in her neighborhood. 
 
 Vermont, also, had said, in the first article of 
 her constitution, " that all men are born equally 
 free and independent, and have certain natural, 
 inherent, and inalienable rights, amongst which 
 are the enjoy ing and defending life and liberty, ac- 
 quiring, possessing, and protecting property, and 
 pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety." 
 
 She passed a law on the 10th of March, 1797, 
 to regulate the militia. In which it is also 
 enacted: "that every free able-bodied white 
 male citizen above the age of eighteen, and 
 under forty-five, &c., shall be enrolled,"* &c. 
 
 The defending life and protecting property, 
 by the appointment of Heaven, must depend 
 upon our physical powers. And will the State 
 of Vermont, which knows so well the benefit of 
 arms, strip, by law, a portion of her citizens of 
 this essential means of defending life and pro- 
 tecting property ? This, like the case of New 
 Hampshire, proves that they have free negroes 
 and mulattoes in Vermont, but have no black or 
 yellow fellow-citizens there. 
 
 Vermont, as far as the decisions of one State 
 could go, had decided the political right which 
 each State possesses, of expelling, by law, the 
 citizens of any other State, if any should be 
 rash enough to attempt to go there to reside. 
 The 19th article of her constitution, which was 
 ratified on the 9th of July, 1793, is in the fol- 
 lowing words : " That all people have a natural 
 and inherent right to emigrate from one State 
 to another that will receive them." 
 
 In pursuance of this authority, in their own 
 constitution, Vermont, on the 6th November, 
 1801, passed a law to exclude, not only free 
 negroes and mulattoes, but the citizens of every 
 description, male and female, of the other 
 States. It says: "The selectmen shall have 
 power to remove from the State any persons 
 who come there to reside. And any person re- 
 moved, and returning without permission of the 
 selectmen, shall be whipped not exceeding ten 
 stripes."f 
 
 He could not conceive how Vermont could 
 possibly say, that the constitution of Missouri 
 was repugnant to the Constitution of the United 
 States, because it forbids a residence to free ne- 
 groes and mulattoes, when its own laws and 
 constitution forbid a residence to the most re- 
 spectable citizens,of all the other States. Un- 
 less they considered the whipping to be a saving 
 clause, which might distinguish it from the 
 Missouri case. However desirable a country 
 Vermont may be, Mr. S. said, he believed there 
 would be but few, either black or white, who 
 
 * See Laws of Vermont, 2 vol., page 122. 
 t Laws of Vermont, 1 vol., page 400. 
 
 would become citizens, until there should bo 
 some other mode of naturalizing than at the 
 whipping-post. 
 
 Mr. S. said, the more he examined the subject 
 the better he was satisfied that the great and re- 
 spectable State of Pennsylvania, however mis- 
 taken he might think he/ policy, for indiscrimi- 
 nate emancipation, had had more benevolent 
 views than any other State in the Union. They 
 had examined it more than any other, and knew 
 the rights of free negroes and mnlattoes better, 
 and defended them with more zeal. For the pur- 
 pose of showing what was the opinion enter- 
 tained in her Legislature, at its last session, of 
 the right of States to prohibit the migration of 
 free negroes and mulattoes, he would read from 
 the journals of that body, which he then held, 
 a resolution, offered by two of its well-informed 
 and respectable members. 
 
 " A motion was made by Mr. Kerlin and Mr. 
 G. Eobinson, and read as follows, viz. : 
 
 " Resolved, That the Committee on the Judi- 
 ciary system be instructed to inquire into the 
 expediency of prohibiting the migration or im- 
 portation of free negroes and mulattoes into 
 this Commonwealth.''* 
 
 This resolution was not acted on, but it shows 
 the opinion of Pennsylvania, itself, upon the- 
 right which Missouri claims. And this resolu- 
 tion, it is observed, was presented on or about 
 the 20th of January, 1820, at the very mo- 
 ment that Legislature passed a unanimous res- 
 olution for instructing their Senators, in Con- 
 gress, to oppose the admission of Missouri into 
 the Union, unless under the restriction of pro- 
 hibiting slavery, when their minds were alive 
 to the subject. 
 
 He said he would now examine the laws of 
 Rhode Island, for she had no constitution, upon 
 the subject of negroes and mulattoes generally. 
 By one of their statute laws it is said : " The 
 town council shall, if any free negro or mulatto 
 shall keep a disorderly house, or entertain any 
 person or persons at unseasonable hours, break 
 up his house, and bind him out to service for 
 two years."! 
 
 If all were citizens, why not bind out a white 
 brother citizen as well as a black or yellow one ? 
 The nature of the offence was certainly the 
 same, and, it is reasonable to conclude, ought to 
 be punished in the same way. By another clause 
 of the same statute, it is enacted : 
 
 " That no white person, Indian, or mulatto, 
 or negro, keeping house in any town, shall en- 
 tertain any Indian, mulatto, or negro servant 
 or slave ; if he does, to be punished by fine,'"'! &c. 
 
 Another clause of the same statute says, in 
 treating of Indian, negro, and mulatto servants 
 or slaves : 
 
 " That none should be absent at night, after 
 nine o'clock. If found out, to be taken up 
 and committed to jail till morning, and then 
 appear before a justice of the peace, who is or- 
 
 * See Journal, page 841. 
 
 t Laws of Rhode Island, pajres 611, 612. 
 
 t Laws of Khode Island, page 614.
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 G73 
 
 DECEMBER, 1820.] Missouri State Constitution Citizenship of Free Colored Persons. 
 
 [SENATE. 
 
 dered and directed to cause such servant or slave 
 to be publicly whipped, by the constable, ten 
 stripes."* 
 
 In the same statute book is a law of a more 
 rigid character. It is in these words : 
 
 " That whosoever is suspected of trading 
 with a servant or slave, and shall refuse to purge 
 himself, by oath, shall be adjudged guilty, and 
 sentence shall be given against him."t 
 
 Our Northern friends had taken great liberties 
 with the Southern people concerning the rigid 
 manner of treating their slaves. But this is a 
 refinement upon any thing of that sort to be 
 found in the statute books of the Southern 
 States. You can find no law for selling or bind- 
 ing out a free negro or mulatto, for entertaining 
 his friends at what the town council .might 
 think an unseasonable hour. But to judge a 
 man guilty and sentence him, if you suspect him, 
 unless he will purge himself upon oath, is a 
 stretch of political power, not known in any 
 of the United States but Rhode Island. It was 
 a species of despotism. This, however, must be 
 added to the catalogue of evidence, which irre- 
 sistibly shows that Ehode Island, as well as the 
 other States, never intended to put free negroes 
 and mulattoes upon the footing of citizens. 
 Otherwise the laws would not sell the man of 
 color for what the white man may commit with- 
 out notice. Mr. S. said, this discussion would 
 be useful in one respect, if injurious in another. 
 We should understand the laws and constitutions 
 of our neighboring States. Until this question 
 was agitated he had been led to believe that 
 slaves, as well as free negroes and mulattoes, in 
 the Northern States, were as unrestrained as 
 their masters. He now had the consolation to 
 know that the laws of South Carolina, at least, 
 were more mild on this subject than the laws 
 of Rhode Island. Gentlemen might say these 
 laws were repealed for aught he knew ; if they 
 were, he knew nothing about it. He had not 
 yet heard they were repealed; he had found 
 their statute books, which contain these laws, 
 in the law library attached to the Senate Cham- 
 ber. He supposed some of them may be grow- 
 ing obsolete since they sold the greater part 
 of their slaves to the people of the Southern 
 States. 
 
 He would now examine the evidence the re- 
 spectable State of Massachusetts would afford us 
 in illustrating this subject ; and would first ad- 
 vert to her constitution. In the first section of 
 the first article are to be found the following 
 words : 
 
 "All men are born free and equal, and have 
 certain natural, essential, and inalienable rights ; 
 among which may be reckoned thdfright of en- 
 joying and defending their lives and liberties ; 
 that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting 
 property ; in fine, that of seeking their safety 
 and happiness." 
 
 This declaration of rights comprehends all that 
 
 * Laws of Rhode Island, page 614. 
 t Laws of Ehode Island, page 615. 
 
 You VI. 43 
 
 a citizen could ask, for but no more than he is 
 entitled to. And it gives to every citizen the 
 same rights. Who will deny the right of every 
 man, according to this constitution, to remain 
 within the State, if he is a citizen, as long as he 
 pleases ? Who will say that marriage, to whom- 
 soever the citizen shall think proper, if each 
 party is agreed, is not a right of the highest im- 
 portance ? To grant this right to one citizen, 
 and take it from another, would be giving to 
 one and taking from the other the means of his 
 happiness, which the constitution secures to him 
 so emphatically. By a law of Massachusetts, 
 passed the 6th of March, 1788, and which ap- 
 pears to have been revised in 1798, and again in 
 1802, it is expressly enacted 
 
 " That no person, being an African or negro, 
 other than a subject of the Emperor of Morocco, 
 or a citizen of the United States, to be evidenced 
 by a certificate, &c., shall tarry within this Com- 
 monwealth for a longer time than two months ; 
 if he does, the justices have power to order such 
 person to depart, &c. ; and if such person shall 
 not depart within ten days, &c., such person 
 shall be committed to the prison or house of 
 correction. And for this offence, &c., he shall 
 be whipped, &c., and ordered again to depart 
 in ten days ; and if he does not, the same pro- 
 cess and punishment to be inflicted, and so toties 
 quoties." 
 
 This toties quoties, we all understand to mean 
 that he shall be whipped as often as he returns. 
 Many, or at least some of the States, have passed 
 laws to regulate the solemnization of marriage, 
 which they have a right to do. Massachusetts, 
 on the 15th of June, 1795, passed a law for the 
 orderly solemnization of marriage, &c,, from 
 which the following is an extract : 
 
 " That no person by this act authorized to 
 marry, shall join in marriage any white person 
 with any negro, Indian, or mulatto, on penalty 
 of the sum of fifty pounds, two-thirds part 
 thereof to the use of the county wherein such 
 offence shall be committed, and the residue to 
 the prosecutor, to be recovered by the treasurer 
 of the county, &c., and the said marriage shall 
 be null and void,"* &c. 
 
 Massachusetts emancipated her slaves, what 
 she had not sold off, at a pretty early period 
 after the Revolutionary war. Those alluded to 
 must be free negroes and mulattoes. Massachu- 
 setts we all know to be a republican State, and 
 to have a republican form of government. She 
 had been called the cradle in which the Revo- 
 lution had been rocked. Her early achieve- 
 ments in that Revolution had been conspicuous. 
 The battles of Bunker Hill and Concord would 
 be spoken of by posterity with delight. She 
 had been famed for her men of eloquence, and 
 he had the pleasure to say, without flattery or 
 bony, that he believed justly. She had the 
 most numerous legislative body of any State in 
 the Union her number of representatives was 
 about six hundred. Amidst such a multitude 
 
 * Laws of Massachusetts, voL 1, pp. 823-1.
 
 674 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 Missouri State Constitution Citizenship of Free Colored Persons. [DECKMBER, 1820. 
 
 of council, is it possible for one member to be- 
 lieve for a moment, that such a law could have 
 passed, to prohibit a citizen to marry whomso- 
 ever he could gain the affections of? Or is 
 there a man in Massachusetts who will say that 
 marriage is not an essential happiness ? If it is 
 not secured to every citizen, where is their 
 declaration of rights ? We must look for the 
 reason of this law, as in all the other States, in 
 the universal assent to the degraded condition 
 of that class of people, and from which none of 
 the States would, perhaps, ever think it expe- 
 dient to raise them. From the ranting of some 
 enthusiasts, and the jeerings of some politicians, 
 Mr. S. said, he had been led to believe there 
 were no mulattoes in the New England States. 
 But looking into their statute books, he found 
 they were numerous ; so much so, as to become 
 the subjects of legislative control, and that a 
 long time ago. It appears they were breeding 
 them as far back as 1V88, and he did not know 
 how much earlier, but he supposed as long ago 
 as when they began to import the Africans into 
 Portsmouth, in the State of New Hampshire. 
 
 As the laws and constitution of Connecticut 
 would give some aid in illustrating this ques- 
 tion, he would refer to them. 
 
 In the first section of the first article of that 
 constitution, are the following words : 
 
 " That all men, when they form a social com- 
 pact, are equal in rights." 
 
 In the second section of the sixth article of 
 that constitution, it is said : " Every white male 
 citizen of the United States, &c., shall be an 
 elector." 
 
 This constitution was formed on the 15th of 
 September, 1818. The good people of that State 
 called the convention which formed that con- 
 stitution, for the express purpose of making it 
 republican. Nor will any one doubt but that 
 the citizens of Connecticut and their constitu- 
 tion are republican. But how can the consti- 
 tution be republican, if their free negroes and 
 mulattoes are citizens and not entitled to all the 
 privileges and immunities of citizens in the sev- 
 eral States ? All men cannot be equal in rights, 
 and be deprived of all these rights, or any of 
 them, and still be called equal, without a gross 
 violation of the rights it declares to be sacred. 
 Such absurdities cannot be ascribed to the wise 
 men of Connecticut, who so recently formed 
 this constitution. And they must be ascribed 
 to them, if the free negroes and mulattoes are 
 citizens, and deprived of the elective franchise. 
 We have been taught to consider it the highest 
 privilege of a freeman. Some extracts from the 
 kws of that cautious and prudent people will 
 throw much light on the question of State sov- 
 ereignty, and the powers of a State to prohibit 
 the ingress of persons from other States. By a 
 law of the State, published in 1792, and which 
 was since the adoption of the Constitution of the 
 United States, they have carried their powers 
 much further than those assumed by Missouri 
 for excluding the free negroes and mulattoes. 
 He would read the extracts, which he had taken 
 
 from their statute books. The first was in these 
 words : 
 
 " That when an inhabitant of any of the 
 United States (this State excepted) shall come 
 to reside in any town in this State, the civil 
 authority, or major part of them are authorized, 
 upon the application of the selectmen, if they 
 judge proper, by warrant under their hand?, 
 directed to either of the constables of said town, 
 to order said persons to be conveyed to the State 
 from whence he or she came,"* &c. 
 
 Another part of the same law, in further exe- 
 cution of the foregoing principle, says : 
 
 " The selectmen of the town are author- 
 ized to warn any person, not an inhabitant of 
 this State, to depart such town, and the person 
 so warned, if he does not depart, shall forfeit 
 and pay to the treasurer of such town one dol- 
 lar and sixty-seven cents per week. If such 
 person refuses to depart, or pay his fine, such 
 person shall be whipped on the naked body, not 
 exceeding ten stripes, unless such person departs 
 in ten days." 
 
 " If any such person returns, after warning, 
 he is to be whipped again, and sent away again, 
 and as often as there is occasion."t 
 
 No argument can be drawn from the facts 
 that Missouri makes constitutional provisions to 
 deprive a citizen of his right of residence, and 
 that of Connecticut is only by law. There is no 
 man of sense and honesty, too, who will venture 
 to say a State may prohibit by a law those whom 
 the constitution protects. It would be nugatory 
 to protect a right by the constitution, if you can 
 destroy it by law. The constitution of a State 
 is paramount to all other of its laws. Then, if 
 Connecticut can prohibit the citizens of other 
 States from remaining or residing in that State, 
 by a law, they will certainly permit Missouri to 
 exclude free negroes and mulattoes by their 
 constitution. Nor could he be easily brought 
 to believe that a citizen of Connecticut would 
 not rather be entirely forbidden to reside in any 
 State to which he might remove, than to be 
 whipped out of it after he had got there. Is it 
 not absurd, to a demonstration, for the people 
 of a State to say the constitution of Missouri is 
 not republican, because it provides for excluding 
 free negroes and mulattoes from a residence, 
 when their own laws, recently enacted, exclude 
 all the citizens of all the rest of the Union? 
 South Carolina, some years ago, passed a law to 
 prohibit slaves from the Northern States, when 
 they were selling them to the Southern people, 
 from coming into that State ; but there was an 
 exception in favor of the servants of public func- 
 tionaries aod members of Congress. The laws 
 of Connecncut do not exempt the members of 
 Congress themselves, much less their servants. 
 A member of Congress, going from the Southern 
 States to Connecticut, would not conceive him- 
 self very highly honored if put under an es- 
 cort of town constables ; nor could he well sup- 
 
 * Laws of Connecticut, page 240. 
 t Laws of Connecticut, page 241.
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 675 
 
 DECEMBER, 1820.] Missouri State Constitution Citizenship of Free Colored Persons. 
 
 [SENATE. 
 
 pose the honor enhanced by being whipped on 
 the naked body if he should happen to return 
 that way. 
 
 Another law of that State, published in 1796, 
 concerning free negroes, mulattoes, and negro, 
 mulatto, and Indian servants, is worth notice. 
 One clause says : 
 
 " "Whatsoever negro, mulatto, or Indian ser- 
 vant, shall be found wandering out of the 
 bounds of the town or place to which they be- 
 long, without a ticket, or pass, in writing, to 
 be taken up," &c. 
 
 By another clause there is a distinct and de- 
 grading restraint laid upon free negroes. It says : 
 
 " No free negro is to travel without a pass 
 from the selectmen or justices." 
 
 So careful have they been to restrain this 
 degraded class of people, in the same law it is 
 provided : 
 
 " That every free person shall be punished by 
 fine, &c., for buying or receiving any thing from 
 a free negro, mulatto, or Indian servant," &c. 
 
 If free negroes and mulattoes are citizens, 
 why this distinct restraint on their right of 
 locomotion more than on a white citizen ? If 
 citizens, why restrained from travelling with- 
 out a pass? "Who is authorized by the Consti- 
 tution of the United States to prescribe the 
 terms to a particular class of citizens, by what 
 means they shall be suffered to pass? And 
 who shall interdict the rest of the community 
 from buying or receiving from a particular poa- 
 tion of citizens, if they are citizens ? 
 
 The great and respectable State of New York 
 would afford us some light also upon this sub- 
 ject. In the 42d article of the constitution of 
 that State we find the following words : 
 
 " And this convention doth further, in the 
 name and by the authority of the good people 
 of this State, ordain, determine, and declare, 
 that it shall be in the discretion of the Legisla- 
 ture to naturalize all such persons, and in such 
 manner, as they shall think proper." 
 
 This remains a prominent part of the consti- 
 tution of New York. She has reserved to her- 
 self, or to her Legislature, the sole right to 
 naturalize all such persons as they shall think 
 proper. They, perhaps, may have the power 
 to do so ; but they ought to be candid enough, 
 at least, to allow Missouri to naturalize such 
 persons, and in such manner as they may think 
 
 g roper, also. Her powers are co-ordinate, 
 ut, so far is the Legislature of New York 
 from this, that whilst she retains the power 
 herself, she not only denies it to the State of 
 Missouri, but has sent her resolutions of in- 
 structions to her Senators, which now lie on 
 your table, to endeavor, by all means, to dis- 
 franchise her for attempting to exercise this right 
 upon free negroes and mulattoes only. With 
 what grace she can do so let the world judge. 
 Her citizens, too, are declaring in their bul- 
 letins, that, for this defect in the Missouri con- 
 stitution, she ought to be rejected, and if ad- 
 mitted, it will, of itself, be a complete dissolu- 
 tion of the Union of the States. 
 
 By a law of New York, passed the 8th of 
 April, 1801, they have shown, in the most em- 
 phatic words, the power which each State re- 
 tains, of excluding from their limits all and 
 every person who shall come therein. Nor are 
 their means for imposing this power the least 
 energetic. This power they have not limited 
 to exclusion of free negroes and mulattoes only, 
 as Missouri has done, but they have extended it 
 to every class of citizens, of every age, sex, 
 and denomination. He would read the several 
 clauses. The first is in these words : 
 
 " If a stranger is entertained in the dwel- 
 ling-house or out-house of any citizen for fifteen 
 days, without giving notice to the overseers of 
 the poor, he shall pay a fine of five dollars." * 
 
 This clatise goes to punish any hospitable 
 man who shall have the rashness to entertain a 
 stranger. Whatever may be the custom of the 
 people of that State, the laws deny to a stranger 
 even the rights of hospitality. The next clause 
 comes a little closer to the stranger. He would 
 read it. It is in these words : 
 
 " If such person continues above forty days, 
 the justices can call on all the inhabitants 
 of the town or city, and the person may be 
 sent to jail, &c. And the justices may cause 
 such stranger to be conveyed from constable to 
 constable, until transported into any other 
 State, if from thence he came." t 
 
 This stranger may be a man of the purest 
 morality, the most accomplished manners, ex- 
 tensive fortune, or most finished education ; or 
 he may be an object for the exercise of charity ; 
 it is immaterial which he is put into the 
 hands of a constable, who hands him to his 
 brother constable, and so he goes on, until they 
 hand him out of the State of New York. This 
 is the first legal entertainment which a gentle- 
 man or lady, for they are to be entertained 
 pretty much alike, are subjected to when they 
 visit the State of New York, if they remain 
 forty days. There was another clause, if they 
 made a second visit, which entertains them in 
 a different style. It is in the following worda : 
 
 " If such person returns, the justices, if they 
 think proper, may direct him to be whipped 
 by every constable into whose hands he shall 
 come ; to be whipped, if a man, not exceeding 
 thirty-nine lashes, and if a woman not exceed- 
 ing twenty-five lashes. And so as often as 
 such person shall return." J 
 
 It may be said, this law was only intended 
 to guard against transient poor from other 
 States. The rights of a poor man are and 
 ought to be held, if he is a citizen of the United 
 States, as sacred as the rights of the rich man. 
 But this law itself has made no distinction. 
 The constitution authorizes the Legislature to 
 naturalize in such manner as they shall think 
 proper. If this was the manner of naturaliz- 
 ing, and no other appeared yet to have been 
 
 * Laws of New York, vol. 1, p. 568. 
 t Laws of New York, vol. 1. p. 563. 
 t Laws of New York, vol. 1, pp. 568, 569.
 
 676 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 Restriction of Slavery. 
 
 [DECEMBER, 1820. 
 
 adopted, to be whipped at the public whipping- 
 post by every town constable into whose hands 
 he should come, it was not so very inviting to 
 foreigners ; and it was more than probable that 
 but few would like the certificate, as the regis- 
 try is to be made on the back of the man, by 
 thirty-nine lashes, (Moses's Law :) of the wo- 
 man, by twenty-five lashes. It has been re- 
 marked by enlightened travellers, that the at- 
 tention to ladies is in proportion to the civiliza- 
 tion and refined manners of nations. New 
 York has given in this law a proof of her re- 
 finement of manners by their marked attention 
 to ladies, as they are to receive fourteen lashes 
 less than the gentlemen. 
 
 However romantic this may all appear, it is 
 literally true that such a law is not only to be 
 found in the statute books of New York, but 
 has been enacted twelve years since the adop- 
 tion of the Constitution of the United States, is 
 now in full force, and is constantly practised 
 upon ; by which they can drag from the State 
 the most worthy gentleman or lady of the 
 United States, by the rude hand of town con- 
 stables ; and, if they should dare to return, can 
 make them hug the whipping-post. Yet, with 
 this gigantic stretch of power in full exercise 
 by their own State, the people of that State 
 are riding foremost in the cause of the wander- 
 ing vagabond free negroes and mulattoes with 
 a view to thrust them upon others, or with 
 some other more unkind view. 
 
 If this concatenation of constitutional and 
 legal authorities, beginning with the Declara- 
 tion of Independence itself, and running through 
 the Constitution and every law of the United 
 States, wherever the subject could occur, or be 
 acted on, as well as a voluminous concurrence 
 of the State constitutions and State laws, all 
 bearing directly on this question, without a 
 solitary case to be found to contravene them, 
 when combined with that universal sentiment 
 and universal rule of action of the whole of the 
 white population of the whole nation, denying 
 positively all the precious and valuable privi- 
 leges of citizenship to free negroes and mulat- 
 toes, would not demonstrate that they were not 
 citizens, he knew no human proof which could 
 comprehend it. 
 
 SATURDAY, December 9. 
 Restriction of Slavery. 
 
 Mr. TICHENOR communicated the following 
 resolutions of the Legislature of the State of 
 Vermont ; which were read : 
 
 STATE OF VERMONT, 
 In General Assembly, Nov.15, 1820. 
 The committee, to whom wr.s referred so much of 
 his Excellency's speech as relates to the admission of 
 the Territory of Missouri into the Union as a State, 
 submit the following report : 
 
 The history of nations demonstrates that involun- 
 tary servitude not only plunges the slave into the 
 depths of misery, but renders a great proportion of 
 
 community dependent and wretched, and the remain- 
 der tyrannic and indolent. 
 
 Opulence, acquired by the slavery of others, degen- 
 erates its possessors, and destroys the physical powers 
 of government. Principles so degrading are incon- 
 sistent with the primitive dignity of man, and his 
 natural rights. 
 
 Slavery is incompatible with the vital principles of 
 all free governments, and tends to their ruin. It 
 paralyzes industry, the greatest source of national 
 wealth, stifles the love of freedom, and endangers the 
 safety of the nation. 
 
 It is prohibited by the laws of nature, which are 
 equally binding on Governments and individuals. The 
 right to introduce and establish slavery in a free gov- 
 ernment does not exist. 
 
 The Declaration of Independence declares, as self- 
 evident truths, " that all men are created equal ; that 
 they are endowed by their Creator with certain in- 
 alienable rights ; that among these are life, liberty, 
 and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these 
 rights, governments are instituted among men, de- 
 riving their just powers from the governed ; that 
 whenever any form of government becomes destructive 
 of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or 
 abolish it" 
 
 The Constitution of the United States, and of the 
 several States, have recognized these principles as the 
 basis of their governments, and have expressly in- 
 hibited the introduction or extension of slavery, or 
 impliedly disavowed the right. 
 
 The powers of Congress to require the prohibition 
 of slavery in the constitution of a State, to be admit- 
 ted as one of the United States, is confirmed by the 
 admission of new States according to the ordinance 
 of 1787, and by a constitutional "guarantee to every 
 State in the Union of a republican form of govern- 
 ment." This power of Congress is also admitted in 
 the act of March 6, 1820, which declares that, in all 
 that territory ceded under the name of Louisiana, 
 which lies north of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes 
 north latitude, "slavery and involuntary servitude 
 shall be forever prohibited." 
 
 Where slavery existed in the United States, at the 
 time of the adoption of the Constitution of the United 
 States, a spirit of compromise, or painful necessity, 
 may have excused its continuance ; but can never 
 justify its introduction into a State to be admitted 
 from the Territories of the United States. 
 
 Though slavery is not expressly prohibited by the 
 constitution, yet that invaluable instrument contains 
 powers, first principles, and self-evident truths, which 
 bring us to the same result, and lead us to Liberty 
 and Justice, and the equal rights of man, from which 
 we ought never to depart. " In it is clearly seen a 
 deep and humiliating sense of slavery," and a cheering 
 hope that it would, at some future period, be abolish- 
 ed and even a determination to do it. 
 
 It is apparent that servitude produces, in the slave- 
 holding States, peculiar feelings, local attachments, 
 and separate interests ; and, should it be extended 
 into new States, " it will have a tendency to form 
 a combination of power which will control the 
 measures of the General Government," and which 
 cannot be resisted, except by the physical force of 
 the nation. 
 
 The people of the United States adopted the con- 
 stitution " to form a more perfect union of the several 
 States, to establish justice, to secure domestic tran- 
 quillity, provide for the common defence, promote the
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 677 
 
 DECKMBEK, 1820.] Admission of Missouri Citizenship of Free Colored Penons. 
 
 [SEXATE. 
 
 general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty ; 
 and have thereby blended, and inseparably connect- 
 ed the interests, the safety, and welfare, of every 
 State in the Union. We, therefore, become deeply 
 concerned in the fundamental principles of the con- 
 stitution of any new State to be admitted into the 
 Union. Whatever powers are necessary to carry 
 into effect the great objects of the Union are implied 
 in the constitution, and vested in the several depart- 
 ments of the General Government. 
 
 The act of the United States authorizing a provi- 
 sional admission of Missouri into the Union as a State, 
 does not pledge the faith of the Government to admit 
 whatever may be its constitution or system of State 
 government ; for that constitution, by the act, must 
 be republican, and not repugnant to the Constitution 
 of the United States. 
 
 From information, it is to be seriously apprehend- 
 ed that Missouri will present to Congress, for their 
 approbation, a constitution which declares, that " the 
 General Assembly shall have no power to pass laws 
 first, for the emancipation of slaves, without the 
 consent of their owners, or without paying them, be- 
 fore emancipation, a full equivalent for such slaves so 
 emancipated;" and, "secondly," to prevent emi- 
 grants from bringing slaves into said State, so long 
 as slavery is legalized therein. 
 
 It is also made the imperious duty of its Legisla- 
 ture to pass laws, as soon as may be, " to prevent 
 free negroes and mulattoes from coming to, and 
 settling in, that State, under any pretence what- 
 ever." 
 
 These powers, restrictions, and provisions, to 
 egalize and perpetuate slavery, and to prevent citi- 
 zens of the United States, on account of their origin, 
 color, or features, from emigrating to Missouri, 
 are repugnant to a republican government, and in 
 direct violation of the Constitution of the United 
 States. 
 
 If Missouri be permitted to introduce and legalize 
 slavery by her constitution, and we consent to her 
 admission, we shall justly incur the charge of insin- 
 cerity in our civil institutions, and in all our profes- 
 sions of attachment to liberty. It will bring upon 
 the Constitution and Declaration of Independence a 
 deep stain, which cannot be forgotten or blotted out 
 " It will deeply affect the Union in its resources, po- 
 litical interests, and character." 
 
 The admission of another new State into the Union 
 with a constitution which guarantees security and 
 protection to slavery, and the cruel and unnatural 
 traffic of any portion of the human race, will be an 
 error which the Union cannot correct, and an evil 
 which may endanger the freedom of the nation. 
 . Congress never ought, and we trust never will, 
 plant the standard of the Union in Missouri, to wave 
 over the heads of involuntary slaves, "who have 
 nothing they can call their own, except their sorrows 
 and their sufferings," and a life beyond the grave, 
 and who can never taste the sweets of liberty, unless 
 they obtain it by force or by flight. Nor can a com- 
 munity made up of masters and slaves ever enjoy the 
 blessings of liberty, and the benefits of a free govern- 
 ment ; these enjoyments are reserved for a commu- 
 nity of freemen, who are subject to none, but to God 
 and the laws. 
 
 The committee, therefore, submit for the consider- 
 ation of the General Assembly the following resolu- 
 tions, viz. : 
 
 Unsolved, That, in the opinion of this Legislature, 
 
 slavery, or involuntary servitude, in any of the United 
 States, is a moral and political evil, and that its con- 
 tinuance can be justified by necessity alone. 
 
 That Congress has a right to inhibit any further 
 introduction or extension of slavery, as one of the 
 conditions upon which any new State shall be ad- 
 mitted into the Union. 
 
 Resdved, That this Legislature views with regret 
 and alarm the attempt of the inhabitants of Missouri 
 to obtain admission into the Union, as one of the 
 United States, under a constitution which legalizes 
 and secures the introduction and continuance of sla- 
 very ; and also contains provisions to prevent free- 
 men of the United States from emigrating to and 
 settling in Missouri, on account of their origin, 
 color, and features. And that, in the opinion of this 
 Legislature, these principles, powers, and restrictions, 
 contained in the reputed constitution of Missouri, are 
 anti-republican, and repugnant to the Constitution 
 of the United States, and subversive of the inalienable 
 rights of man. 
 
 Resolved, That the Senators from this State in the 
 Congress of the United States, be instructed, and the 
 Representatives requested, to exert their influence 
 and use all legal means to prevent the admission of 
 Missouri, as a State, into the Union of the United 
 States, with those anti-republican features and powers 
 in their constitution. 
 
 Resolved, That the Secretary of State be requested 
 to transmit a copy of the foregoing report and reso- 
 lutions to each of the Senators and Representatives 
 from this State in the Congress of the United States. 
 
 Admission of Missouri Citizenship of Free 
 Colored Persons. 
 
 The Senate resumed the consideration of the 
 resolution declaring the consent of Congress to 
 the admission of the State of Missouri. 
 
 Mr. HOLMES, of Maine, addressed the Chair 
 as follows : 
 
 Mr. President, it is not my intention to trouble 
 the Senate with any remarks on that part of 
 the constitution of Missouri which recognizes 
 the right to hold slaves. The act of the last 
 session has settled that question ; and, in spite 
 of the reasoning in the Vermont memorial just 
 read, and the authority from whence it ema- 
 nates, I feel bound by a solemn compact to ad- 
 mit Missouri, unless it is manifest that her con- 
 stitution is repugnant to that of the United 
 States. The honorable gentleman from Rhode 
 Island (Mr. BUBEILL) who opposed this resolu- 
 tion, gives up the ground of restriction; and I 
 understand that he, and other gentlemen who 
 think with him on that subject, would consent 
 to the admission of Missouri, if her constitution 
 does not contravene any provision of the Con- 
 stitution of the United States, nor the act of 
 last session which authorizes her admission. 
 The honorable gentleman from Rhode Island 
 did, to be sure, suggest some objections not 
 strictly consistent with this admission, on which 
 he did not seem to place much reliance, and 
 which probably were not, in his mind, insuper- 
 able. He thinks it was improper, and somewhat 
 "ndecorous, that the act was not incorporated in 
 the constitution, or at least referred to bv the 
 convention as the ground of their proceedings.
 
 678 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 Admission of Missouri Citizenship of Free Colored Persons. [DECEMBER, 1820. 
 
 But, if they have complied with the provisions 
 and conditions of the act, it is equally binding 
 as if they had recited the whole, and the con- 
 stitution itself is more concise, explicit, and in- 
 telligible. 
 
 Another objection is, that the constitution of 
 Missouri allows emigration from the State, but 
 prohibits free blacks and mulattoes from coining 
 in and settling. This is charged upon Missouri 
 as an inconsistency. But surely there can be 
 nothing inconsistent in this. The people are 
 forming a compact, and one of its provisions is, 
 that those members of the State who shall be- 
 come dissatisfied may abandon it. " Go," they 
 say, " when you please, and where you can. 
 We give you no warrant to break open the 
 doors of our neighbors and force them to re- 
 ceive you against their consent. We allow no 
 such liberties to be taken with us." This is the 
 substance of the provision. It surely is neither 
 inconsistent nor illiberal. 
 
 Passing by these objections, which were not 
 urged with much confidence or zeal, I come to 
 that which is principally relied on. Free ne- 
 groes and mulattoes are to be prohibited by law 
 from coming to and settling in the State ; and 
 this, it is contended, contravenes that clause of 
 the Constitution of the United States which 
 provides that " the citizens of each State shall 
 be entitled to all privileges and immunities of 
 citizens in the several States." 
 
 The honorable gentleman from Khode Island 
 contends that this prohibition would exclude 
 them from entering the State, even without an 
 intent to settle. This construction makes the 
 clause consist of two distinct prohibitions, the 
 one against entering, the other settling; and 
 this absurdity would result that the legislature 
 should prohibit free blacks without from com- 
 ing in, and free blacks within from settling. 
 The true construction is that they are not to 
 be permitted to come in and settle. 
 
 It is true that it is made imperative on the 
 legislature to exclude free blacks and mulattoes, 
 and they are not to be admitted to settlement 
 in the State, under any pretext whatever. Had 
 the expression been all free blacks and mulat- 
 toes, the legislature could have made no excep- 
 tions. But the omission of the word " all" 
 leaves them a discretion ; and other provisions 
 in their constitution limit the extent of the pro- 
 hibition, and expound its meaning. 
 
 All purchasers of lands in Missouri, previous 
 to the law enacted under this clause, are ex- 
 pressly provided for. A purchase of lands by 
 deed is " a contract executed." The covenants 
 in the deed secure to the purchaser the right to 
 hold, possess, and enjoy. Should the purchaser 
 be lawfully excluded from the possession, the 
 covenant or "contract" is broken. If the State 
 by law excludes a purchaser from his possession, 
 it impairs the obligation of the contract. In 
 the celebrated Georgia case in relation to the 
 Yazoo purchase, it was determined that a law 
 annulling a precedent sale was void, as impair- 
 ing the obligation of a contract. And whatever 
 
 law takes from a purchaser the benefit of any 
 covenant in his deed is void, being repugnant 
 to the Constitution of the United States. Now, 
 there is the same clause in the constitution of 
 Missouri as in that of the United States. Any 
 law, therefore, which should exclude a prece- 
 dent purchaser from the enjoyment of his pur- 
 chase, would be contrary to a provision in the 
 bill of rights of Missouri. Wherefore, taking 
 these two provisions together, the meaning is 
 this; " the legislature shall exclude free blacks 
 and mulattoes, provided they are not purchas- 
 ers of lands within the State." 
 
 This reasoning will apply to all soldiers who 
 hold under the United States, and all subse- 
 quent purchasers nnder them will be also ex- 
 cepted by another provision in the constitution 
 of Missouri. Among the terms and conditions 
 in the act of last session, Missouri is never to 
 interfere with the primary disposal of the soil 
 by the United States, nor with any regulations 
 Congress may find necessary for securing the 
 title in such soil to the bona fide purchasers. 
 Now, a title is never perfected, or " secured," 
 unless the purchaser has, not only the rights of 
 property and possession, but the possession it- 
 self. To prohibit a purchaser under the United 
 States from enjoying the possession, would most 
 unquestionably interfere with those regulations 
 which Congress might adopt to secure the title 
 to the purchaser. But it is still more manifest 
 that it would be an interference with the 
 " primary disposal" of the soil. Could Missouri, 
 without a violation of this compact, provide that 
 no purchaser of the United States lands in the 
 State should possess or enjoy it? If not, how 
 can she prohibit any portion of purchasers 
 from this possession or enjoyment ? If, in the 
 sale of a dwelling-house, which I had the right 
 to prevent, I should covenant not to interfere, 
 should I fulfil my covenant by prohibiting the 
 purchaser from entering and inhabiting it? 
 Here, then, is a positive stipulation made a part 
 of the constitution of Missouri, and unalterable 
 without the consent of Congress, which ex- 
 pressly excepts from the prohibition all pur- 
 chasers of the United States. The whole power 
 given, then, taken in connection with the rest 
 of the constitution, is to exclude free blacks 
 and mulattoes from the State, except purchas- 
 ers of every description, before the act of ex- 
 clusion, and purchasers of the United States, 
 whether before or after.- Inasmuch, then, as 
 we find express limitations to this power, and 
 the word " all" not inserted in the prohibition, 
 and the members of the legislature bound by 
 oath to support the Constitution of the United 
 States, would it not be fair to expound this 
 clause to extend to those cases only which are 
 nut repugnant to this constitution ? 
 
 Having, as it is believed, ascertained the ex- 
 tent and meaning of the clause objected to, let 
 us, before we proceed to a discussion of the 
 part of the Constitution of the United States 
 said to be infringed, glance for a moment at 
 some of the inconveniences which would result
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 DECEMBER, 1820.] Admission of Missouri Citizenship of Free Colored Persons. 
 
 67n 
 
 [SKXATB. 
 
 from denying to a State the power to exclude 
 free blacks and rnulattoes. 
 
 These are an unfortunate class. They, or 
 their ancestors, having been subjected to the 
 control of a master, are most of them ignorant 
 and poor, and many of them infirm, decrepit, 
 and vicious. Their vices and frailties render 
 them an- encumbrance, if not a nuisance, wher- 
 ever they reside. It is just that the evils aris- 
 ing from such a population should be sustained 
 by those who have had the benefit of their 
 labor, and who have contributed in some meas- 
 ure to their degradation. To confine them to 
 the State by whose laws they or their ancestors 
 were enslaved, and compel that State to ad- 
 minister to their relief without imposing a bur- 
 den on their neighbors, comports as well with 
 justice as humanity. These reasons have pre- 
 vailed in almost every State in the Union, and 
 have produced exclusive laws of the same char- 
 acter and principle, and of greater extent, than 
 the offensive clause in the constitution of Mis- 
 souri. The people of Missouri, possessing a 
 territory whose soil and products would not 
 admit of a nume^us slave population, whose 
 extent and climate would afford facilities to 
 emigrants, and whose vicinity to States and 
 Territories having a crowded black population, 
 would induce an inundation of this description 
 of people, have thought it prudent, the better 
 to facilitate the emancipation of their own 
 slaves, and to improve the condition of their 
 own free blacks and mulattoes, to prohibit their 
 emigration from other States. 
 
 If a State does not possess this power, the 
 condition of the non-slaveholding States is most 
 alarming. A free black population is fast in- 
 creasing and gaining upon the whites, in the 
 slaveholding States. An asylum for these un- 
 fortunate people is now become important, and 
 will be more so. This has been an object of 
 solicitude with all the colonization and abolition 
 societies, and all the friends of freedom and 
 humanity. Slaves would be manumitted if 
 they could be transported. But to let them 
 loose among an already crowded free black 
 population, would make them miserable and 
 dangerous. Send them to St. Domingo, you 
 subject them to the disposal of a cruel tyrant ; 
 transport them to Africa, and they are food for 
 pestilence ; colonize them on the Columbia Kiver, 
 and they will be butchered and eaten by the 
 Indians. 
 
 To this time, no suitable place has been found 
 which afforded a safe and comfortable retreat 
 for the emancipated slave. But this doctrine 
 has solved the doubt and removed the difficulty. 
 Free blacks are citizens and may go where they 
 will, or where their emancipators shall please 
 to send. All the slaves in a State may be made 
 free at once, on. condition of their removal to a 
 non-slaveholding State, and this State cannot 
 prevent it. The New England States are pro- 
 bably in little danger from this principle. It is 
 the States bordering on the slaveholding States 
 which will experience its tendency and effect. 
 
 Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, are now thinly pop- 
 ulated and little cultivated. Vast tracts of 
 land in them are owned by the United States. 
 The State of Virginia, for example, might pur- 
 chase some millions of acres and parcel them 
 out in small lots, as gratuities to her free blacks 
 who should emigrate and settle them. Such 
 an event would probably create no uneasiness 
 at first, in a State which had the power at any 
 time to prevent it. The non-slaveholding States 
 
 it, having a discretion at all times to check it 
 when it should become dangerous. But to be 
 forced, against our will, to receive free blacks 
 from the slaveholding States, is a doctrine that 
 I, as a Northern man, do not so fully relish, and 
 to which I cannot subscribe without the fullest 
 examination and strongest necessity. This 
 effect has been perceived, and some have at- 
 tempted to avoid it by making a distinction 
 between free and freed blacks. The former 
 only having been born free, it is said, are cit- 
 izens. The latter are a degraded class, not en- 
 titled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, 
 and can therefore be prohibited from entering 
 and settling in a State. This distinction is 
 entirely visionary. It neither compoz-ts with 
 reason nor humanity. It is the local authority, 
 the State sovereignty which makes a slave. 
 The same supreme power which deprives a man 
 of his freedom can restore it, and restore it, too, 
 in its highest perfection. The same power 
 which makes a slave can make him free, and 
 advance him to the highest privileges of a cit- 
 izen. If this power does not exist in the States, 
 it exists nowhere; and this absurdity would 
 necessarily follow, that there is no power in 
 this country to convert a slave into a citizen. 
 The Constitution of the United States gives no 
 such right to Congress. They have the power 
 to establish uniform rules of naturalization; 
 but naturalization is the converting a foreigner 
 into a citizen. To suppose an emancipated 
 negro, whose ancestors had resided here ever 
 since the settlement of the country, and who 
 had never quitted the plantation where he was 
 born, could be made a citizen by naturalization, 
 and in no other way, is an absurdity too gross 
 and palpable to be seriously entertained. It 
 hence follows, inevitably, that an emancipated 
 slave may, if the State will it, be placed on 
 the same footing as any other free black, and 
 one may be a citizen as well as the other. The 
 State which gave them their freedom for pur- 
 poses of emigration would take care to obtain 
 its object by breaking down this distinction if 
 it ever existed. 
 
 The honorable gentleman from Khode Island 
 disregards this distinction, and takes broader 
 ground still. His definition of a citizen com- 
 prehends all the inhabitants except slaves and 
 foreigners. With free blacks and mulattoes, 
 he includes convicts, dissolute persons, paupers, 
 and vagabonds. Yet he seems to admit that a 
 State may exclude for personal demerit. And 
 who establishes the standard of merit, and
 
 680 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 Admission of Missouri Citizenship of Free Colored Persons. 
 
 [DECEMBER, 1820. 
 
 makes the discrimination? The State. By 
 what rule is it governed ? Discretion, policy, 
 expediency. It is the State law which defines 
 who are worthy of a residence within the State. 
 What, then, becomes of his definition, but that 
 it includes all but those which a State may, in 
 its discretion, except ? If a State can fix a name 
 of disgrace or demerit on any population, and 
 exclude them, the point is yielded that free 
 blacks may be excluded. 
 
 If this definition of the honorable gentleman 
 be correct, it would be much the safest infer- 
 ence that one State might exclude all the popu- 
 lation of another, except those which the Con- 
 stitution of the United States specially authori- 
 zes. Self-protection seems to require that a 
 State should retain the power to prevent a 
 troublesome or dangerous population. In do- 
 ing this, they might exclude those who are 
 useful and respectable. Of this there is no dan- 
 ger. The State from which they would emi- 
 grate, would not wish to spare them ; and that 
 to which they would come, would always find 
 it for its interest to receive them. The Consti- 
 tution of the United States would provide for 
 all who have a duty to perform under that 
 constitution, and the laws; members of Con- 
 gress, and judges of courts, must perform fed- 
 eral duties. The President must command the 
 army and navy, and the militia, when in ser- 
 vice; the soldiers must be called to suppress 
 insurrection and repel invasion. To all these 
 and others, having federal duties to perform, 
 the constitution says "go;" and a State cannot 
 oppose. The clause of the Constitution of the 
 United States said to be infringed by this of 
 Missouri, by no means repels this construction. 
 The citizens of one State are to enjoy " all the 
 privileges and immunities of citizens," when 
 " in " another. The State is left at its option 
 whether it will receive the citizens of another 
 as residents. It may impose restrictions which 
 amount to prohibition ; but if the citizen does 
 come, by express or implied consent, this clause 
 secures him " the privileges and immunities," 
 and subjects him to the duties and disabilities 
 of citizens. 
 
 I do not say that this construction admits of 
 no doubts or difficulties. But I do say, that, 
 upon this broad definition, it is the safest and 
 most consistent with the practice and rights of 
 the States. And I can never admit the prin- 
 ciple that free blacks of any description, and to 
 any extent, may fix their residence in a State 
 against its consent. 
 
 The honorable gentleman from South Caro- 
 lina, (Mr. SMITH,) with much talent and indus- 
 try, has given us a history of the practice, and 
 proved that this power claimed by Missouri has 
 been exercised by nearly every State in the 
 Union, and the right has never before been 
 questioned. The subject has been so fully and 
 ably presented, that no further time need be 
 occupied in discussing it. 
 
 Permit me now to take a different view of 
 the subject, and endeavor to present a con- 
 
 struction of the constitution which will avoid 
 the difficulties. 
 
 Gentlemen, I apprehend, reason from wrong 
 premises. In the broad and comprehensive 
 definition of citizen, lies the error. Let us en- 
 deavor to select a meaning for the word which 
 will comport with the constitution, the prac- 
 tice, and the convenience. The Constitution of 
 the United States has nowhere defined it ; it 
 occurs on five different occasions in that con- 
 stitution in prescribing the qualification of 
 Representative, Senator, and President, in giv- 
 ing jurisdiction to the Federal Court, and in 
 the controverted clause. In the three first 
 cases, no one will pretend that it is to be taken 
 in this unlimited sense. That the framers of 
 the constitution intended that blacks and mulat- 
 toes might be members of Congress or Presi- 
 dents, is a supposition too absurd to be for 
 a moment entertained. Gentlemen, with all 
 their humanity, to be obliged to sit in this Sen- 
 ate by a black man, would consider their rights 
 invaded. The section of the constitution which 
 gives jurisdiction to the courts, uses it in a dif- 
 ferent sense, but gives it nfprecise definition. 
 If all entitled to be parties to suits are citizens, 
 and those only, then a large and respectable 
 portion of the community are excluded, and 
 probably resident foreigners included. The 
 word here is inaptly used, and intended in this 
 case to mean the same as inhabitant. The 
 laws of Congress are as deficient in furnishing 
 a meaning as the constitution. But, as the 
 naturalization laws have uniformly restricted 
 the right to become citizens to free ichite per- 
 sons, so far as practice is to influence a decision, 
 it is in favor of the constitutionality of the ob- 
 jectionable clause. 
 
 The word was never used by the ancient 
 Republics, but to include privileges and immu- 
 nities of a high character. In the Grecian 
 States, these privileges were preserved with 
 much tenacity, and conferred with much so- 
 lemnity. The Romans divided their inhabitants 
 into citizens, subjects, freedmen, and slaves. 
 To be a Roman citizen was a proud distinction, 
 and carried with it privileges and immunities 
 of the highest order. After the subversion of 
 the Roman Empire, and some time in the 
 eleventh century, cities began to be established 
 or incorporated in Europe, and first in Italy, 
 and the inhabitants entitled to their freedom 
 and liberties were called citizens. These, prin- 
 ipally, were to elect and be elected, and to 
 bear arms in their own defence, under com- 
 manders of their own choice. 
 
 The best definition of citizen, according to 
 European writers, which I have been able to 
 find, is " a native or inhabitant of a city, vested 
 with its freedom and liberties." The " freedom 
 .nd liberties," or "privileges and immunities," 
 essential to a citizen, were those I have men- 
 loned ; and, although the name was originally 
 confined to the inhabitant of a city, yet when 
 hese principles were diffused among, and con- 
 erred on, the inhabitants of the country, they,
 
 DEBATES OF CONGKESS. 
 
 681 
 
 DECKMBER, 1820.] Admission of Missouri Citizenship of Free Colored Persons. 
 
 [SENATE. 
 
 having the same attributes, took the same 
 name. 
 
 The rights of an American citizen are essen- 
 tially the same : to elect, be elected, and bear 
 arms in his defence ; they are essential, for, 
 divest him of these, and you divest him of his 
 citizenship. He has other essential rights, such 
 as those -of property and personal security under 
 the protection of laws fairly administered ; but 
 he has these in common with foreigners, and 
 in some respects with slaves. No person can 
 be said to be entitled to the privileges of an 
 American citizen, nnless he can have an agency 
 in the formation or administration of the laws ; 
 that agency may be prospective, but a per- 
 petual exclusion from this deprives him of the 
 essential attributes of a citizen ; but these at- 
 tributes are conferred or withheld by the will 
 of the State, legally or constitutionally express- 
 ed; a citizen, therefore, has his character from 
 the State of which he is a member ; the State 
 may deprive him of it, and again restore it 
 back; as it can totally destroy it, so it can 
 create it in its highest perfection. It would 
 seem, then, inevitable that, inasmuch as the 
 privileges of citizenship are conferred or with- 
 held by each State at its will, they may be and 
 almost unavoidably must be different in differ- 
 ent States. The question then presents, what 
 " privileges and immunities " of citizens have 
 the .free blacks of Missouri ? And we see at 
 once they have none. By the charter which 
 you made for them, free blacks can neither 
 elect nor be elected, and this disability is made 
 perpetual by their constitution. By the exist- 
 ing territorial laws they cannot bear arms with- 
 out being housekeepers and having a license 
 from the civil authority ; nor act as jurors in 
 any case, nor testify as witnesses, except in 
 suits between persons of their own color. The 
 free black of Missouri, then, has no privileges 
 of citizenship there. Then, can a free black 
 citizen of Maine have any greater privileges or 
 immunities in Missouri, than her own free 
 blacks ? Does a citizen of one State going to 
 another carry his political condition with him, 
 or assume that of the State where he goes? 
 The former principle breaks down every quali- 
 fication required by a constitution of a State, 
 and authorizes one State to confer privileges 
 for the whole. No gentleman has, I believe, 
 pretended to insist on sneh a construction. A 
 citizen of Maine entitled to elect and be elected, 
 goes to Virginia; the constitution of Maine 
 made him an elector without property and 
 with a year's residence ; that of Virginia re- 
 quires a freehold and further residence ; does 
 he instantaneously become an elector in Vir- 
 ginia, or must he be subjected to the disabilities 
 of Virginians conditioned like him ? He must 
 submit of course to the laws of the State to 
 which he goes. But in Maine a free black is a 
 citizen ; he goes to Virginia can he there have 
 any other privileges and immunities than the 
 free blacks of Virginia? By the same rule, 
 certainly not ; if he could, the free blacks of 
 
 Virginia might emigrate to Maine, tarry a year, 
 become electors there, and return, bringing 
 with them the elective franchise, which they 
 could exercise in spite of the constitution of 
 Virginia. A person, then, going from one 
 State to another, takes all the privileges and 
 immunities, and is subject to all the restraints 
 and disabilities as to residence, property, age, 
 and color, of the people of the State where he 
 goes. If, then, free blacks and mulattoes going 
 into Missouri, could have no privileges and im- 
 munities of citizens when there, she has a right 
 to exclude them. Their right to go is only by 
 inference. They are entitled, you say, to cer- 
 tain privileges and immunities when there; 
 and, therefore, they have a right to go. We 
 answer, they are entitled to no privileges and 
 immunities of citizens, when there ; and there- 
 fore Missouri has a right to exclude them. 
 
 A contrary decision would moreover be 
 against all precedent, and the constant practice 
 of most of the States in the Union. When a 
 contest for power between the United States 
 and a State occurs, it becomes this Senate jeal- 
 ously to guard those rights which it was con- 
 stituted to preserve. The tendency of the 
 Federal Government is to acquire by slow and 
 imperceptible encroachments on the rights of the 
 States one acquisition may succeed another 
 until there shall be nothing left. 
 
 It is, furthermore, unusual strictly to scruti- 
 nize every clause of a constitution of a new 
 State, on her admission into the Union. Reject 
 a State for one objectionable clause, and, if you 
 err, the error cannot be easily corrected. Ad- 
 mit her, and if a clause is repugnant to the 
 Constitution of the United States, it is inopera- 
 tive and void, and would be annulled by a judi- 
 cial decision. The State would be, in the 
 Union, pruned of the offensive limb, and the 
 residue of her constitution would remain. 
 
 This is a question which may be very safely 
 trusted with the Judiciary. Who are the par- 
 ties to the compact in the act of last session ? 
 The United States and Missouri. Missouri con- 
 tends that she has complied with the terms, 
 and demands a fulfilment on our part. We re- 
 fuse, and charge her with a failure to fulfil her 
 stipulations. Who is to decide ? Will we in- 
 sist on deciding our own case, or will we con- 
 sent to the decision of an umpire ? There is 
 no risk on our part in submitting the question 
 to the Supreme Court. In questions of State 
 and Federal powers, they have, I believe, never 
 been suspected of leaning very far in favor of 
 the former. Indeed, it is not in the nature of 
 men placed as they are to do it. Their origin, 
 compensation, responsibility, and pride, all for- 
 bid it. If the people of Missouri are willing to 
 submit to this tribunal, we act not as an hon- 
 orable man would act with his neighbor if we 
 refuse. 
 
 But suppose you insist on the objection. Is 
 it by any means certain that you may not pro- 
 duce a state of things perplexing, if not dan- 
 gerous ? I do not pretend that Missouri will
 
 682 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 Admission of Missouri Citizenship of Free Colored Persons. [DECEMBER, 1820. 
 
 resist your authority. My fear is, that you 
 cannot agree to exercise it. 
 
 Suppose a case, not improbable suppose 
 Missouri rejected by a disagreement between 
 the two Houses of Congress one branch be- 
 lieving that she has complied with the condi- 
 tions, is a State, and entitled to admission ; the 
 other believing that she has failed to comply, 
 and must retire back to her territorial condi- 
 tion. You promised Missouri two things a 
 State government, and admission into the 
 Union. She is in the enjoyment of one, and 
 demands the other. One House of Congress is 
 willing she should enjoy the other, and the 
 other House refuses, and demands that she 
 should yield up what she has obtained. One 
 House having a negative on the other, what 
 could be done? The necessity should be 
 strong, and the case clear, before I would haz- 
 ard such a state of things. But, so far from 
 the case being clear, and the necessity strong, 
 it is manifest, I think, that you have no power, 
 and, if you had, it is not only unnecessary, but 
 impolitic and unsafe, to exercise it. The prop- 
 ositions upon which I have insisted, and en- 
 deavored to maintain, are these : 
 
 The " privileges and immunities" of citizens 
 are nowhere extended to free blacks and mu- 
 lattoes, by the Constitution of the United States 
 nor laws of Congress. 
 
 The constitution and laws of the States are 
 alone capable of conferring them. 
 
 The State of Missouri has not conferred them 
 on this class of her population. 
 
 Black citizens of other States acquire no 
 other privileges and immunities there than her 
 own black population. 
 
 But the latter are not citizens there, nor are 
 the former ; and as the former could have no 
 privileges and immunities of citizens there, they 
 may be excluded. 
 
 Mr. OTIS, of Massachusetts, said that, in pre- 
 senting to the Senate a few general observations 
 upon the question before them, he would take 
 leave to begin where the honorable gentleman, 
 (Mr. HOLMES,) who had just sat down, had left 
 oft'. That gentleman had enlarged upon the 
 consequences to be apprehended from the rejec- 
 tion of Missouri under her present constitution, 
 in terms adapted to excite alarm. But while 
 he admitted that, in all cases, where discretion 
 can be exercised, the consequences of measures, 
 as they might affect not only the welfare but 
 the feelings of the people, and their disposition 
 to execute the laws, should justly be regarded ; 
 yet when the dictates of conscience, and the 
 obligation of oaths, and language of the constitu- 
 tion, left no alternative, it was the part of those 
 who had duties to perform to discharge them with 
 firmness, after due deliberation, and to trust to 
 the consequences and effects. This would be 
 his course, under any view to be imagined, of 
 the reception of the fate of their application for 
 admission by the good people of Missouri. But 
 he did not permit himself to indulge any fears 
 of such results as had been intimated. His re- 
 
 spect for that people, and his persuasion of their 
 knowledge of their true interests, banished 
 from his mind every suspicion of a temper that 
 would lead them to adopt rash and violent 
 measures, and embroil themselves with the 
 Union upon a question of constitutional law, 
 which it would be so much easier to settle by 
 an amicable adjustment. He was sorry that 
 the question had arisen, and had presumed that 
 the people of Missouri would have placed them- 
 selves in a condition to claim their admission, 
 upon the ground of a compliance with the terms 
 held forth to them by Congress ; and thus to have 
 disarmed the opposition of such of the former 
 minority as might have considered those terms 
 binding on the public faith. But this they had 
 not done, and, although some inconvenience 
 might be attached to the course they had taken, 
 the only remedy could be found in a course of 
 reasonable and moderate measures on the part 
 of themselves and their friends. 
 
 The resolution upon the table, said Mr. O., 
 contains a proposition, which Congress is either 
 bound to adopt of course, as a ministerial act, 
 or upon which they are entitled to exercise a 
 sound discretion. But propositions of the first 
 description, calling upon Congress to register 
 the acts of another State, and to do, pro forma, 
 what was already done in substance without 
 their consent, were, as he humbly conceived, 
 anomalies entirely unknown to the constitution, 
 and not recognized by any rules or proceedings 
 of this House. 
 
 Under the sanction of an act of Congress, the 
 people of Missouri have been authorized to 
 form a constitution, subject to certain limita- 
 tions and conditions, and thereupon to become 
 an integral part of the Union. How, then, is it 
 possible to advance a step without reading and 
 examining their constitution, and deciding upon 
 the fact whether or not they have complied 
 with these terms ? To a certain extent, he pre- 
 sumed, this investigation would be admitted 
 on all sides to be indispensable ; Avithout it, 
 who can tell whether she has confined herself 
 within the prescribed territorial limits? Who 
 would know that she had not extended her 
 claim of jurisdiction to the Rocky Mountains ? 
 We may also be entitled to ascertain whether 
 she has established a republican or a monarchical 
 government ; whether she arrogates the power 
 of making peace and war, regulating commerce, 
 collecting imposts, or other powers inhibited in 
 express terms of the constitution to the several 
 States. If, then, we not only may carry our 
 researches thus far, but should be bound in duty 
 not to shut our eyes against these flagrant as- 
 sumptions of power, who will say where the 
 line of discrimination begins, and class under 
 their proper heads those invasions of the con- 
 stitution which we are held to notice, and those 
 at which it behooves us to wink ? 
 
 Gentlemen who deny this right of Congress 
 to decide upon a question placed before them 
 for decision, insist with great vehemence that 
 Missouri is a State, and, of consequence, that
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 683 
 
 DECEMBER, 1820.] Admission of Missouri Citizenship of Free Colored Persons. 
 
 [Sou 
 
 her members are entitled to their seats ; and if 
 she be not a State, they call upon us to describe 
 her actual condition, and to say what she is. 
 But, to say nothing of the inference which 
 seems unavoidable, that, upon this hypothesis, 
 the proceedings of Congress are superfluous, and 
 the foundation for all debate is removed, and 
 the members need only offer themselves to be 
 qualified ; it might with equal truth be affirmed 
 that Missouri would be a State, if she had made 
 a Governor for life, or instituted an hereditary 
 Senate, or claimed the public lands, or, in many 
 other particulars, trenched upon the rights of 
 the General Government, and held the terms 
 of the proffered admission in contempt. But 
 the assumption of her being a State is a fallacy 
 a begging of the question and an illusion, 
 arising from the repetition of a high-sounding 
 word. In truth, the people of the United States, 
 by their Congress, are parties to an executory 
 contract. The people of Missouri are the other 
 parties. The former have granted to the latter 
 the faculty of becoming a State when, among 
 other things, they shall have formed a constitu- 
 tion not repugnant to the Constitution of the 
 United States. Now, by what law or usage, or 
 principle of natural equity, does a party, who, 
 by certain acts to be performed on his part, is 
 to be entitled to the benefit of a subsequent act 
 to be performed by another party, become the 
 sole judge of his own fulfilment and perfect 
 claim ? Has not the party who is called upon 
 to make the last concession a right to be satis- 
 fied ? If there be a controversy and a tribunal, 
 will not this last-mentioned party stand upon 
 his defence ? In the ordinary transactions of 
 civil life there could be no doubt. Why, then, 
 is it expected that Congress should surrender 
 an advantage which every individual would re- 
 tain ? Congress, it may be said, cannot be ar- 
 raigned before any tribunal, neither can it be 
 impleaded upon any of the innumerable private 
 pecuniary claims that are constantly made upon 
 its justice. In these cases it invariably makes a 
 law for itself. Doubtful claims are always re- 
 jected; and there could be no consistency in 
 reserving scrupulously the power of deciding 
 upon the demands for money and services, 
 which are often paltry and insignificant, and 
 shrinking from decisions which involve the civil 
 or political rights of any portion of the people, 
 however poor and humble their condition. It 
 is, then, entirely fallacious to insist that Mis- 
 souri, by taking advantage of her own wrong, 
 has become a State, and precluded your right 
 of inquiring into her condition. The fallacy is 
 apparent when the inquiry is made, Is she a 
 State of that description which is entitled to be 
 admitted into the Union? This involves the 
 further questions, Is her constitution republican ? 
 Is it conformable to the Constitution of the 
 United States? Has she complied with the 
 precedent conditions annexed to her grant ? J t' 
 in these points her constitution is defective, it is 
 not incumbenton those whooppose her admission 
 to waive their objections in consequence of the 
 
 change of name or organization ; neither is it es- 
 sential to give her a name, or to define the hetero- 
 clite condition in which she has placed herself; 
 though he saw no difficulty in saying she was 
 yet a Territory, in her transit towards the con- 
 dition of one of the United States, and none in 
 providing by law (especially with a kindly con- 
 currence on the part of that people) for an 
 adaptation of the present form of her govern- 
 ment to her territorial condition, until that 
 should be changed. 
 
 The honorable gentleman from South Caro- 
 lina had asserted, with great confidence, that 
 several States had been admitted into the 
 Union without any evidence to be found on 
 record of an examination into the provisions of 
 their constitution, "Several of those States 
 were without constitutions ;" and " why," ex- 
 claimed the gentleman triumphantly, " do you 
 not issue a quo warranto against Ehode Island 
 and other States?" To this, said Mr. O., the 
 answer is most obvious. Ehode Island, Ver- 
 mont, and North Carolina, had the option, at 
 the time of the formation of the Federal Gov- 
 ernment, of becoming parties to it at pleasure. 
 They were independent States, acting as such, 
 and their constitutions or forms of government 
 were subjects of notoriety to the other States 
 with whom they had united under the Old Con- 
 federation. They did not adopt the Constitu- 
 tion of the United States at the same epoch 
 with the other States, but there was a perfect 
 understanding of their being at liberty to send 
 in their adhesion ; and, when they did so, noth- 
 ing was wanting but laws extending to them 
 the jurisdiction of the Union. In respect to 
 every other State, it was manifest that their 
 several constitutions had been submitted to the 
 inspection of Congress, as would be demon- 
 strated by a recurrence to its acts, and although 
 the form of resolutions adopted of late years 
 had not been originally observed. The State of 
 Virginia, by an act of December, 1789, author- 
 ized Kentucky to become a State at some period 
 subsequent to 1791, at a time to be fixed by the 
 people. They accordingly formed a constitu- 
 tion, and determined that the era of its active 
 supremacy should be in June, 1792. Meanwhile 
 Congress convened, and determined on the 
 same time for its admission into the Union, and, 
 by necessary intendment, must have had before 
 them the constitution as it had been adopted. 
 In the act extending to Ohio the benefit of cer- 
 tain laws of the Union, there is an express 
 recognition of her having framed a republican 
 form of government. In the instance of Tennes- 
 see, there was a debate upon a clause in her 
 constitution, which shows that the instrument 
 was before Congress; and, since the time of 
 her admission, a more precise formality has 
 been observed in every instance. Nothing, 
 therefore, he contended, was to be gained by 
 the gentleman's reliance upon precedents, which 
 were all against him. Having thus (continued 
 Mr. 0.) established it to be the right and duty of 
 Congress to examine this instrument, ho should
 
 684 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 Admission of Missouri Citizenship of Free Colored Per/ons. 
 
 3ER, 1820. 
 
 proceed to state and to support his objection aris- 
 ing upon the face of it, and it was, shortly, to the 
 clause which made it the duty of the legislature 
 of the new State to prevent the ingress and set- 
 tlement of free people of color, under any pre- 
 text whatsoever, Within its boundaries. This 
 requisition being, at first blush, in palpable col- 
 lision with the clause of the United States Con- 
 stitution, which provides for a community of 
 rights for the citizens of one State with those of 
 any other State into which we may go, there is 
 no refuge from the objection but in a bold de- 
 nial of the fact, that free persons of color may 
 be citizens of some one State. And, to do jus- 
 tice to the candor of gentlemen, it must be al- 
 lowed they enter the lists with manly frankness, 
 and, in so many words, deny to people of color 
 this capacity of citizenship ; and it follows as a 
 corollary, that they deny also the right of any 
 one State to confer that capacity upon them, 
 They call upon us to show what constitutes a 
 citizen, and especially to prove that persons of 
 color were at all considered as coming under 
 that denomination, in any compact made with 
 each other by the people of the United States. 
 It would require more time than could be fairly 
 claimed by any individual to do justice to this 
 subject under all its aspects, but he trusted a 
 very few remarks would be sufficient for a satis- 
 factory confutation of this novel theory. For 
 his greater security, however, he would confine 
 himself to the circumstances which would give to 
 a man the right of citizenship in Massachusetts; 
 for if a man of color could be a citizen there, he 
 would carry his privilege elsewhere. In that 
 State, he said, at the time of the Revolution, 
 the people were considered as retaining all such 
 portions of the common law of England as were 
 applicable to their circumstances. By that law. 
 the people of England were distinguished into 
 citizens, denizens, and aliens. In Massachusetts, 
 they were also either citizens or aliens ; and he 
 had no doubt he might safely contend that 
 in all the States they were either citizens, 
 aliens, or slaves. All persons born within the 
 realm of England were citizens. All persons 
 born in Massachusetts, of free parents,- were 
 citizens ; and all persons in that State, not aliens 
 or slaves, (and there could be none of the 
 latter, though, perhaps, a fugitive slave might 
 have been considered as an alien prior to the 
 federal stipulations on that point,) were of con- 
 sequence free citizens. 
 
 To this relationship of a free citizen to his 
 State, protection and allegiance were the neces- 
 sary incidents, and these imply, of necessity, a 
 right to reside within the jurisdiction, and to 
 be secure of life, liberty, and property, under 
 the guardianship of the laws. Every citizen is 
 held to serve the State in time of public danger 
 and of war, and to contribute to the public 
 burdens. He is entitled to redress when injured 
 by a foreign power ; to be reclaimed when un- 
 justly captured or detained ; and when he 
 brings an action for land, alienage cannot be 
 pleaded in bar to his demand. If he possesses 
 
 these rights, and stands in this relation to the 
 State, he is a citizen. In Massachusetts, many 
 persons of color existed in this relation to the 
 State, and he should believe, until the contrary 
 was shown, that the same was true in every 
 State in the nation. To strengthen this con- 
 struction, he quoted the 4th article of the first 
 Confederation, which ordains that the " free 
 inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, 
 vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, 
 shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities 
 of free citizens in the several States," and " shall 
 have free ingress and regress," &c. He also 
 quoted, from the Journals of the Old Congress, 
 the resolve which formed the basis of the new 
 constitution, and which recommends the appor- 
 tionment of taxes upon the numbers of " white 
 and other free citizens," and made comments 
 upon them, which he considered as conclusive 
 in favor of his construction. Pursuant to these 
 principles, it was familiar to all that persons of 
 this description had received grants of land for 
 serving in your army, and had been reclaimed 
 among your impressed seamen. 
 
 Now, against these facts and plain reasoning, 
 he was aware of but one objection adduced by 
 gentlemen who had preceded bun. These men 
 were not citizens, it is said, in every State, be- 
 cause in nearly all, if not in every State, they 
 are, or have been, made liable to certain disa- 
 bilities not common to the free white citizens. 
 All the arguments of gentlemen upon this point, 
 however diversified, and the immensely volu- 
 minous citations from the statute books of the 
 different States, terminated in this one objec- 
 tion. It was, therefore, the soundness of this 
 single foundation stone, and that alone, which 
 he was called upon to examine. To this, then, 
 his first answer was, that a class of citizens 
 may, under certain circumstances, be subjected 
 to particular disqualifications, without being 
 thereby disfranchised.* In every country wo- 
 men and minors are subject to disqualifications 
 the former are such as are perpetual. In 
 some, large classes are debarred from the power 
 of electing, or being elected, to office. An un- 
 just government may create many odious dis- 
 tinctions between its privileged orders and other 
 citizens ; and a just government, from motives 
 of sound policy, may exclude a minor class of 
 the community from certain civil and political 
 rights, enjoyed by the rest, and yet leave the 
 excluded or restricted class in the condition of 
 citizens. The right of protection in life, liberty, 
 and property ; of residence, and of inheritable 
 blood ; of taking and transmitting, by descent, 
 
 * An act of Parliament, In the time of William III., pro- 
 vides, in substance, that " no person, born out of the king- 
 dom of England, Scotland, or Ireland, or the dominions 
 thereto belonging, although he be naturalized and made a 
 denizen, (except such as ore born of English parents.) shall 
 be capable to be of the privy council, or a member of either 
 House of Parliament, or to enjoy any office or place of trust, 
 either civil or military, or to have any grant of lands, tene- 
 ments, or hereditaments, fro m the Crown, to himself, or 
 others in trust for him." Each State, prior to the Confeder- 
 ation, and subsequent to the Kevolution, had the same 
 powers, in regard to this subject, as the British Parliament
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 685 
 
 DECEMBER, 1820.] Admission of Missouri Citizenship of Free Colored Persons. 
 
 [SENATE. 
 
 lands, and chattels, may all be unimpaired, and, 
 while they remain so, it is impossible to say 
 that a man ceases to be a citizen. Certainly, 
 Republics formed upon the model of the United 
 States will abstain from all permanent distinc- 
 tions among their citizens, not founded in una- 
 voidable necessity, or the all-controlling force 
 of public opinion ; and perhaps the case in con- 
 templation is the only one that can ever arise 
 to authorize or induce the annexation of per- 
 petual disqualifications for political or civil 
 trusts to qualities which are in themselves inno- 
 cent and personal. But it might be otherwise ; 
 and if a State, by its constitution, were em- 
 powered to restrain its citizens from wearing 
 arms or killing game, or discharging certain 
 political or civil functions, laws made pursuant 
 to such authority would not operate an extin- 
 guishment of the rights of the citizen, hateful 
 and oppressive as they would be in themselves. 
 Again, cases may be supposed to exist in which 
 one description of citizens may have assented, 
 either expressly or by implication, to enjoy the 
 rights of citizenship under some limitations. 
 And, perhaps, the consent of the colored free 
 people who remained in our country at the 
 epoch of our Independence, or who, being born 
 within the United States, have since become 
 the voluntary inhabitants of any State, in which 
 such limitations have prevailed from time im- 
 memorial, may fairly be presumed to have ac- 
 quiesced in the legality of such limitations, and 
 to be concluded by their own consent. Still 
 they may be citizens. Modifications of the 
 rights of citizenship were familiar to the laws 
 of Home prior to the time of Justinian ; and, 
 in fact, most of the distinctions of the privileged 
 orders in modern governments, when fairly ex- 
 amined, may be referred to the same principles, 
 and are neither more nor less than rights of 
 citizenship differently graduated. Believing, 
 therefore, in the correctness of this exposition, 
 lie considered all arguments drawn from the 
 laws of the several States, respecting free peo- 
 ple of color, to be entirely irrelevant to the 
 subject, unless it could be made manifest that 
 these laws had not merely been confined to a 
 limitation of their political or civil privileges, 
 but had entirely annulled all that portion of 
 them which were essential to constitute the re- 
 lation of citizen. In no State, he contended, 
 had they yet been carried to this extreme ; and, 
 while any one of them could be found, in whose 
 jurisdiction these persons were citizens, it 
 would follow that they could not be disentitled 
 to become citizens in any other State. The 
 honorable gentleman from South Carolina had 
 occupied an entire day, principally in reading 
 and commenting upon the laws of the respec- 
 tive States, from North to South, discriminating 
 between the white and colored people, in sup- 
 port of his broad denial of the capacity of 
 citizenship to the latter. However amusing 
 and enlivening those researches might have been 
 in the hands of that gentleman, Mr. O. was con- 
 vinced they would lose their charm in his hands, 
 
 and should therefore abstain from following 
 them in detail. He persuaded himself, how- 
 ever, that all the inferences from these laws 
 might be reduced to a few points, and disposed 
 of in a few general remarks. As to one, and 
 that by far the greater portion of the statutes 
 cited by the honorable gentleman, they applied 
 exclusively to paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives. 
 Either the purview of each statute, or other 
 statutes found in the same code, and constitut- 
 ing a part of one system, proved these to be 
 the only objects of those laws, and as, in many 
 instances, they applied to white persons equally 
 with others, the argument built upon them 
 proved too much. 
 
 Another portion of these statutes affected 
 merely qualifications for electing, or being elect- 
 ed, to office. These also might be laid aside. 
 By the constitution or laws of several States, 
 the political rights of the white citizen are 
 abridged. It is so in Massachusetts ; in Virgi- 
 nia, where freeholders only vote ; in Mississippi, 
 where a creed (or the want of it) disqualifies a 
 man for office, and where clergymen are not 
 eligible to the Legislature. This species of ex- 
 clusion is, therefore, no test of the character of 
 citizen. Indeed, some of the instances mentioned 
 by the honorable gentleman might be regarded 
 as exemptions from burdensome duties with 
 more propriety than as restrictions of civic privi- 
 leges ; and persons who are dispensed from obliga- 
 tions to serve in the militia, and on juries, by law, 
 do not generally complain of their condition. 
 
 When the laws and quotations, introduced 
 with such profusion by the honorable gentle- 
 man, were arranged with reference to these two 
 general heads, they would leave but a small 
 remnant for any other. He did not recollect 
 but one case which would not fall under them, 
 and that was the statute of Massachusetts pro- 
 hibiting intermarriages between white and co- 
 lored people. With respect to that law, it was 
 proper to remark, that marriage was a civil 
 contract regulated by the policy of every State, 
 according to its own views of public utility, and 
 subject to greater or less ceremonials and re- 
 straints by the sovereign authority. It would 
 not be pretended that laws creating temporary 
 disabilities for matrimonial alliances, requiring 
 age, consent of parents, or forms of marrying, 
 would impair the quality of citizenship. And 
 if the policy of a State might justify one denom- 
 ination of restrictions upon the marriage con- 
 tract which did not disfranchise those who be- 
 came subject to them, why could not the same 
 policy interpose other impediments to marriage 
 without drawing after them disfranchisement as 
 a necessary consequence? Why was a black 
 person disqualified as a citizen by being inhibit- 
 ed from marrying a white person, more than 
 a white person was so under a reverse of the 
 rule ? There was no necessary connection be- 
 tween an incapacity created by law, in one de- 
 scription of persons, to contract marriage with 
 those of another description, and an incapacity 
 of all the rights of a citizen. It was difficult
 
 686 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 Admission of Missouri Citizenship of Free Colored Persons. [DECEMBER, 1820. 
 
 to illustrate this position by supposing examples, 
 without seeming to disparage the unfortunate 
 persons who were the objects of the exclusion. 
 Hardly any other probable case could be imag- 
 ined, that would call for the establishment of 
 permanent legal distinctions between classes of 
 citizens, in the exercise of the right to form 
 matrimonial connections, and yet the policy of 
 such a distinction in the state of our society, in 
 this one instance, may be very unquestionable. 
 The free people of color being everywhere a 
 very small minority of individuals, under par- 
 ticular circumstances, are not entitled to com- 
 plain of special restrictions and exclusions, 
 which the vast majority, by high considerations 
 connected with their ideas of sound policy, and 
 invincible predilections for their own race, and 
 the desire of transmitting to posterity its blood 
 pure and unmixed, and for no other reason, 
 may have seen fit to impose. If leprosy, or any 
 other disease attended with a decidedly heredi- 
 tary and incurable taint, were known to prevail 
 in a State, laws might be passed to prevent 
 marriage with the infected persons without 
 touching any other rights. He meant, how- 
 ever, only to exemplify, and not to assimilate 
 the cases this, he repeated, being a peculiar 
 case, and entire sui generis. He had thus far 
 proceeded upon the supposition that all the 
 statutes of the several States adduced upon the 
 occasion, were in themselves constitutional. 
 But, his second answer to this objection from 
 the State laws was, that if any of them went 
 so far as to disfranchise all free persons of color, 
 such laws were void in themselves. He had 
 heard of none that did go that length. Let 
 us next, said he, advert for a moment to the 
 suggestion of gentlemen, that if the clause of 
 the constitution of Missouri should be found 
 in discordance with that of the United States, 
 a remedy would be found in the judicial 
 department. It was, however, the first time 
 he had ever heard it urged as a sound or 
 safe principle that the rights, or even the claims 
 of any portion of the people might be abandon- 
 ed by the Legislature, because the courts could 
 do them justice. It was, indeed, curious to ob- 
 serve the fluctuations of opinion relative to the 
 judicial power occasioned by the different cir- 
 cumstances under which it was called forth. 
 There was now upon the table a resolution de- 
 claring null and void the sedition act, which 
 had received the sanction of two Congresses and 
 many judicial decisions. In this case of Mis- 
 souri, however, he insisted that the judiciary 
 could give no adequate relief. The justice here 
 sought was not remedial but preventive not 
 to restore to an individual violated rights, but 
 to place numbers beforehand in a condition to 
 exercise them. It was to retain (so far as the 
 expression of the opinion of Congress could do 
 it) to all free colored citizens the right of going 
 to Missouri, if they thought fit, and settling 
 therein, and not to redress the injury of one or 
 more individuals who might be driven from its 
 limits. Congress was to settle a principle, not 
 
 to try a cause and if the principle was aban- 
 doned, no cause would ever be tried. What in- 
 dividual would ever be found to journey through 
 the immeasurable wilderness, "with lingering 
 steps and slow," and set his foot in Missouri with 
 a certainty of being driven back, for the privi- 
 lege of having recourse to the courts of the 
 United States, at an expense entirely beyond 
 his compass, and beyond the value of the ob- 
 ject of his journey ? And if such a person could 
 be found, what is the situation of others who 
 might wish to settle there while the cause is 
 pending? It had, indeed, been often urged, 
 that the Legislature of Missouri might enact 
 laws to the end provided for in their constitu- 
 tion, even if that instrument had been silent. 
 Certainly they might do so, but it was equally 
 certain they might forbear thus to legislate. 
 But, by passing this resolution, and thus giving 
 efficacy to their constitution, you communicate 
 to the State and to its constitution the whole 
 power of the Union for giving effect to this pol- 
 icy, and compel their Legislature to pass laws 
 which they might otherwise omit, or which, if 
 enacted, they might afterwards repeal. The hon- 
 orable gentleman from Maine had favored the 
 Senate with an exposition of his ideas of the 
 term citizen, as fouud in the constitution, which 
 Mr. O. said he was not able to comprehend, but 
 which, if he did understand it, would enable a 
 State to disfranchise all her citizens of all colors 
 and complexions. 
 
 He would not pause to consider that doctrine, 
 nor, indeed, to notice all the suggestions of that 
 gentleman. There was, however, one topic un- 
 folded by him to which he would for a moment 
 advert. The gentleman contended that our op- 
 position to the power of the States to exclude 
 persons of color from settlement in their juris- 
 dictions, would operate in favor of the slave- 
 holding States sending away their freed blacks 
 into other States, and that the Northern States 
 would be thus overrun with their swarms. He 
 could not believe, however, that the North 
 would realize their obligation to the gentleman 
 for wishing to prevent that quarter of the coun- 
 try from this inconvenience, by shutting up 
 Missouri, which would leave them no other re- 
 sort but the white peopled States. But further, 
 if a colored man may become a free citizen, he 
 cannot be sent away ; and, if not a citizen, other 
 States are not bound to receive him when he is 
 sent away. Mr. O., however, did not admit 
 that the mere manumission of a slave would 
 make him a citizen. This was a very different 
 question from any which he had considered, and 
 it might be far from true that manumission 
 would produce any such effect, and yet every 
 principle advanced by him remains impregnable. 
 
 On the whole, he said, he had no ambition to 
 be distinguished as a zealot in the cause of eman- 
 cipation, or an advocate for a sudden change of 
 condition in that unfortunate class of persons 
 who were held in servitude. Much less was he 
 inclined to adopt any language or measures 
 tending to excite among them a spirit of discon-
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 687 
 
 DECEMBER, 1820.] Admission of Missouri Citizenship of Free Colored Persons. 
 
 [SENATE. 
 
 tent, or to wound the feelings or rouse the irri- 
 tation or resentment of their owners. The evil 
 of slavery was too profoundly rooted for him to 
 indicate or even imagine its cure. 
 
 No circumstances led him to regret discussions 
 affecting the people of color in the United States 
 more than their unavoidable tendency to elicit 
 observations which might be misunderstood, 
 nnd aggravate the troubles of slavery by adding 
 discontent and vain hopes of freedom to the 
 number. The actual condition of slaves in the 
 old States was not a subject for the cognizance 
 of Congress. And until those whom it imme- 
 diately concerned could make some discovery 
 whereby the abolition of slavery could be effect- 
 ed, he feared that the efforts of others, however 
 well intended, would be worse than nugatory. 
 So far was he from wishing it to be understood 
 by the slaves that the people of the North 
 would hold them justified in any violent meas- 
 ures to attempt the attainment of freedom, he 
 was desirous of their realizing, what he believ- 
 ed to be true, that all considerate persons in 
 every section of the Union would unite with one 
 accord with their masters in putting down every 
 species of revolt and insurrection, as pregnant 
 with dreadful calamities to the whole nation. 
 This had ever been his feeling and his language. 
 But, with these convictions, he would strenu- 
 ously and forever oppose the extension of 
 slavery, and all measures which should subject 
 a freeman, of whatever color, to the degradation 
 of a slave. Believing, therefore, that every free 
 citizen of color in the Union was joint tenant 
 with himself in the public lands of Missouri, 
 and of the jurisdiction possessed by the United 
 States in that Territory until it should be else- 
 where vested ; and that, however humble and 
 disadvantageous might be his sphere, he was 
 entitled to his protection equally with those 
 born to a happier destiny, he could not consent 
 to an act which should divest him of his prop- 
 erty and rights, and interdict him from even 
 passing into a country of which he was a legit- 
 imate co-proprietor with himself. 
 
 When Mr. OTIS had concluded 
 
 Mr. BAKBOCR, of Virginia, presuming that 
 some other gentleman might desire to deliver 
 his sentiments on the question, moved an ad- 
 journment; and the Senate adjourned. 
 
 MONDAY, December 11. 
 Admission of Missouri. 
 
 The Senate then resumed the consideration^ 
 the resolution declaring the assent of Congress 
 to the admission of the State of Missouri into 
 the Union. 
 
 Mr. EATON, of Tennessee, said, before the 
 Senate proceeded to a final vote upon the reso- 
 lution, he would ask permission again to offer 
 the amendment which had heretofore been sub- 
 mitted, and rejected. This, he believed, was 
 strictly in order. The rejection of the proviso 
 being before the Senate, in Committee of the 
 "Whole, did not prevent it from being consider- 
 
 ed, now that the resolution was reported to 
 the Senate. Mr. E. then offered the following 
 amendment to the resolution : 
 
 " Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be 
 so construed as to give the assent of Congress to any 
 provision in the constitution of Missouri, if any such 
 there be, which contravenes that clause in the Con- 
 stitution of the United States which declares that 
 "the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all 
 privileges and immunities of citizens in the several 
 States." 
 
 Mr. Kmo, of New York, said, as the amend- 
 ment had already been considered, and rejected 
 by the Senate, he regretted that it had been 
 deemed expedient to offer it again. I object 
 now, said Mr. K., as I have done before, to this 
 amendment, because it declares that, in the ad- 
 mission of Missouri, the Senate have not con- 
 sidered, and do not pronounce any opinion, con- 
 cerning the clause of the Missoure constitution 
 which makes it the duty of the Lesislature 
 thereof to pass laws to exclude free negroes and 
 mulattoes from coming to, and settling in, Mis- 
 souri. This declaration ought not to be made, 
 because it would exhibit the Senate in this sin- 
 gular situation, (if his construction of the con- 
 stitution of Missouri was correct,) that, in pass- 
 ing the act of admission, the Senate omits to 
 consider and to allow its due weight to the only 
 provision in that constitution upon which the 
 obligation to admit, or not admit, Missouri de- 
 pends. Mr. K. said he considered this proposi- 
 tion of much more importance than the mover 
 of it appeared to do ; and he was not willing to 
 decide on it instanter at any rate. 
 
 Mr. EATON replied at some length. He said 
 he certainly would be as unwilling as any one 
 to press the consideration of what he had sub- 
 mitted, before gentlemen had fully made up 
 their minds, and were prepared to vote. He 
 doubted not, however, but that upon this sub- 
 ject all were prepared. It would be borne in 
 mind by the Senate that this was not now an 
 original proposition, but one that had before 
 been considered and voted upon. When he 
 had first the honor of submitting it, the gentle- 
 man from New York (Mr. KING) had urged his 
 want of preparation, and on an application for ' 
 postponement by himself, the postponement 
 had been granted. Under this state of things, 
 Mr. E. could not perceive any necessity for 
 further procrastination, more especially when 
 it seemed to be the wish of all to put an end, 
 in some way, to this unpleasant question. Mr. 
 E. said as to the constitutionality of the sub- 
 ject, however other gentlemen might be fully 
 satisfied, yet with him, and with others he be- 
 lieved, the fact was otherwise. He was not 
 willing either to affirm or to deny, that the 
 constitution of Missouri was in strict conformi- 
 ty to the Constitution of the United States ; he 
 should have doubts were he to be required af- 
 firmatively to vote either way. But of this he 
 did not pretend to doubt that, thus situated, thus 
 doubting, it was his duty to lean to the side of the 
 constitution, and by his vote to support that in-
 
 688 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 Admission of Missouri Citizenship of Free Colored Persons. [DECEMBER, 1820. 
 
 strument which he and every member had sworn 
 to maintain inviolate. The proviso ventured an 
 opinion neither way ; it was a protestando in 
 the true signification of the terra the exclusion 
 of a conclusion a waiver on the part of Con- 
 gress to give an opinion either one way or the 
 other. This being the object which he wished 
 to attain, he trusted the Senate would excuse 
 his again pressing on their consideration that 
 which had been before acted and voted upon. 
 Encouraged by the information that some gen- 
 tlemen who had before voted against the pro- 
 viso had changed their opinions, and were now 
 disposed to vote for it, was with him the in- 
 ducement for again venturing to offer it. 
 Time had been afforded to think fully on it, and 
 further delay he thought ought not to be re- 
 quested. 
 
 Mr. BABBOUB declined engaging in the de- 
 bate, not, he said, that he was unwilling to meet 
 the question, but with a hope and under the 
 expectation that the question would be imme- 
 diately taken. 
 
 The Senate then divided on the amendment, 
 and there rose in its favor twenty-three mem- 
 bers, and it was agreed to. 
 
 The question then being on ordering the res- 
 olution to a third reading, as amended 
 
 Mr MOEEILL, of New Hampshire, arose and 
 thus addressed the Senate : 
 
 Mr. President : It cannot be said by the 
 honorable Senate that I am in the practice of 
 consuming much of their time in debate, or of 
 frequently asking their attention to my remarks. 
 "When the honorable gentleman from Virginia, 
 (Mr. BARBOUK,) immediately after this resolu- 
 tion was reported by your committee, intimated 
 a wish that the question might be taken sub 
 vilentio, I was gratified with the hope that the 
 unpleasant subject would pass off in that way. 
 But as several gentlemen have occupied your 
 attention, and have presented an unexpected 
 view of the subject, I am inclined to offer my 
 opinion also. In doing this, I am not influenced 
 from an anxiety to make a speech before the 
 Senate, nor from the pride of having the event 
 announced in the public papers simply for the 
 perusal of my constituents. I would assure 
 the Senate I am not stimulated either by pleas- 
 ure or ambition on this occasion ; neither will 
 my remarks arise from any peculiar hostility to 
 the admission of Missouri into this Union, on 
 such principles, and with such a constitution, 
 as coincide with the provisions of the Consti- 
 tution of the United States. I disclaim sinister 
 motives and sectional partialities on this sub- 
 ject, and declare myself actuated by more no- 
 ble and important views; and, solemnly im- 
 pelled by a sense of duty I owe to my constit- 
 uents and my country, I will endeavor to di- 
 vest myself of preconceived opinions on the 
 subject of slavery, and avoid any expression 
 which may tend to revive those unpleasant 
 sensations which so evidently prevailed in this 
 body during the last session, and through the 
 country, and examine the subject as involving 
 
 a great constitutional question. The inquiry is 
 not, in this case, whether slavery shall exist or 
 be tolerated in Missouri. I am ready to admit, 
 for the moment, that this has been so far set- 
 tled by the vote of the last session as not to 
 come into the present debate ; but the passing 
 of the resolution recognizes a principle mate- 
 rially affecting the rights of other States and 
 the privileges of their citizens. This principle, 
 and the consequences of admitting it, will be 
 the subject of my remarks. 
 
 Sir, I must be permitted to state that this de- 
 bate is not courted by Congress ; it is from im- 
 perious necessity that any are compelled to 
 protest against the adoption of the resolution ; 
 to save the constitution of the nation inviolate, 
 and preserve harmony and union. 
 
 To present my view more fully on this sub- 
 ject, it may be useful to recur to the objects of 
 the confederation. These I discover, in part, 
 in the preamble of the constitution : 
 
 " We, the people of the United States, in order to 
 form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure 
 domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defence, 
 promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings 
 of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain 
 and establish this Constitution for the United States 
 of America." 
 
 " Union, justice, domestic tranquillity, com- 
 mon defence, general welfare, and the blessings 
 of liberty secured to posterity," were the grand 
 and primary objects in establishing this consti- 
 tution, under which, and for these purposes, 
 the Government was organized. The guardian- 
 ship and protection of this, the charter of our 
 rights, is now committed to the people and 
 their representatives in Congress. It is, then, 
 our duty, with vigilance and a watchful eye, 
 to mark the progress of events, and arrest, at 
 the threshold, the unhallowed hand which may 
 be raised to pervert its meaning, misuse its 
 provisions, or tarnish its glory. After reflect- 
 ing upon the solemn obligations which devolve 
 upon the members of this body, to examine 
 with solicitude the principles and provisions of 
 the constitution, and faithfully and impartially 
 apply them to the existing circumstances of the 
 country, it would not seem strange if a peculiar 
 anxiety were manifest on their application to 
 a case pregnant with doubts and fearful ap- 
 prehensions. 
 
 Sir, the first thing when I entered this cham- 
 ber, to become a member of the Senate, was, 
 ;o approach your chair, and take a solemn oath 
 to support the constitution. This I consider 
 more than a mere formality an obligation by 
 which I am bound, in my own conscience, to 
 ;uard with vigilance the general and particular 
 rights guaranteed by that instrument to this 
 privileged nation. It is not necessary to refer 
 you to the toils and privations of past periods 
 to show their value. A moment's reflection 
 upon the time that Sir Walter Raleigh visited 
 the banks of the Koanoke ; Captain Smith ex- 
 plored the Eastern shore from Penobscot to
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 DECEMBER, 1820.] Admission of Missouri Citizenship of Free Colored Persons. 
 
 [SEXATE. 
 
 Cape Cod, or our ancesters landed upon the 
 rock of Plymouth, with some of the succeeding 
 events, will furnish the mind with evidence of 
 the estimate we ought to put upon the constitu- 
 tion, and the blessings it secures to our country. 
 Forty years successful experience of the enjoy- 
 ment of equal rights, under a free Government, 
 demonstrate the advantages of republican in- 
 stitutions. But, sir, I waive all other consid- 
 eration?, and proceed to examine one point 
 which attracts our attention and merits partic- 
 ular notice. 
 
 Is there any paragraph in the constitution of 
 Missouri which contravenes any provision in the 
 Constitution of the United States 1 This will 
 be a subject of inquiry. 
 
 "We find in the constitution of Missouri that, 
 " it shall be the duty of the General Assembly, 
 as soon as may be, to pass such laws as may be 
 necessary to prevent negroes and mulattoes 
 from coming to, and settling in this State, un- 
 der any pretext whatsoever." No comment 
 upon this can be necessary to render its mean- 
 ing perfectly intelligible. 
 
 This will lead ine to inquire into the duty and 
 power of Congress, and then recur to this pro- 
 vision again. 
 
 " The United States, in Congress assembled, 
 shall guarantee to every State in this Union a 
 republican form of government, and protect 
 each of them against invasion." This is ne- 
 cessary, to " insure domestic tranquillity, pro- 
 mote the general welfare, and secure the bless- 
 ings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." 
 
 It is the duty of Congress to see "that full 
 faith and credit are given in each State to the 
 public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of 
 every other State." This is essential " to per- 
 fect the Union, establish justice," cement the 
 bonds of harmony, and secure the rights and 
 privileges of the existing States. 
 
 By this, a mutual friendship would be encour- 
 aged, a unity of sentiment extended, and a con- 
 fidence in the whole concentrated. 
 
 Congress have power to receive new States 
 into the Confederacy. " New States may be 
 admitted by the Congress into this Union." In 
 doing this, they are bound to see that the 
 rights and privileges of the individual States 
 are not infringed. They are not only expected 
 to secure inviolate the rights of States, but "the 
 privileges and immunities " of their citizens. 
 Among these the following is a very essential 
 one. " The citizens of each State shall be en- 
 titled to all the privileges and immunities of 
 citizens in the several States." 
 
 Sir, by this I understand that a citizen in any 
 State in the Union may pass into any other 
 State in the Union, and there enjoy " all the 
 privileges and immunities of citizens " in the 
 State to which he removes. 
 
 The same principle I find engrafted in the 
 Articles of Confederation ; by having recourse 
 to that I find my exposition confirmed, and the 
 same sentiment more fully and particularly ex- 
 pressed. 
 
 VOL. VI. 44 
 
 " The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friend- 
 ship and intercourse among the people of the differ- 
 ent States in this Union, the free inhabitants of each 
 of these States shall be entitled to all the privileges 
 and immunities of free citizens in the several States ; 
 and the people of each State shall have free ingress 
 and regress to and from any other State, and shall 
 enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and com- 
 merce, subject to the same duties, impositions, and 
 restrictions, as the inhabitants thereof respectively." 
 
 The express language of this section so per- 
 fectly coincides with the opinion I have ven- 
 tured to advance, that a comment could add 
 nothing to its perspicuity. Could the term cit- 
 izen need exposition, I would offer one, which, 
 however, I could scarcely have imagined, had 
 it not been for the novel and fallacious remarks 
 of the honorable gentleman from Maine (Mr. 
 HOLMES). In the foregoing extract we find the 
 terms " inhabitants, citizens, and people," used 
 as synonymous. 
 
 These are perfectly well understood in our 
 community, and, I will only add, take from the 
 inhabitants slaves and aliens, and the remainder 
 are citizens. 
 
 Color does not come into the consideration, 
 and it has no share in characterizing an inhab- 
 itant or a citizen. On this exposition I shall 
 rest my argument. 
 
 I will now pass to inquire what are the pro- 
 visions of the Constitution of the United States 
 respecting the powers of the several States. 
 These are all uniform and equal. They have 
 certain powers, and are prohibited certain acts. 
 
 " The times, places, and manner of holding 
 elections for Senators and Representative?, shall 
 be prescribed in each State by the Legislature 
 thereof; " and, when vacancies occur, the State 
 authority may fill them. But " no State shall 
 enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation ; 
 coin money, or make any thing but gold and 
 silver coin a tender in payment of debts ; or 
 grant any title of nobility ; or keep troops or 
 ships of war in time of peace." 
 
 The reason is, by agreement, it is prohibited 
 in the constitution, and in the same manner by 
 agreement, it is provided, that " the citizens of 
 each State shall be entitled to all the privileges 
 and immunities of citizens in the several > 
 and they " shall have free ingress and regress to 
 and from any other State, and shall enjoy therein 
 all the privileges of the inhabitants thereof, 
 subject to no other restriction than they re- 
 spectively " endure. 
 
 As I before observed, I must now, for the 
 purpose of comparison, recur to the provision 
 of the constitution of Missouri, which makes it 
 the duty of " the General Assembly to pass laws 
 to prevent free negroes and mulattoes from 
 coming to, and settling in, this State, under any 
 pretext whatsoever." 
 
 Believing it fully demonstrated, that free 
 persons of- color are' citizens, and conceiving it 
 equally clear that some States in the Union 
 have citizens of this description, and that the 
 Constitution of the United States secures to all
 
 690 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE. " 
 
 Admission of Missouri Citizenship of Free Colored Persons. [DECEMBER, 1820. 
 
 the citizens in all the States the unmolested lib- 
 erty of migrating to any State in the Union, 
 and there to enjoy unrestrained, the " privi- 
 leges and immunities" of the citizens of that 
 State, I ask, is this restrictive clause in the 
 constitution of Missouri compatible with the 
 express provisions of the Constitution of the 
 United States? 
 
 I distinctly answer the question. Sir, it is 
 not. But, say gentlemen, " we must not ex- 
 amine this subject ; " there may be difficulties, 
 and there may not be. If there should be any, 
 submit them to the Judiciary. 
 
 Sir, I do not accede to this doctrine. Con- 
 gress have the power to examine, and I shall 
 venture to exercise it. "New States maybe 
 admitted by the Congress into this Union." 
 How ? By guess, or by lot, without knowledge 
 or reflection; or by examination and legisla- 
 tion ? " The United States shall guarantee to 
 every State in this Union a republican form of 
 government?" How are the republican fea- 
 tures of the constitution to be ascertained but 
 by examination ? It can be done neither by 
 weight nor by measure. 
 
 I would seriously ask, for what purpose was 
 the constitution of Missouri presented to Con- 
 gress ? We are led to presume, for examina- 
 tion and approbation, as this has been the gen- 
 eral practice from the organization of the Gov- 
 ernment to the present time. 
 
 If this were not the case, why did not the 
 (convention of Missouri inform Congress by let- 
 vter, or its delegate, they had made a constitu- 
 tion, and must now be admitted into the Union? 
 :Surely this would have been a very summary 
 ,and novel course, but no more exceptionable 
 than to offer a constitution without admitting 
 the liberty of examining it. 
 
 The condition of Vermont was materially 
 different from that of any other State. In con- 
 sequence of difficulties subsisting between her 
 and New York, respecting territorial limits, her 
 constitution was formed, and her government 
 organized, some years previous to her admission 
 into the Union, But on her application by 
 commissioners, she was admitted by an act of 
 Congress, approved February 18, 1791. "The 
 State of Vermont having petitioned the Con- 
 gress to be admitted a member of the United 
 States, Be it enacted, &c., That, on the 4th day 
 of March, 1791, the said State, by the name 
 and style of ' the State of Vermont,' shall be 
 received and admitted into this Union, as a new 
 and entire member of the United States of 
 America." 
 
 The district of Kentucky, being originally a 
 part of Virginia, applied to that Commonwealth 
 for permission to form herself into a new State, 
 and petitioned Congress for admission into the 
 Union ; whereupon an act passed for that pur- 
 pose. " Whereas the Legislature of the Com- 
 monwealth of Virginia, by an act entitled, &c., 
 have consented that the district of Kentucky, 
 &c., should be formed into a new State ; and 
 whereas a convention of delegates, &c., have 
 
 petitioned Congress to consent, &c., that the 
 said district should be formed into a new State, 
 and be received into the Union, by the name 
 of ' the State of Kentucky ' Be it enacted, 
 &c., That the Congress doth consent that the 
 said district of Kentucky, &c., shall, upon the 
 first day of June, 1792, be formed into a new 
 State ; and, upon the aforesaid first day of June, 
 1792, the said new State, by the name and style 
 of the State of Kentucky, shall be received 
 and admitted into this Union, as a new and 
 entire member of the United States of Amer- 
 ica." 
 
 Thus we see the formality which has been 
 observed in admitting new States into the 
 Union. In no instance has this diminished, but 
 in all instances it has increased. We will pass 
 the admission of all intermediate States, and 
 come to that of Louisiana, which is directly in 
 point. The Territory of Orleans applied for 
 admission into the Union, and Congress passed 
 an act authorizing them to call a convention 
 and form a constitution, enumerating certain 
 conditions upon which she should be received ; 
 among which were the following: "That in 
 case the convention shall declare its assent, in 
 behalf of the people of the said territory, to the 
 adoption of the Constitution of the United 
 States, and shall form a constitution and State 
 government for the people of the said territory, 
 the said convention is hereby required to cause 
 to be transmitted to Congress the instrument 
 by which its assent to the Constitution of the 
 United States is thus given and declared ; and 
 also a true and attested copy of such constitu- 
 tion as shall be formed by said convention; 
 and, if the same shall not be disapproved by 
 Congress at their next session, the said State 
 shall be admitted into the Union upon the same 
 footing with the original States." 
 
 Here we distinctly see that Congress required, 
 previous to her admission, and as pre-requi- 
 sites, that the convention should declare its as- 
 sent to the adoption of the Constitution of the 
 United States, and transmit the instrument of 
 their assent to them ; and, also, an attested copy 
 of their constitution, " and, if the same should 
 not be disapproved by Congress," they should 
 be admitted. 
 
 With respect to Missouri the law says, Sec- 
 tion 7 : " And be it further enacted, That, in 
 case a constitution and State government shall 
 be formed for the people of the said Territory 
 of Missouri, the said convention, or representa- 
 tives, as soon as may be, shall cause a true and 
 attested copy of such constitution or frame of 
 State government, as shall be formed or pro- 
 vided, to be transmitted to Congress." 
 
 Here, then, we learn Congress prescribed 
 conditions ; required the constitution to be pre- 
 sented ; reserved the privilege of examination, 
 and the power of approving or disapproving. 
 For this I contend; and these remarks are 
 made to show the propriety and reasonableness 
 of my claim. This privilege has been claimed, 
 aud this power has been exercised by an au-
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 DECEMBER, 1820.] Admission of Missouri Citizenship of Free Colored Persons. 
 
 [SENATE, 
 
 thority no more competent than that of the 
 present Congress. 
 
 But, say gentlemen, you must not examine 
 into this subject, but turn it over to the judi- 
 ciary. 
 
 Sir, I choose to examine for myself. This 
 being my right, I conceive a different course 
 needless and improper. Needless, because Con- 
 gress have the power and ability. This is dele- 
 gated to this department of the Government ; 
 in the first instance, by the constitution ; and 
 Congress have no right to surrender it. "New 
 States may be admitted by the Congress," and 
 no other body. 
 
 It is improper, because it would perplex a 
 certain class of proprietors. Apply this to the 
 poor yellow man who owns land in Missouri. 
 They pass a law prohibiting free negroes and 
 mulattoes from settling "in the State, under 
 any pretext whatsoever." This is in force till 
 nullified by the judiciary, which cannot be ef- 
 fected without an action at law. Is he able to 
 endure this excessive burden? "Who would 
 undertake it to get into Missouri? The barrier 
 is equal to an armed force, extending around 
 the whole territory of the State. It would 
 keep any citizen in the Union out, and this was 
 the design of it. Surely, if they were to say, 
 (which they could with equal propriety,) that 
 no citizen with a gray head should settle in 
 Missouri, I would never make the attempt. 
 Hence, then, this provision in the constitution 
 of Missouri is in direct hostility to the Consti- 
 tution of the United States. 
 
 This, sir, is distinctly admitted hi the report 
 of the committee of the House, to whom the 
 constitution was referred. They say, "the 
 committee are not unaware that a part of the 
 26th section of the 3d article of the constitu- 
 tion of Missouri, by which the legislature of 
 that State has been directed to pass laws ' to 
 prevent free negroes and mulattoes from com- 
 ing to, and settling in, the State,' has been con- 
 strued to apply to such of that class as are citi- 
 zens of the United States ; and that their ex- 
 clusion has been deemed repugnant to the Fed- 
 eral Constitution." Here the fact for which we 
 contend is conceded ; and, also, that there are 
 some " of that class who are citizens of the 
 United States." If this is not the case, why 
 your provisos ? Why submit nothing to the ju- 
 diciary ? Why must there be a protestando in- 
 troduced ? 
 
 Mr. President, I proceed to show the conse- 
 quences of this provision. 
 
 Some States have free citizens of color. This 
 is the case in Vermont, New Hampshire, and 
 Massachusetts. In Vermont, there is a mulatto 
 man by the name of Haines, who is a regular 
 ordained minister in Rutland. He is pastor of 
 a church and society of white people; has fre- 
 quently been moderator of the Theological As- 
 sociation to which he belongs, and also of ec- 
 clesiastical councils convened for the ordination 
 of ministers. In fact, his abilities, education, 
 moral character, and standing in society, are 
 
 such that he has received an honorary degree 
 of Master of Arts from the University. But 
 this man and his family, although of high stand- 
 ing in community, and possessing all the facul- 
 ties of citizens, are proscribed, and, by the con- 
 stitution of Missouri, are prohibited settling in 
 the State. 
 
 In New Hampshire, there was a yellow man 
 by the name of Cheswell, who, with his fami- 
 ly, were respectable in point of abilities, prop- 
 erty, and character. He held some of the first 
 offices in the town in which he resided, was 
 appointed justice of the peace for that county, 
 and was perfectly competent to perform with 
 ability all the duties of his various offices in the 
 most prompt, accurate, and acceptable manner. 
 But, this family are forbidden to enter and live 
 in Missouri. 
 
 In Boston, is a mulatto man by the name of 
 Thomas Paul, a regularly ordained Baptist min- 
 ister, pastor of a church of people of color, at 
 whose meeting many white people attend, and 
 who preaches by exchange or otherwise with 
 all the neighboring ministers of his denomina- 
 tion. 
 
 Sir, you not only exclude these citizens from 
 their constitutional "privileges and immuni- 
 ties," but also your soldiers of color, to whom 
 you have given patents for land. You had a 
 company of this description. They have fought 
 your battles ; they have defended your coun- 
 try ; they have preserved your privileges, but 
 have lost their own. What did you say to 
 them on their enlistment ? We will give you 
 a monthly compensation, and at the close of 
 the war, 160 acres of good land, on which you 
 may settle, and, by cultivating the soil, spend 
 your declining years in peace, and in the enjoy- 
 ment of those immunities for which you have 
 fought and bled. Now, sir, you restrict them, 
 and will not suffer them to enjoy the fruit of 
 their labor. Where is the public faith in this 
 case ? Did they suppose, with a patent in their 
 hand, declaring their title to land in Missouri, 
 with the seal of the nation and the President's 
 signature affixed thereto, it would be said to 
 them, by any authority, you shall not possess 
 the premises? This could never have been 
 anticipated. 
 
 But, says the honorable gentleman from 
 Maine, (Mr. HOLMES,) " they are perfectly se- 
 cured by a saving clause in the constitution of 
 Missouri," which must be taken in connection 
 with that part which prohibits their settling 
 in the State. It must, therefore, be read : " it 
 shall be the duty of the General Assembly to 
 pass laws, to prevent free negroes and mulat- 
 toes from coming to and settling in this State, 
 under any pretext whatsoever : Protided, how- 
 ever, The General Assembly shall never inter- 
 fere with the primary disposal of the soil by the 
 United States, nor with any regulation Con- 
 gress may find necessary for securing the title 
 in such soil to the bona fide purchasers." My 
 humble opinion is, this does not reach the case. 
 Were it to protect patentees of the Govern-
 
 692 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 Admission of Missouri Citizenship of Free Colored Persons. 
 
 [DECEMBER, 1820. 
 
 merit, this would be only a part of that class of 
 citizens who are liable to suffer. But the fact 
 is, it will not do that. The law says, a mulatto 
 man shall not settle in Missouri " under any 
 pretext whatsoever." This provision says, " the 
 Assembly shall never interfere with the primary 
 disposal of the soil." What has this to do 
 with his settling in that State ? It will afford 
 him no relief. But " the Assembly shall not 
 interfere with any regulation Congress may 
 find it necessary for securing the title in such 
 soil to the bona fide purchasers." What secu- 
 rity will this afford to the yellow man desirous 
 of settling in Missouri ? They will not de- 
 stroy his title, but they will not permit him to 
 come into the State. The gentleman's argu- 
 ment goes upon the ground, that a title and 
 possession are the same. This I do not admit. 
 It is a principle laid down in the books, that 
 one person may hold the title and another the 
 possession ; and this is proved from daily expe- 
 rience. If this were not the case, what gives 
 origin to a writ of ejectment ? It grows out of 
 the very circumstance that one person may 
 hold the title and another the possession ; and 
 the title may be good, but possession cannot be 
 obtained without an action at law. The quali- 
 ty of the title in this case may be inferred from 
 the fact, that, although the yellow man may 
 not enter and possess the premises, he can 
 transfer his title to a white citizen, who may, 
 without molestation, enter and enjoy the prem- 
 ises. 
 
 Then, on a critical examination of the con- 
 stitution, we find no relief, but are compelled 
 to yield to the fact, that free citizens of some 
 States are precluded the privilege of settling in 
 Missouri ; by which their rights are abridged, 
 contrary to the provisions of the Constitution 
 of the United States. 
 
 Mr. President, can we suffer one, even the 
 meanest of our citizens, to be unconstitutionally 
 deprived of his privileges ? No. We are the 
 guardians of his rights, and, in the performance 
 of our duty, we cannot permit them to be in- 
 fringed. 
 
 How was it with Mr. Meade, who was un- 
 justly retained in prison in Spain ? He was 
 deprived of his liberties and immunities. Con- 
 gress took notice of the circumstance, and that 
 very justly. Executive interference was exer- 
 cised, and his liberty was regained. This mani- 
 fested a suitable regard to the rights of our cit- 
 izens. When our citizens are taken and re- 
 tained by the Algerines, you retake or nego- 
 tiate and redeem them. In this case you make 
 no distinction between the white man and ne- 
 gro they are both redeemed with your money. 
 When Commodore O'Brien was consul at Al- 
 giers, there were six negroes redeemed at the 
 same price as white men ; and one slave, who 
 was restored to his owner, but not made free. 
 When your soldiers are captured, black or 
 white, you redeem them. It is proper that you 
 should. These are only the infringement of 
 other rights, than those abridged by the consti- 
 
 tution of Missouri. The question is not what 
 privileges may be violated, nor how many, nor 
 to what degree, nor whether the citizen be 
 black or white ; but can we tamely suffer one 
 State to deprive any citizen of any of his con- 
 stitutional rights and privileges ? 
 
 If Missouri can do this, why not keep a 
 standing army, enter into a treaty, coin money, 
 and grant titles of nobility ? She is a frontier 
 State the Indians are near ; it may be very 
 convenient to keep an army or make a treaty. 
 The reason is, the Constitution of the United 
 States distinctly says she shall not. And in the 
 other case it expressly declares, " the citizens 
 of each State shall be entitled to all the privi- 
 leges and immunities of the citizens of Missou- 
 ri ; and they shall have as free ingress and re- 
 gress as her own citizens now have." This is 
 the only consistent construction that can be 
 given to the Constitution of the United States, 
 and the only safe principle which can be adopt- 
 ed to secure the provisions of the constitution 
 from infraction, and the rights and privileges 
 of the citizens of the several States from the 
 most destructive violation. Admit the con- 
 trary principle, and each State becomes a mon- 
 archy, or is transformed to despotism. Our 
 dearest privileges are wrested from our hands ; 
 and those very rights by which our national 
 union, domestic tranquillity, and general wel- 
 fare are secured, are forever annihilated. If 
 you can proscribe one class of citizens, you 
 may another. Color no more comes into con- 
 sideration to decide who is a citizen than size 
 or profession. You may as well say a tall citi- 
 zen shall not settle in Missouri, as a yellow citi- 
 zen shall not. If one State can dp this, all may. 
 The consequence will be, that size, profession, 
 age, shape, color, or any disgusting quality in a 
 eason why he 
 
 citizen, would be a sufficient reas 
 
 should be precluded settling in any State, 
 
 which, from its pride, caprice, or vanity, are 
 disposed to keep him out. Sir, under such a 
 state of things, where are our liberties and 
 privileges ? They are fled. They are absorbed 
 in the caprice of a State. Where is your free 
 ingress and regress from State to State ? Your 
 national existence is lost; the Union is de- 
 stroyed ; the objects of confederation annihi- 
 lated, and your political fabric demolished. 
 
 Sir, I have endeavored to point out the ob- 
 jects of the American confederacy ; the duty 
 and power of Congress ; the duty, power, and 
 privileges of States ; who are citizens of some 
 States, and the rights of our citizens, and the 
 provisions of the Constitution of the United 
 States, by which those rights arc secured, and 
 the provisions of the constitution of Missouri ; 
 and have come to this irresistible conclusion, 
 that the Constitution of the United States se- 
 cures to the citizens of all the States in the 
 Union, " the privileges and immunities of the 
 citizens " of each State in the Union ; but Mis- 
 souri, in her constitution, precludes certain citi- 
 zens, in certain States, the " privileges and im- 
 munities " of her own citizens ; therefore, the
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 693 
 
 DECEMBER, 1820.] Admission of Missouri Citizenship of Free Colored Persons. 
 
 [SENATE. 
 
 constitution of Missouri contravenes the express 
 provisions of the Constitution of the United 
 States. For these reasons I vote against the 
 resolution. 
 
 Sir, a few more words, and I close my argu- 
 ment. I regret that I feel compelled to offer 
 an opinion of the complexion of this business. 
 I lament that it has the appearance of defiance. 
 I have endeavored to put the most favorable 
 construction possible upon it, and it amounts to 
 a challenge. Oppose us if you dare! I am 
 driven to this result from knowledge and re- 
 flection. On examining this constitution, I am 
 sure it was not penned by uninformed men. 
 Aside from a few exceptionable parts, it is one 
 of the best constitutions I have ever seen. The 
 Convention were not unapprised of the feel- 
 ings excited last session. The particular excep- 
 tionable clause was not in the original draught. 
 They were informed by their honorable Dele- 
 gate, and one of the gentlemen who appears 
 here as a Senator, that this paragraph would 
 be objectionable. But it is here, not inadver- 
 tently nor from necessity. If they had in- 
 tended to pass a law similar to that directed by 
 this paragraph in the constitution, they could 
 have done it without this provision. 
 
 Mr. President : Before I take my seat, I 
 must be permitted to make a few strictures 
 upon some remarks which fell from the hon- 
 orable gentleman from South Carolina, (Mr. 
 SMITH.) He observed that " negroes and mu- 
 lattoes are not citizens of the United States." 
 It is not my intention to consume your time to 
 demonstrate the contrary of this; because it 
 would not, in the least degree, vary the subject. 
 Our inquiry is, and it is the point which settles 
 the question, are they citizens of any particu- 
 lar State? This point I have proved, and on 
 the other hand it is admitted ; and if they are 
 citizens of any one State in the Union, this is 
 enough for our purpose. I would ask my friend, 
 what is the man in his country who is neither 
 a slave nor an alien f In mine he is a citizen. 
 The gentleman argued largely to show " that 
 slavery was tolerated in Republics." He need 
 not have gone to Rome, Greece, nor Sparta, to 
 have proved this ; it is evident from our daily 
 observation, and, of course, admitted. But 
 what is this to the point in debate ? What has 
 this to do with the question whether Missouri 
 has a constitutional right to prohibit free citi- 
 zens from settling in her territory? Does it 
 follow, because slavery is tolerated in Repub- 
 lics, therefore Missouri may proscribe free citi- 
 zens ? This reasoning is neither conclusive nor 
 convincing. 
 
 The gentleman says: "Missouri is now a 
 State to all intents and purposes." This is not 
 admitted. What has made her a State ? What 
 is the language of your resolution ? Not that 
 she now is, but that she shall ft, a State, when 
 this resolution is passed by both Houses, and 
 approved by the President. 
 
 " Be it resolved, &c., that the State of Mis- 
 souri shall 5e, and is hereby declared to be, one 
 
 of the United States of America." But, were 
 it true that she is a State, there is nothing 
 gained by it. Vermont was a State a long 
 time before she was received into the Union. 
 The question is. shall Missouri be admitted with 
 a constitution which conflicts with the Consti- 
 tution of the United States? 
 
 My friend argues, " we are bound by the 
 Treaty of Cession to receive her." Admit this. 
 But in that treaty there are terms and condi- 
 tions. " The inhabitants of the ceded territory 
 shall be incorporated in the Union of the Unit- 
 ed States, and admitted as soon as possible, ac- 
 cording to the principles of the Federal Con- 
 stitution." Hence, in her admission, the prin- 
 ciples of the Federal Constitution must be ob- 
 served and maintained inviolate. This was 
 the ground on which Louisiana was received, 
 and Missouri being a part of the same purchase, 
 she must be admitted on the same principles, 
 and in the same way, and no other. 
 
 But the gentleman says, " States were admit- 
 ted without presenting their constitution." This 
 may have been the case. Circumstances have 
 been different, especially with Vermont ; and the 
 manner of this transaction less formal and cor- 
 rect than at the present time. Because another 
 State has been received, which did not present 
 her constitution, does it follow that Congress 
 must not examine the constitution of Missouri ? 
 It matters not in this case what has been done ; 
 the constitution is here presented to Congress. 
 " But you have no power to control a constitu- 
 tion." For what purpose, then, is it sent here ? 
 To lie on our table ? Congress had power to 
 control the constitution of Louisiana. Have 
 they less power than they then had ? In this 
 case they said to the Convention, send a true 
 and attested copy of your constitution here, 
 and if the same shall not be disapproved by 
 Congress at their next session, the said State 
 shall be admitted into the Union. This is all 
 the power for which we contend ; and this is a 
 privilege which Congress has had, and still has, 
 a right to exercise. 
 
 "Louisiana, Ohio, and other States, declare 
 how persons coming into them shall obtain a 
 residence." This we readily admit ; and against 
 such regulation have no objection. But does 
 it follow, because certain States prescribe con- 
 ditions on which emigrants shall gain a resi- 
 dence, therefore Missouri has a constitutional 
 right to prohibit the citizens of other States 
 from settling in her territory ? Really I do not 
 see the force of the argument. 
 
 "States have made a distinction between 
 white people and blacks." This is very true ; 
 so they have between white people. South 
 Carolina has distinguished that gentleman in 
 giving him a seat here, and that very j ustly ; 
 and he has nobly distinguished himself. And 
 what is this to the point ? " But in the Eastern 
 States, they whip black people not only once 
 and twice, but ten times, and every ten days." 
 This may be true ; and equally true, that they 
 whip white people when they violate their
 
 694 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 Admission of Missouri Citizenship of Free Colored Persons. 
 
 [DECEMBER, 1820. 
 
 laws j and continue to whip, black or white, as 
 long as they continue to violate wholesome 
 laws ; and I suspect will persevere in the prac- 
 tice until they reform or emigrate to South 
 Carolina, where they may receive better treat- 
 ment. Does this prove any thing with respect 
 to the constitutional power of Missouri ? 
 
 But, says the gentleman, " New Hampshire 
 excludes negroes from training." This is very 
 true ; and so they excuse many white people. 
 This only places them among the exempts ; 
 generally, the first class in society. And from 
 this very circumstance, they have the privilege 
 of walking about with the other gentlemen and 
 seeing the soldiers train. It neither deprives 
 them or any other person of citizenship or any 
 other privilege. 
 
 Blacks, then, are not degraded in New Hamp- 
 shire. Custom has made a distinction between 
 them and other men ; but the constitution and 
 laws make none. 
 
 Mr. President, a few words in reply to what 
 has fallen from the gentleman from Maine, (Mr. 
 HOLMES,) and I shall have done. He observed, 
 purchasers under the United States are not re- 
 stricted. To maintain this position, he took 
 occasion to explain the Constitution of the 
 United States, and that of Missouri, the incor- 
 rectness of which will more fully appear in his 
 after remarks, in the application of the princi- 
 ple. As my former argument had a particular 
 allusion to these opinions, any further refuta- 
 tion is unnecessary. 
 
 This gentleman says, " the doctrine that free 
 blacks have a right to enter free States, is dan- 
 gerous." I am a little surprised to hear a gen- 
 tleman of so much aouteness in disquisition upon 
 constitutional law, calculating upon conse- 
 quences which have no immediate connection 
 with the subject. He might as well argue, that 
 a commercial enterprise to the Euxine sea, 
 would be detrimental to Massachusetts, and 
 therefore Missouri must keep all free citizens of 
 color out of her territory, as to argue that if 
 free blacks may enter any free State, Maine 
 will be infested with them; and therefore, 
 Missouri must prohibit their settling in that 
 State. 
 
 " A State may exclude any person." Here 
 we are at issue. I by no means admit the doc- 
 trine. Any State may regulate the terms upon 
 which emigrants shall become residents; but 
 no State has any right to exclude them. To 
 utterly prohibit, and regulate by law the terms 
 of inhabitancy, are materially and essentially 
 different ; and one within the municipal power 
 of every State, the other expressly prohibited 
 by the Constitution of the United States. 
 
 But, says the gentleman, " the Constitution 
 means, when they get in, they shall have privi- 
 leges, but they u.ay be kept out.' 1 ' 1 This is a lit- 
 tle curious, for a gentleman learned in the law. 
 Then, if a person were to ascend in an air bal- 
 loon, at a small distance from the line of Mis- 
 souri, and safely land within her territory, the 
 constitution secures to him " privileges and 
 
 immunities ; " but it makes no provision for his 
 crossing the line by land. Under this exposi- 
 tion, where is the "free ingress and regress" 
 of the citizens of each State guaranteed by the 
 constitution ? Sir, your constitution is like a 
 nose of wax. Your liberties and privileges are 
 a bubble. Your union, domestic tranquillity, 
 and prospect of common defence, are prostrated 
 to the ground. But, says the gentleman, this 
 doctrine is certainly correct, and to test his 
 principle, he adds, " send a mulatto man here, 
 should we not feel our rights invaded ? " This 
 has no connection with the question. It is 
 possible some gentleman might feel his rights 
 invaded. But I would inquire, in my turn, 
 w?tat rights are invaded? And I would se- 
 riously ask the Senate, if any State in the 
 Union were duly to elect a yellow man consti- 
 tutionally qualified, commission and send him 
 here with his credentials, you can exclude him 
 a seat? You have a right to decide on the 
 qualifications of your members ; but color is 
 no more a qualification than height, profession, 
 or nation. The gentleman observes, " a mulat- 
 to, though a citizen in one State, going into 
 Missouri, has no other rights than a mulatto 
 has in Missouri." Here we are at issue again. 
 This doctrine I flatly deny. The salubrious air 
 and fertile soil of Missouri can never metamor- 
 phose a free citizen into a slave ; neither can 
 the constitution and law of Missouri do it. 
 Were the proposition true, then a black or yel- 
 low free citizen of Maine, going into Virginia, 
 would be a slave. As I before intimated, it is 
 citizen only, and not color, that comes into con- 
 sideration, in deciding this question. 
 
 But the gentleman, in a very affecting tone, 
 enlists all our sympathies, in view of the con- 
 sequences of rejecting this unconstitutional in- 
 strument from Missouri. For these, sir, I con- 
 ceive Congress is not accountable ; and, there- 
 fore, such imaginary phantoms are not proper 
 subjects of discussion, nor suitable beacons to 
 direct our course. Missouri was permitted, 
 under a law of Congress, to form a constitu- 
 tion, " republican, and not repugnant to the 
 Constitution of the United States," and "trans- 
 mit an attested copy of such constitution to 
 Congress." It was expected she would per- 
 form this in good faith. If she has utterly 
 failed formed and presented a constitution re- 
 pugnant to the Constitution of the United 
 States, and unpleasant consequences result, the 
 fault is her own. There can be no provision in 
 the constitution of Missouri inadvertently in- 
 troduced ; of course, all the consequences rest 
 upon Missouri. These, however, are not to 
 come into our consideration ; the Constitution 
 of the United States alone is to direct our 
 course. 
 
 But the gentleman discovers another diffi- 
 culty, in case this constitution is rejected : he 
 is unable to determine in what condition Mis- 
 souri wiU be, whether Territory, or State, or 
 neither. With respect to this, sir, I have only 
 to observe, if that gentleman cannot divine, I
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 DECEMBER, 1820.] 
 
 Electoral Votes. 
 
 [SENATE. 
 
 presume it is within the scope of Congress, and 
 merely that circumstance would not convince 
 me the object is unattainable. 
 
 I would also add, that every difficulty of this 
 kind which could possibly have arisen might 
 have been avoided by precautions similar to 
 those observed by Maine. She, in the first 
 place, petitioned the Legislature of Massachu- 
 setts for leave to form a constitution and inde- 
 pendent State. This was granted. She then 
 formed her constitution, and fixed her election 
 for State officers after the probable time of the 
 adjournment of the then next session of Con- 
 gress. She presented her constitution for the 
 approbation of Congress and admission into the 
 Union. This was done. After she became, by 
 an act of Congress, a State in the Union, she 
 elected her officers, and organized her govern- 
 ment. If Missouri had pursued the same mod- 
 erate and consistent course, there could have 
 been no possible difficulty with respect to her 
 character or condition. 
 
 Mr. President, these being my views of the 
 subject, I close my remarks, after presenting 
 my thanks to the honorable Senate for the 
 great candor and attention with which they 
 have indulged me while I have occupied their 
 time. 
 
 Mr. MACON followed the above speech with a 
 motion to recommit the resolution to the select 
 committee which reported it, with instructions 
 to strike out the proviso adopted to-day on the 
 motion of Mr. EATON. Mr. M. had no doubt 
 whatever of the propriety of the naked resolu- 
 tion as reported, and was opposed to the pro- 
 viso ; he therefore proposed this mode of get- 
 ting rid of it. 
 
 The question on recommitting the resolution 
 was decided in the negative, by yeas and nays, 
 as follows : 
 
 YEAS. Messrs. Burrill, Dickerson, King of New- 
 York, Lanman, Lowrie, Macon, Mills, Morrill, Noble, 
 Palmer, Roberts, Rnggles, Sanford, Smith, Tichenor, 
 Williams of Tennessee, and Wilson 17. 
 
 NAYS. Messrs. Barbour, Brown, Chandler, Dana, 
 Eaton, Edwards, Elliott, Gaillard, Holmes of Maine, 
 Holmes of Mississippi, Horsey, Hunter, Johnson of 
 Kentucky, Johnson of Louisiana, King of Alabama, 
 Lloyd, Parrott, Pinkney, Pleasants, Talbot, Taylor, 
 Thomas, Trimble, Van Dyke, Walker of Alabama, 
 Walker of Georgia, and Williams of Mississippi 27. 
 
 The question was then taken on ordering the 
 resolution, as amended, to be engrossed and 
 read a third time, and was decided in the af- 
 firmative, by yeas and nays, as follows : 
 
 YEAS. Messrs. Barbour, Brown, Chandler, Eaton, 
 Edwards, Elliott, Gaillard, Holmes of Maine, Holmes 
 of Mississippi, Horsey, Johnson of Kentucky, John- 
 son of Louisiana, King of Alabama, Lloyd, Parrott, 
 Pinkney, Pleasants, Smith, Talbot, Taylor, Thomas, 
 Van Dyke, Walker of Alabama, Walker of Georgia, 
 Williams of Mississippi, and Williams of Tennessee 
 26. 
 
 NAYS. Messrs. Burrill, Dana. Dickerson, Hunter, 
 King of New York, Lanman, Lowrie, Macon, Mills, 
 Morrill, Noble, Palmer, Roberts, Ruggles, Sanford, 
 Tichenor, Trimble, and Wilson 18. 
 
 TUESDAY, December 12. 
 
 Electoral Votes. 
 
 Mr. WILSON, of New Jersey, submitted the 
 following resolution : 
 
 Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary be 
 instructed to inquire whether any, and if any, what 
 provisions are necessary or proper to be made by law 
 to meet contingencies which may arise from unlaw- 
 ful, disputed, or doubtful votes under that part of the 
 12th article of amendments to the Constitution of the 
 United States, which relates to counting the votes of 
 the Electors for the President and Vice President of 
 the United States. 
 
 Mr. WILSON said, it would be found, on re- 
 ferring to the article in the constitution alluded 
 to in this resolution, that the provision in rela- 
 tion to counting the votes for President and 
 Vice President is very general. The words 
 are, "the President of the Senate shall, in 
 presence of the Senate and House of Repre- 
 sentatives, open all the certificates, and the 
 votes shall then be counted." It is not said 
 who shall count the votes, nor who shall decide 
 what votes shall be counted. In consequence 
 of this defect, as the Senate would well remem- 
 ber, some difficulty occurred four years ago, in 
 relation to the votes from Indiana. Objections 
 were made to receiving these votes ; the count- 
 ing was interrupted ; the two Houses separat- 
 ed ; and although on that occasion they again 
 came together, and proceeded on, and com- 
 pleted the business before them, so happy a re- 
 sult might not always be produced. Cases 
 might occur where stronger doubts might exist, 
 or more excitement prevail ; debates be pro- 
 tracted, and decisions deferred, and serious in- 
 conveniences or evils follow. Was it not prob- 
 able such a case would occur during the present 
 session ? Would it not at least be prudent to 
 guard against danger from such a contingency ? 
 Congress has unquestionably the power, under 
 the last clause of the 8th "section of the first 
 article of the constitution, and he thought they 
 ought to exercise it, by vesting the authority 
 to decide upon doubtful, disputed, or unlawful 
 votes, either in the President of the Senate, the 
 Senate itself, the House of Representatives, or 
 in the two Houses, conjointly or separately. 
 At least, Mr. W. deemed the subject of suffi- 
 cient importance to justify the inquiry proposed 
 in the resolution which he had submitted. 
 
 Mr. WILSON submitted also the following res- 
 olution : 
 
 Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary bo 
 instructed to inquire whether any, and if any, what 
 amendments are necessary and proper to be made to 
 the act, entitled " An act relative to the election of a 
 President and Vice President of the United States, 
 and declaring the officer who shall act as President, 
 in case of vacancies in the offices both of the Presi- 
 dent and Vice President," passed March 1, 1792. 
 
 Both resolutions lie on the table one day of 
 course.
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 Dealti of the Representative, John Linn, Esq. 
 
 [JANUARY, 1821. 
 
 Admission of Missouri. 
 
 The resolution declaring tbe consent of Con- 
 gress to the admission of the State of Missouri 
 into the Union was read a third time, and the 
 question stated "Shall the resolution pass? " 
 
 Mr. TRIMBLE observed, in reference to some 
 remarks between himself and Mr. SMITH yes- 
 terday, that he had not voted for the admission 
 of Alabama, because he could not reconcile the 
 provision in relation to banks, (with all the 
 checks and guards which had been introduced 
 into the constitution of Alabama on that sub- 
 ject,) with the Federal Constitution. In rela- 
 tion to that provision he had entertained doubts 
 which were at the time expressed to some of 
 his friends. Mr. T. said it was true that he 
 had not made a formal opposition to the ad- 
 mission of Alabama, because he had just taken 
 his seat in the Senate, and was unaccustomed 
 to legislative proceedings ; nor did he then 
 suppose that it was so important that he should 
 record his name in opposition to the measures 
 which he thought violated the spirit and true 
 meaning of the Federal Constitution. But, 
 had the gentleman, said Mr. T., no other de- 
 fence to set up for that article of the constitu- 
 tion of Missouri? If, said he, the Federal 
 Constitution has been violated, in one instance, 
 is that any reason that it should be violated in 
 another? Can precedent sanctify a violation 
 of the constitution which we are sworn to sup- 
 port? 
 
 The question being then put, the resolution 
 was passed and sent to the House of Represent- 
 atives for concurrence. 
 
 MONDAY, December 18. 
 
 Death of the Representative, Nathaniel Hazard. 
 A message from the House of Representa- 
 tives announced to the Senate the death of NA- 
 THANIEL HAZAED, late a member of the House 
 of Representatives from the State of Rhode 
 Island and Providence Plantations, and that 
 his funeral will take place this day at two 
 o'clock. 
 
 On motion of Mr. HUNTER, it was 
 Resolved, unanimously, That the Senate will attend 
 the funeral of Nathaniel Hazard, late a member 
 of the House of Representatives from the State of 
 Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, this day at 
 two o'clock ; and as a testimony of respect for the 
 memory of the deceased, they will go into mourning, 
 and wear a black crape round the left arm for thirty 
 days. 
 
 THURSDAY, December 21. 
 MONTFOBT STOKES, from the State of North 
 Carolina, attended. 
 
 TUESDAY, December 26. 
 Death of Senator BurrilL 
 The Journal of Saturday having been read 
 Mr. HUNTER, of Rhode Island, rose, and, 
 with much emotion, said, he had to perform a 
 melancholy, and, to him, truly distressing duty. 
 
 His friend and worthy colleague, the Honorable 
 JAMES BURRILL, Jr., had departed this life about 
 ten o'clock last night, and it devolved upon 
 him to announce the painful event to the Senate. 
 
 Mr. DANA, of Connecticut, said, the serious 
 loss which had just been announced must be 
 extremely felt by the Senate, and he could not 
 doubt its disposition to manifest every regard 
 for the memory of the deceased, and every re- 
 spect towards his remains. He therefore of- 
 fered the following resolution : 
 
 Resolved, That a committee be appointed to take 
 order for superintending the funeral of the Honorable 
 James Burrill, Jr., and that the Senate will attend 
 the same ; and that notice of the event be given to 
 the House of Representatives. 
 
 The resolution was unanimously adopted, 
 and Messrs. MAOON, DANA, CIIANDLER, HOLMES, 
 of Maine, and PARROTT, were appointed the 
 committee accordingly. 
 
 On the further motion of Mr. DANA, it was 
 
 Resolved, unanimously, That the members of the 
 Senate, from a sincere desire of showing every mark 
 of respect due to the memory of the Honorable James 
 Burrill, Jr., deceased, late a member thereof, will go 
 into mourning for him one month, by the usual mode 
 of wearing crape round the left arm. 
 
 On motion of Mr. DANA, it was 
 
 Resolved, unanimously, That, as an additional mark 
 of respect for the memory of the Hon. James Bur- 
 rill, Jr., the Senate do now adjourn. 
 
 And the Senate adjourned accordingly, to 
 one o'clock to-morrow. 
 
 MONDAY, January 8, 1821. 
 Death of the Representative, John Linn, Esq. 
 
 The PRESIDENT communicated a letter from 
 the Clerk of the House of Representatives, 
 transmitting a resolution of that House, an- 
 nouncing to the Senate the death of JOHN* LINN, 
 late a member of the House of Representatives 
 from the State of New Jersey, and the letter 
 and resolution were read. 
 
 On motion by Mr. DICKERSON, 
 
 Ordered, That the said letter and resolution 
 be entered at large on the journal of the Sen- 
 ate, which is done accordingly in the following 
 words : 
 
 CLERK'S OFFICE, HOUSE OF REP'S, U. S., 
 
 January 6yl821. 
 
 SIR : The House of Representatives of the United 
 States having received intelligence of the death of 
 John Linn, late a member of that House from the 
 State of New Jersey, and having taken order for su- 
 perintending and attending his funeral, have also di- 
 rected me to communicate the same to the Senate. 
 The recess in that body to-day rendering it impossi- 
 ble to make such communication in the ordinary way, 
 I have, therefore, the honor to transmit you, enclosed, 
 the resolution adopted by the House on that subject. 
 I have the honor to be, &c., 
 
 THOMAS DOUGHERTY, 
 
 Clerk of the House of Rep's. 
 Hon JOHN GAILLARD, 
 
 President of the Senate.
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 697 
 
 JANUARY, 1821.] 
 
 Case of Matthew Lyon. 
 
 [SENATK. 
 
 Lf THE HOUSE OF REP'S OF THE U. S. 
 
 January 6, 1821. 
 
 Rtsohed, That a message be sent to the Senate to 
 notify them of the death of John Linn, late a mem- 
 ber of this House from the State of New Jersey, and 
 that his funeral will take place this day at three 
 o'clock from the Hall of the House of Representa- 
 
 Attest, TH. DOUGHERTY, C. H. R, 
 
 On motion by Mr. DICKEBSON, 
 
 Resolved, unanimously, That the Senate, as a testi- 
 mony of respect for the memory of the Honorable 
 John Linn, late a member of the House of Represent- 
 atives from the State of New Jersey, will go into 
 mourning and wear a black crape round the left arm 
 for thirty days. 
 
 WEDNESDAY, January 10. 
 National Vaccine Institution. 
 
 The Senate proceeded to the consideration of 
 the bill from the House of Representatives to 
 incorporate the National Vaccine Institution, 
 
 On this bill there arose a short debate. 
 
 Messrs. ROBEBTS and TALBOT opposed the 
 bill on the ground that it was not necessary to 
 the object avowed, which could be easily ac- 
 complished without it ; that, if necessary, an 
 act of incorporation could be obtained from the 
 State of Maryland sufficient for all useful pur- 
 poses ; that the bill proposed to incorporate an 
 institution without limiting it to the District ; 
 that there were within the District so many 
 corporations that the number ought not to be 
 increased, unless under an urgent necessity, &c. 
 
 Messrs. HOBSET and LLOYD supported the 
 bill, on the ground of its importance to the 
 proper accomplishment of an object of great in- 
 terest to humanity, which could not be in any 
 other way so well accomplished. The same 
 explanation of the bill was substantially given 
 as was given of its merits when pending in the 
 House of Representatives. 
 
 Mr. ROBERTS had moved a general postpone- 
 ment of the bill; but, with a view to allow 
 gentlemen favorable to the bill to amend it, if 
 they desired, he withdrew his motion ; and, on 
 motion of Mr. LLOYD, the bill was postponed 
 to Monday next. 
 
 MONDAY, January 15. 
 Matthew Lyon. 
 
 The Senate then proceeded to consider the 
 report of the select committee on the petition 
 of Matthew Lyon, who prays to be indemnified 
 for the damages which were inflicted on him 
 tinder the former Sedition law. The report 
 concludes with the following resolutions : 
 
 Resolved, That so much of the act, entitled " An 
 act for the punishment of certain crimes against the 
 United States," approved the 14th July, 1798, as 
 pretends to prescribe and punish libels, is unconstitu- 
 tional. 
 
 Rrgolvea, That the fines collected under that act 
 ought to be restored to those from whom they were 
 
 exacted ; and that these resolutions be recommitted 
 to the committee who brought them in, with instruc- 
 tions to report a bill to that effect 
 
 The resolutions having been read, Mr. BAB- 
 BOUB rose in support of them, and spoke about 
 two hours ; when (not having finished his ar- 
 gument) he gave way for a motion to postpone 
 the subject until to-morrow ; which prevailed. 
 
 TUESDAY, January 16. 
 Matthew Lyon. 
 
 The Senate then resumed the consideration 
 of the report of the select committee on the 
 case of Matthew Lyon. 
 
 Mr. BABBOCB concluded the argument which 
 he left unfinished yesterday, in support of the 
 resolutions. 
 
 Mr. WALKEB, of Georgia, next rose and spoke 
 some time against the resolutions. 
 
 Mr. JOHNSON, of Kentucky, replied to Mr. 
 W., and advocated the resolutions. 
 
 THTJBSDAY, January 18. 
 Matthew Lyon. 
 
 The Senate then again proceeded to the, con- 
 sideration of the report of the select committee 
 in the case of Matthew Lyon. 
 
 Mr. OTIS rose, and, in a speech of considera- 
 ble length, delivered his views in opposition to 
 the report. 
 
 Mr. MACON followed, in a speech which oc- 
 cupied some . time in the delivery, in favor of 
 the report. 
 
 Mr. DAUA then spoke against it, and the Sen- 
 ate adjourned. 
 
 FBIDAY, January 19. 
 Matthew Lyon. 
 
 The Senate resumed the consideration of the 
 report of the select committee on the petition 
 of Matthew Lyon, together with the motion to 
 postpone the same indefinitely. 
 
 Mr. DICKEBSOX, of New Jersey, rose, and ex- 
 pressed himself as follows : 
 
 I regret that the merits or demerits of Mat- 
 thew Lyon should be called up in deciding a 
 principle, involving consequences much more 
 important than the character or sufferings of 
 any individual. I am aware that Matthew 
 Lyon is unpopular in Congress, but that want 
 of popularity should have no unfavorable effect 
 in fixing a principle in which the citizens of the 
 United States are deeply interested. We are 
 not to try the man ; we are to decide his cause, 
 which is one of general interest. Why, we are 
 triumphantly asked by the honorable gentle- 
 man from Georgia (Mr. WALKEB) has this ques- 
 tion been suffered to sleep for twenty years? 
 Why are its slumbers now disturbed? Fre- 
 quent attempts have been made to disturb its 
 slumbers, but in vain ; an attempt is now made, 
 but that gentleman seems resolved to perpetu- 
 ate those slumbers, by this motion for indefi-
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 Case of Matthew Lyon. 
 
 [JANUAHY, 1821. 
 
 nite postponement. Perhaps there have been 
 in Congress too many who believe, with that 
 gentleman, that no injury has been done to 
 Matthew Lyon ; who think that the eulogiums 
 which have been bestowed upon him, have 
 been a sufficient compensation for his suffer- 
 ings ; for eulogiums have been poured out upon 
 him in great profusion, from the time he be- 
 came an object of persecution. If he could be 
 paid for his sufferings in this way, he might be 
 overpaid ; and it may be thought that, upon a 
 fair reckoning, there may be found a balance 
 against Mr. Lyon, and that it would be but 
 fair that lie should suffer a little more ; but, 
 trust me, that honorable gentleman, who seems 
 to envy the happy estate of Mr. Lyon, would 
 not suffer what he did for all the eulogiums 
 which fame herself, with her hundred trum- 
 pets, could pour out upon him for the rest of 
 his life. 
 
 But why, says the honorable gentleman, is 
 this time, when our Treasury is empty, selected 
 for voting money to Mr. Lyon why was not 
 this done in the time of Mr. Jefferson's Admin- 
 istration, when we had an overflowing Treas- 
 ury and we were at a loss for the means of 
 disposing of the public money ? In the first 
 place, there was really not so much difficulty 
 in disposing of the public money as seems to 
 be imagined emptying the treasury was a 
 very simple business then, as we have found it 
 to be in later days. In the next place, a full 
 treasury was no good reason for paying Mr. 
 Lyon a thousand dollars then, any more than a 
 bare treasury is, for withholding it now. The 
 merits of the case do not depend on the state 
 of the treasury; if they did, those merits 
 would sometimes be very great, at other times 
 very small, but generally rather small. I trust, 
 however, in voting on this resolution, we shall 
 not stop to inquire how much money there may 
 be in the treasury; if we do, sure I am, the 
 gentleman's motion, the indefinite postpone- 
 ment, must prevail. 
 
 If the friends of the liberty of the press 
 have heretofore neglected to urge this subject 
 upon the consideration of Congress, let the re- 
 proach rest with them ; their apathy affords no 
 apology to us for refusing to act. If we have 
 been negligent, let us now redeem our charac- 
 ter. Those who consider the sedition act con- 
 stitutional, and called for by the circumstances 
 of the times, must consider this inquiry as al- 
 together unnecessary and improper and those 
 who believe that the act was unconstitutional 
 and oppressive, I fear, feel satisfied that much 
 good has resulted to themselves from the suf- 
 ferings of those who were fined and imprisoned 
 under that act and that the party with whom 
 it originated, not only failed to accomplish the 
 object they had in view, but in fact by this 
 very measure lost the power which it was in- 
 tended to perpetuate. Under such comfortable, 
 but selfish reflections, I fear we are disposed to 
 forget the victims of the law. 
 
 "We cannot but feel some reluctance at enter- 
 
 ing upon the investigation of a question, which, 
 by many, has long been considered at rest; 
 more especially when that question is calculated 
 to call up feelings that once painfully agitated 
 the public mind. Under such circumstances, a 
 love of ease will prevail, where a strong sense 
 of duty does not impel to action. 
 
 The present case, however, comes before us 
 in a way that demands, and must receive a se- 
 rious consideration. One of our citizens has 
 brought his claim before us in the usual form 
 of petition. The constitution, laws, and usage*, 
 by which this body is governed, make it im- 
 perative upon us to decide for or against the 
 petitioner; and whatever gentlemen may think, 
 as to the merits of the individual, his case in- 
 volves consequences of the highest importance, 
 such as cannot be decided but with great re- 
 sponsibility, a responsibility which I trust will 
 insure a correct decision. 
 
 Some who think the sedition act unconstitu- 
 tional may be of opinion that it is not necessa- 
 ry, nor even consistent with the dictates of 
 sound policy, after a lapse of twenty years, to 
 relieve the sufferers under that law. With 
 such it will remain to devise a better mode of 
 restoring and reviving, as far as it can be done 
 by Congress, the first article of the amend- 
 ments to the constitution, which was practically 
 suspended by the sedition act, and which may 
 be considered as null and void if the constitu- 
 tionality of the act shall now receive the sanc- 
 tion of Congress. 
 
 If it were known with absolute certainty 
 that a result, similar to that which attended 
 the passing of the sedition act, would inevita- 
 bly attend every similar attempt that part of 
 our constitution which respects the liberty of 
 the press would remain secure from further 
 violation. But, such a result is by no means 
 certain and we deceive ourselves if we sup- 
 pose that the rage and fury of party are no 
 more to prevail in this country. 
 
 Should an attempt hereafter be made to re- 
 vive the sedition law, constitutional objections 
 would have but little avail, as coming too late. 
 It would be said the sedition act of ninety- 
 eight was not repealed, although every effort 
 was made to procure its repeal, expressly on 
 constitutional grounds. It was suffered to ex- 
 pire by its own limitation. Its constitutional- 
 ity was sanctioned by two decisions of Con- 
 gress ; and those decisions corroborated by all 
 the force which the judiciary could give them. 
 
 If those who raised their voice from one ex- 
 tremity of the Union to the other against the 
 constitutionality of this act, when it was passed, 
 and when an attempt was made to repeal it, 
 will not now, when they have the power, make 
 an effort to repair the breach in the constitu- 
 tion, it will be yielding the point, and acknowl- 
 edging that all their clamor Avas raised to gain 
 power, which they did gain ; not to preserve 
 the constitution, which is left mutilated, with- 
 out an effort at reparation. And this prece- 
 dent, thus sanctioned by one party and acqui-
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 JANUARY, 1821.] 
 
 Case of Matthew Lyon. 
 
 [SENATE. 
 
 csced in by the other, will be considered as the 
 legislative and judicial construction of the con- 
 stitution ; and, by this process, the constitution 
 will practically be altered, and the liberty of 
 the press be as completely within the control 
 of Congress and the Judiciary of the United 
 States, as if the first amendment to the consti- 
 tution had declared Congress shall have power 
 to abridge the liberty of the press. 
 
 For my part, I have never doubted that the 
 sedition act, so far as it respects the printing 
 and publishing of libels, was a direct, open, and 
 unequivocal breach of the constitution. And, 
 although I do not hold the United States re- 
 sponsible for all the losses sustained under that 
 act, I would not willingly retain in our treasury 
 a single dollar of the money iniquitously ac- 
 quired under it. The whole forms but a small 
 sum, but if it were large, it should be returned 
 to those from whom it was tat en. I should 
 not stop to inquire whether it was a thousand 
 or a hundred thousand dollars. 
 
 To ascertain how far this act was an abridg- 
 ment of the liberty of the press, let us examine 
 a little further into its practical operation. It 
 is unnecessary to add any thing to what has al- 
 ready been said upon the trial of Matthew Lyon. 
 The trial of Thomas Cooper, in 1800, in the 
 Circuit Court of the United States, for the 
 Pennsylvania District, will furnish a complete 
 illustration of the views of those who made, 
 and of those who administered this law. 
 
 I select this case because I was a witness of 
 the whole trial: a trial which, at the time, 
 filled my mind with horror and indignation. I 
 saw a man whom it was my pride then, as it is 
 now, to call my friend ; a man of the most hon- 
 orable feelings ; a man whose name is identified 
 with science and literature ; the constant study 
 of whose life it has been to render himself use- 
 ful to his fellow beings ; I saw this man dragged 
 before a criminal court, arraigned, tried, and 
 punished, for publishing words which nothing 
 but the violence and blindness of party rage 
 could have construed into crime. In the year 
 '97 Mr. Cooper had asked of the President, Mr. 
 Adams, to be appointed an agent for American 
 claims; the request was made through Dr. 
 Priestley directly to Mr. Adams, with a frank- 
 ness warranted on the part of the Doctor by the 
 intimacy which had long existed between them. 
 As the application was thus personal, it was 
 supposed to be confidential. It was unsuccess- 
 ful, and there it should have rested. But, by 
 some means never explained, two years after- 
 wards this application was made public, and 
 afforded the editor of a paper in Reading, an 
 opportunity of inserting a scurrilous paragraph 
 against Mr. Cooper. Irritated at being thus 
 held up as a subject of ridicule, Mr. Cooper, in 
 justification of his own conduct, published the 
 address for which ho was indicted. The words 
 contained in the indictment, stripped of the in- 
 uendoes, are the following : 
 
 " Nor do I see any impropriety in making this re- 
 
 quest of Mr. Adams ; at that time he had just en- 
 tered into office ; he was hardly in the infancy of 
 political mistake ; even those who doubted of his 
 capacity, thought well of his intentions. Nor were 
 we yet saddled with the expense of a permanent 
 navy, or threatened, under his auspices, with the ex- 
 istence of a standing army. Our credit was not yet 
 reduced quite so low as to borrow money at eight per 
 cent, in time of peace, while the unnecessary violence 
 of official expressions might justly have provoked a 
 war. Mr. Adams had not yet projected his embassies 
 to Prussia, Russia, and the Sublime Porte ; nor had 
 he yet interfered, as President of the United States, 
 to influence the decisions of a court of justice ; a 
 stretch of authority which the monarch of Great 
 Britain would have shrunk from ; an interference 
 without precedent, against law, and against mercy ! 
 The melancholy case of Jonathan Robbins, a native 
 citizen of America, forcibly impressed by the British, 
 and delivered up, with the advice of Mr. Adams, to 
 the mock trial of a British court-martial, had not yet 
 astonished the republican citizens of this free coun- 
 try ; a case too little known, but which the people 
 ought to be fully apprised of before the election, and 
 they shall be." 
 
 I have the highest veneration for the exalted 
 statesman and revolutionary patriot against 
 whom this censure was levelled ; but he was 
 not infallible much less so were those around 
 him, by whose advice, at this particular period, 
 he Avas too much influenced. But, however ex- 
 alted his station, he had accepted it with a full 
 knowledge that it was the disposition and prac- 
 tice, and a salutary one too, in this country, to 
 examine and censure, with great freedom, the 
 conduct of those in power. To be censured 
 freely, and sometimes unjustly, is a tax which 
 every one must pay who holds the highest 
 station in our Government. Laws which should 
 completely prevent this, would as completely 
 prostrate the liberties of the people. 
 
 However much Mr. Adams might have been 
 hurt at the asperity of the language applied to 
 him, I am confident he never intimated a wish 
 in favor of a prosecution. Most probably this 
 took place in consequence of the advice of those 
 who advised that Robbins should be given up. 
 About this time Mr. Adams thought proper to 
 repress the zeal of his political friends by par- 
 doning Fries, who had been guilty of a misde- 
 meanor, but was convicted of treason, and by 
 other acts evincing a disposition to pursue a 
 more moderate system than that which had 
 prevailed for two preceding years. It will also 
 be remembered, that, not long after this period, 
 he dismissed some of his advisers, in whom he 
 had probably placed too much confidence. 
 
 At the present time of good feelings it seems 
 incredible, that what Mr. Cooper said of the ex- 
 penses of a permanent navy of the standing 
 army the eight per cent, loan, and the pro- 
 jected embassies to Prussia, Russia, and the 
 Sublime Porte, should have been considered as 
 the subject of indictment. What was said as to 
 the case of Jonathan Robbins, otherwise called 
 Thomas Nash, was of a more serious character, 
 and should have been answered, if it could have
 
 700 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 Case of Matthew Lyon. 
 
 [JANUARY, 1821. 
 
 been answered, by a true history of that trans- 
 action not by punishing Mr. Cooper ; for, if 
 this interference on the part of the President, 
 was without precedent against law and against 
 mercy, fining and imprisoning Mr. Cooper could 
 not make it otherwise. 
 
 The friends of the sedition act say that Con- 
 gress were authorized to pass it, as a law neces- 
 sary and proper for carrying into effect the 
 powers vested by the constitution in the Gov- 
 ernment, under the 8th section of the 1st arti- 
 cle of the constitution. 
 
 This part of the constitution is very elastic, 
 and some gentleman discovered that under it 
 Congress may do what they please, by simply 
 making the word necessary mean convenient. 
 But I cannot imagine what power vested by the 
 constitution in the Government it was necessary 
 to carry into effect by the sedition act. That 
 no such necessity as is alleged did exist is evi- 
 dent from this circumstance, that the Govern- 
 ment went on very well before that act passed, 
 and quite as well since it has expired. How- 
 ever convenient, therefore, the law might have 
 been, it certainly was not necessary. If it was 
 necessary in the meaning of the constitution, it 
 was indispensably necessary not partly neces- 
 sary. If necessary then, it must be necessary 
 now, and Congress must of course be neglecting 
 their duty in not reviving that law. 
 
 We are now in effect to declare this act to 
 have been constitutional or unconstitutional. 
 If we do the latter, we correct not the errors of 
 the court, but of Congress. If the law was not 
 constitutional when passed, the decisions of the 
 court could not make it so. Probably the court 
 did not think that a question for them to decide. 
 The act was a legislative construction of the 
 constitution expressly. It was opposed and 
 supported on constitutional grounds, and is a 
 declaration of the three branches of the Legis- 
 lature of the meaning of the constitution in this 
 particular. And it is not yet ascertained that, 
 in construing the constitution, Congress is sub- 
 ordinate to the Judiciary. Probably the first 
 decisive experiment upon this subject will prove 
 the contrary. 
 
 I do not think it necessary to search for pre- 
 cedents to justify us in the measure now pro- 
 posed. If we have no precedent let us make 
 one that may be a memento to dominant par- 
 ties not to abuse their power. But if prece- 
 dents were necessary, we may find enough in 
 the history of England, not in that of our own 
 country ; for, fortunately for us, our history af- 
 fords but a few instances of the abuse of power. 
 For such precedents we need not go back to the 
 heavy time of York and Lancaster, when the 
 triumphant party constantly reversed all that 
 had been done by the party subdued. We may 
 look into a later period, when the Stuarts and 
 their immediate successors were upon the 
 throne, when the principles of liberty were 
 much better understood than practised. 
 
 The attainder of the Earl of Stafford, who 
 had been treacherously given up by a cowardly 
 
 King to the indignation of Parliament, was re- 
 versed. 
 
 The attainders against Algernon Sidney and 
 against Lord Russell were reversed. 
 
 The attainder against Alderman Cornish was 
 reversed, as also that against Lady Lisle, and 
 many others. In these cases, it is true, the 
 Parliament only reversed their own proceed- 
 ings. But they sometimes reversed the pro- 
 ceedings of other courts, as in the case of Bast- 
 wick, Burton, and Prynne, who were tried in 
 the court of Star Chamber, for libels, and sen- 
 tenced to lose their ears, to pay a fine of five 
 thousand pounds each, and to be imprisoned for 
 life. This is a very strong case, and in point ; 
 for the Parliament not only reversed the sen- 
 tence, but remitted the fine, and ordered satis- 
 faction for damages to the parties injured. 
 
 I must ask the indulgence of the Senate while 
 I read a few passages from the proceedings in 
 this extraordinary case. I shall read them for 
 the edification of those who are, who have 
 been, or who hereafter may be, in favor of a 
 sedition act. 
 
 Dr. Bastwick, Mr. Burton, and Mr. Prynne, 
 had written some religious books, in which 
 were contained some reflections on the Bish- 
 ops, which were deemed libellous. Mr. Prynne, 
 three years before this time, had written a book 
 in which he censured stage plays, music, and 
 dancing, for which he was punished by the loss 
 of his ears. " Between eight and nine o'clock 
 in the morning, the fourteenth of June, [1637,] 
 the Lords being set in their places, in the said 
 court of Star Chamber, and casting their eyes 
 at the prisoners, then at the bar, Sir John 
 Finch, Chief Justice of the Common Plea?, be- 
 gan to speak after this manner.* 
 
 " I bad thought Mr. Prynne had no ears, but me- 
 tbinks be hath ears; which caused many of the 
 Lords to take a stricter view of him ; and, for tbeir 
 better satisfaction, the usher of the court was com- 
 manded to turn up his hair and show his ears ; upon 
 the sight whereof, the Lords were displeased tbat 
 they had been formerly no more cut off, and cast out 
 some disgraceful words of him. 
 
 " To which Mr. Prynne replied, My Lords, there 
 is never a one of your honors but would be sorry to 
 have your ears as mine are. 
 
 " The Lord Keeper replied again, In good faith, he 
 is somewhat saucy. 
 
 "I hope, said Mr. Prynne, your honors will not be 
 offended ; I pray God to give you ears to hear. 
 
 " The business of the day, said the Lord Keeper, is 
 to proceed on the prisoner at the bar. 
 
 "Mr. Prynne then bumbly desired the court to 
 give him leave to make a motion or two; which 
 being granted, he moves : 
 
 " First, that their honors would be pleased to ac- 
 cept of a cross bill against the prelates, signed with 
 their own hands, being that which stands with the 
 justice of the court, which be bumbly craved, and so 
 tendered it. 
 
 " Lord Keeper. As for your cross bill, it is not the 
 business of the day ; hereafter, if the court should see 
 
 Harleian Miscellany, vol. 4, p. 220.
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 701 
 
 JANCARY, 1821.] 
 
 Sedition Law Matthew Lyon. 
 
 [SENATE. 
 
 just cause, and that it savors not of libelling, we may 
 accept of it ; for my part, I have not seen it, but have 
 heard somewhat of it. 
 
 " Mr. Prynne. I hope your honors will not refuse 
 it, being, as it is, on His Majesty's behalf. "We are 
 His Majesty's subjects, and therefore require the jus- 
 tice of the court. 
 
 " Lord JKeeper. But this is not the business of the 
 day. 
 
 "J/r. Prynne. Why then, my Lords, I have a 
 second motion, which I humbly pray your honors to 
 grant, which is, that your Lordships will please to 
 dismiss the prelates, here now sitting, from having 
 any voice in the censure of this cause, being general- 
 ly known to be adversaries, as being no way agree- 
 able with equity or reason, that they who are our ad- 
 versaries should be our judges ; therefore I humbly 
 crave they may be expunged out of the court. 
 
 " Lord Keeper. In good faith it is a sweet motion ; 
 is it not? Herein you are become libellous ; and if 
 you should thus libel all the Lords and reverend 
 judges as you do the reverend prelates, by this your 
 plea, you would have none to pass sentence upon you 
 for your libelling, because they are parties." 
 
 The -whole trial is very interesting. I pro- 
 ceed to the sentence. 
 
 " Thus the prisoners, desiring to speak a little more 
 for themselves, were commanded to silence. And so 
 the Lords proceed to censure. 
 
 " The Lord Cettington's censure : I condemn 
 these three men to lose their ears, in the palace yard 
 at Westminster, to be fined five thousand pounds a 
 man to His Majesty, and to perpetual imprisonment, 
 in three remote places in the kingdom, namely, the 
 castles of Caernarvon, Cornwall, and Lancaster. 
 
 " The Lord Finch addeth to this censure : 
 
 " Mr. Prynne to be stigmatized in the cheeks with 
 two letters, S. and L, for seditious libeller. To 
 which all the Lords agreed." 
 
 I omit what is said of the punishment of Dr. 
 Bast wick and Mr. Burton, which was inflicted 
 with great cruelty, but that of Mr. Prynne de- 
 serves a particular notice : 
 
 " Now the executioner being come to sear him and 
 cut off his ears, Mr. Prynne said these words to him : 
 Come, friend, come burn me, cut me ; I fear not ; I 
 have learned to fear the fire of hell, and not what 
 man can do unto me. Come, sear me, sear me ; I 
 shall bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus ; 
 which the bloody executioner performed with extra- 
 ordinary cruelty, heating his iron twice to burn one 
 cheek, and cut one of his ears so close that he cut off 
 a piece of his cheek. At which exquisite torture he 
 never moved with his body, or as much as changed 
 his countenance, but still looked up as well as he 
 could towards Heaven, with a smiling countenance, 
 even to the astonishment of all the beholders, and ut- 
 tering, as soon as the executioner had done, this heav- 
 enly sentence : The more I am beaten down, the more 
 I am lift up." 
 
 "What protection was afforded to these 
 wretched men by the common law, the law in 
 which they lived, and moved, and had their 
 being ? 
 
 The honorable gentleman from Georgia ad- 
 monishes us not to destroy the independence of 
 the judiciary, the bulwark of the liberties of the 
 
 people. We shall not, in the measure now pro- 
 posed, in the slightest degree, interfere with 
 the independence of the judiciary. It must be 
 a matter of indifference to them what we do 
 with the sedition act ; it cannot affect their 
 emoluments. I have understood that the inde- 
 pendency of the judiciary was regulated by the 
 greater or less permanency in the tenure of 
 their office, and the greater or less certainty in 
 the payment of their fixed salaries. 
 
 But I must beg leave to differ from the hon- 
 orable gentleman when he informs us that our 
 independent judiciary is the bulwark of the 
 liberties of the people. By which he must 
 mean, defenders of the people against the op- 
 pressions of the Government. From what I 
 witnessed in the years 1798, 1799, and 1800, I 
 never shall, I never can, consider our judiciary 
 as the bulwark of the liberties of the people. 
 The people must look out for other bulwarks 
 for their liberties. I have the most profound 
 respect for the learning, talents, and integrity 
 of the honorable judges who fill our Federal 
 bench. But, if those who carried into effect 
 the sedition act are to be called the people's de- 
 fenders, it must be for nearly the same reason 
 that the Fates were called Parcce quia non 
 parcebant. It would be a subject of curious 
 investigation, how far the judiciary, from the 
 earliest times to the present, have been the de- 
 fenders of the people's liberties against the op- 
 pressions of Government ; how much their zeal 
 has been increased or diminished by the cer- 
 tainty or uncertainty in the tenure of office ; 
 how far by an increase or diminution of salary ; 
 how much it has been affected by a fear of loss 
 of office or salary on one side, or the hope of 
 further promotion or increase of salary on the 
 other. But such speculations at present are 
 unnecessary. 
 
 Mr. MORE ILL spoke at length against the reso- 
 lutions. 
 
 Mr. ROBERTS spoke in favor of the resolutions. 
 
 Mr. DANA replied to Mr. R. and others, and 
 the Senate adjourned. 
 
 SATUEDAY, January 20. 
 The PRESIDENT communicated a letter from 
 the Secretary of the Navy, transmitting, for the 
 use of the members of the Senate, sixty copies 
 of the Naval Register for the year 1821 ; and 
 the letter was read. 
 
 Sedition Law Matthew Lyon. 
 
 The Senate then resumed the consideration 
 of the resolutions declaring the late sedition law 
 unconstitutional, and to indemnify those who 
 suffered damages under it the motion of Mr. 
 WALKER, of Georgia, made some days ago, to 
 postpone the resolutions indefinitely, being still 
 under consideration. 
 
 .Mr. BARBOUR again addressed the Senate in 
 support of the resolutions, and in reply to their 
 opponents. 
 
 Mr. SMITH also again spoke in reply to Mr.
 
 702 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 Virginia Military Lands. 
 
 [JANUARY, 1821. 
 
 BAKBOUK and others who advocated the resolu- 
 tions. 
 
 Mr. MACON likewise spoke again in support 
 of the resolutions, and in defence of the opin- 
 ions he had previously advanced. 
 
 Mr. HOLMES, of Maine, spoke at length against 
 postponing the resolutions, though he preferred 
 legislating for the particular case of Matthew 
 Lyon. 
 
 Mr. WALKKE, of Georgia, spoke again to vin- 
 dicate his opposition to these resolutions. 
 
 The question was then taken on the indefinite 
 postponement of the resolutions, and was de- 
 cided in the affirmative, as follows : 
 
 YEAS. Messrs. Chandler, Dana, Eaton, Elliott, 
 Gaillard, Horsey, Hunter, Johnson of Louisiana, King 
 of New York, Lanman, Lloyd, Mills, Morrill, Noble, 
 Otis, Palmer, Parrott, Pinkney, Smith, Taylor, Tich- 
 enor, Van Dyke, Walker of Georgia, and Williams of 
 Tennessee 24. 
 
 NATS. Messrs. Barbour, Brown, Dickerson, 
 
 Holmes of Maine, Holmes of Mississippi, Johnson of 
 Kentucky, King of Alabama, Lowrie, Macon, Pleas- 
 ants, Roberts, Ruggles, Sanford, Stokes, Talbot, 
 Thomas, Trimble, Walker of Alabama, and Williams 
 of Mississippi 19. 
 
 So the report and resolutions were rejected. 
 
 Mr. BAEBOUB then gave notice that he should 
 on Monday ask leave to bring in a bill for the 
 relief of Matthew Lyon. 
 
 THURSDAY, January 25. 
 National Vaccine Institution. 
 
 The Senate next took up the bill from the 
 other House to incorporate the Managers of the 
 National Vaccine Institution. 
 
 Mr. LLOYD moved so to amend the bill as to 
 reserve to Congress the power at any time to 
 repeal the act, and to give it duration until 
 Congress should so repeal it instead of incor- 
 porating it unconditionally and positively for 
 the term of thirty years, as the bill stood. Mr. 
 L. also adverted to the anticipated utility of the 
 institution, and to some of the reasons in its 
 support. 
 
 After some debate between Mr. ROBERTS 
 (who was opposed to the bill altogether, and 
 not satisfied with the proposed amendment) 
 and Mr. LLOYD, the amendment was adopted. 
 
 On the motion also of Mr. LLOYD, the bill 
 was further so amended as to require from the 
 President of the Institution on oath an annual 
 report of their property, funds, receipts, expen- 
 ditures, &c., to the Secretary of the Treasury, 
 and by him to be kid before Congress. 
 
 On motion of Mr. LLOYD, several other 
 amendments were made to the details of the 
 bill amongst them, an obligation on the man- 
 agers to provide for the vaccination of indigent 
 persons, free of any charge. Mr. L. having 
 gone through the bill, 
 
 Mr. ROBERTS entered into a very general re- 
 view of the provisions of the bill, to show their 
 inadequacy to the objects contemplated by the 
 friends of the measure, as well as their objec- 
 
 tionable character in some respects ; and having 
 some doubts of the constitutionality of the bill 
 in its present shape, which question, however, 
 he did not discuss. 
 
 Mr. LLOYD rose to reply to Mr. R., when, on 
 motion of Mr. TALBOT, the bill was laid on the 
 table. 
 
 FEIDAY, January 26. 
 Virginia Military Lands. 
 
 The bill from the other House for extending 
 the time for locating Virginia military land 
 warrants (for two years longer) was taken up 
 in Committee of the Whole. 
 
 This subject gave rise, as usual when under 
 consideration heretofore, to a good deal of dis- 
 cussion. 
 
 Mr. THOMAS briefly explained to the Senate 
 the considerations in favor of extending the in- 
 dulgence proposed by the bill. 
 
 Mr. KING, of New York, thought it was time 
 that something explicit was done, as to the time 
 when this subject should be closed, and some 
 report made of the lands located, and those 
 which remained for the disposal of the United 
 States, &c. He gave a brief narrative of the 
 circumstances which produced the reservation 
 by Virginia, of the country between the Sciota 
 and Little Miami, for satisfying her military 
 land warrants. The body of land in Ohio, re- 
 served by Virginia for this purpose, was of 
 great extent, and the surplus belonged as much 
 to the United States as any other land in that 
 State ; and it was time, he thought, that some- 
 thing was done to show what quantity was left 
 how this matter stood and to begin to think 
 of some termination to this long-standing sub- 
 ject. Instead of passing this bill with an ex- 
 tension of two or three years, he would give 
 but one year, with an understanding that it 
 would not be extended longer, unless some ex- 
 planation should be given to justify it. 
 
 Mr. BARBOUR entered into a history of the 
 subject, to show the difficulties which had im- 
 peded a final adjustment of this whole subject. 
 He adverted to the cession made by Virginia to 
 the Union, of all her immense northwestern 
 possessions, presumed then to extend to the 
 Pacific Ocean, out of which territory she had 
 reserved a tract for satisfying the pledge she 
 had given to her Revolutionary officers and 
 soldiers. This pledge was made as well to 
 those of the State line as of the Continental 
 line, but in the contract of cession and reserva- 
 tion, by some unknown means, the word State 
 was omitted, and the Congress of the United 
 States had taken advantage of this omission, in 
 the face of the most conclusive circumstances, 
 even its recognition of the principle, in one of 
 the articles, to reject all applications to satisfy 
 warrants of the State line. Mr. B. animadvert- 
 ed on this conduct, which he would not charac- 
 terize by the epithet which would be applied to 
 j it in private life. Leaving this part of tlie sub- 
 j ject Mr. B. argued to show that most of the
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 703 
 
 FEBRUARY, 
 
 Commodore Tucker, 
 
 [SENATE. 
 
 persons originally possessing these unlocated 
 titles, being scattered far and wide, were either 
 ignorant, or their descendants or heirs were ig- 
 norant, of their title ; many of these were or- 
 phans, who would sooner or later learn their 
 right and claim it; that it would be cruel and 
 unjust to foreclose them, &c., and he defended 
 the bill as it stood. 
 
 Mr. RUGGLES, of Ohio, moved to strike out 
 t ico years, and insert one year as the time of 
 extension. He argued that those lands which 
 were not taken up by the warrants remained 
 unsettled, and that the further extension of in- 
 dulgence operated to prevent the populating of 
 the country in question ; that there ought to be 
 some limit established to this indulgence, and 
 he thought one year more would enable Con- 
 gress to judge when this limit could be fixed, 
 and a termination be put to this drawback on 
 the settlement of the country. 
 
 The motion was opposed by Messrs. BARBOTJR, 
 TALBOT, and THIMBLE ; and it was negatived 
 without a division. 
 
 The bill was then reported to the Senate, and 
 ordered to a third reading. 
 
 WEDNESDAY, February 6. 
 Commodore Tucker. 
 
 The Senate then again took up the bill for 
 the relief of Commodore Samuel Tucker, au- 
 thorizing him to be placed on the list of invalid 
 pensioners, at $50 a month ; on which bill a 
 long and wide debate took place. 
 
 Mr. SMITH opposed this bill on principle ; ad- 
 mitting the merits of Captain T., but arguing 
 that, if really an invalid and unable to maintain 
 himself, there was already provision made by 
 law to embrace his case and afford relief ; that, 
 if not an invalid, this bill ought not to pass, the 
 system of pensioning for public services merely 
 being bad in itself, and still worse in its tenden- 
 cy. Mr. S. also went into an examination of 
 the circumstances alleged in the case of the ap- 
 plicant, to show that they did not justify the 
 passage of the bill ; that the applicant had been 
 already, long since, uncommonly well provided 
 for by the public, to support which he referred 
 to resolves of Congress, &c. ; that, affording 
 this gratuitous relief to the applicant, would be 
 treading on the rights of thousands of other 
 citizens equally meritorious, &c. 
 
 Mr. HOLMES, of Maine, replied to Mr. S., and 
 submitted a number of arguments, in addition 
 to those which he used when the bill was be- 
 fore under consideration, in support of it ; re- 
 ferring to the long and singularly successful 
 services, and the highly gallant conduct of Com- 
 modore T. during the Revolutionary war, and 
 his present reduced circumstances and great 
 age, to establish the justice of granting him a 
 maintenance out of the navy pension fund ; that 
 fund being expressly pledged to afford relief in 
 such cases as the present. 
 
 Mr. SMITH replied, and contended that this 
 very pension fund was intended to provide for 
 
 disabled seamen, and not for those who were 
 not disabled ; that Commodore T. did not come 
 within the description, and therefore was not 
 entitled to be distinguished from all the other 
 honorable and brave men who have grown old 
 since they signalized themselves in the Revolu- 
 tion. He argued also, (in reply to a remark of 
 Mr. WALKEB, of Georgia, the other day,) that 
 the statute of limitations was a just law, as well 
 as a wise and prudent one. 
 
 Mr. CHAXDLEB made a remark or two in re- 
 ply to Mr. SMITH. 
 
 Mr. KIXG, of New York, placed this case on 
 a footing with a few others of the Revolutionary 
 class, particularly that of General Stark, for 
 whom a bill passed at a recent session. He 
 adverted to some of the prominent features of 
 Commodore T.'s Revolutionary services, and 
 contended that it was not just or equitable that 
 a veteran of the Revolution such as he, in want 
 now of the means of support, should ask relief 
 in vain. There was no danger, he argued, from 
 such a course ; for, however natural the preju- 
 dices in this country which existed against the 
 pension system, they arose from the abuses 
 practised in Great Britain, where pensions were 
 lavished by the Crown upon favorites of every 
 kind, often without regard to public services or 
 private virtues. There was no danger of such 
 an abuse in this country. The justice of mili- 
 tary pensions had been settled in this country; 
 it was a power delegated to the Government by 
 the constitution ; and there was no risk of its 
 abuse in a Government constituted as ours, as 
 the people, holding the corrective, would always 
 apply a remedy if the practice was ever carried 
 beyond its just and proper limits. 
 
 Mr. SMITH, after subjoining a few remarks, 
 moved to postpone the bill indefinitely. 
 
 Mr. MACOX observed, that nothing would be 
 more curious than a history of the pensions of 
 this country ; the practice was constantly get- 
 ting wider and wider; but it had been well 
 said, the history of the country was lost. He 
 referred to the circumstances of the first pen- 
 sions and those granted since, to show the regu- 
 lar extension of the principle beyond the limits 
 at first deemed right, A rule was always found 
 for a new case, and the case gave rise to a new 
 rule, so that the principle was constantly stretch- 
 ing. He was opposed to this course, and ar- 
 gued briefly against it. 
 
 Mr. DANA spoke to show that there was no 
 principle opposed to the case of Commodore T n 
 and that the relief ought to be granted, as it might 
 be done without danger of exceeding the just 
 limits to which Congress were authorized to go 
 by the spirit and principles of our Government. 
 
 Mr. ROBERTS opposed this pension on princi- 
 ple, for the same reasons that he opposed the 
 pension of General Stark. He observed, that 
 if pensions were granted for military services, 
 without disability, it was not far removed, and 
 would not long be distinguished from civil pen- 
 sions, which would probably follow; and ar- 
 gued to show the evil tendency of authorizing
 
 704 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 Election of President. 
 
 [FKBRUAEY. 1821. 
 
 pensions in cases like the present, which could 
 not justly be distinguished from a civil pension. 
 
 Mr. PLEAS ANTS stated the ground on which 
 the Naval Committee reported the bill, which 
 was intended to give Commodore T. the amount 
 of half-pay for a certain period, to which he 
 was strictly entitled ; to show which Mr. P. 
 adduced the facts of the case. 
 
 Mr. OTIS maintained that the case of Commo- 
 dore T. entitled him, strictly, to avail himself 
 of the benefits of the navy pension fund ; that 
 the bill called for no new grant of money out 
 of the Treasury ; that it violated no principle ; 
 and that it did not become a magnanimous 
 legislature to withhold this boon from him, to 
 which he was so signally entitled injustice and 
 gratitude. 
 
 Messrs. SMITH and MAOOUT added a few re- 
 marks, and Mr. WALKER, of Georgia, also a few, 
 in addition to what he had said the other day 
 in support of the claim, declining to go again 
 at large into the case, as it had been so ably 
 supported. 
 
 The motion to postpone the bill indefinitely 
 was negatived yeas 13, nays 24. 
 
 After an unsuccessful attempt of Mr. ROBERTS 
 to reduce the proposed allowance to $20 a 
 month, the bill was ordered to be engrossed for 
 a third reading. 
 
 TUESDAY, February 6. 
 
 Mr. BARBOUR submitted the following motion 
 for consideration : 
 
 Resolved, That a committee be appointed, to join 
 such committee as may be appointed by the House 
 of Representatives, to ascertain and report a mode of 
 examining the votes for President and Vice Presi- 
 dent of the United States, and of notifying the per- 
 sons elected of their election. 
 
 FRIDAY, February 9. 
 Punishment of Piracy. 
 Mr. SMITH, from the Committee on the Judi- 
 ciary, to whom was referred the resolution of 
 the 4th of December, " to inquire into the pro- 
 priety of so modifying the law punishing piracy 
 as to authorize the President of the United 
 States, in such cases as he may deem expedient, 
 to commute capital punishments for confinement 
 in penitentiary houses," reported that it is inex- 
 pedient to make the modification suggested ; and 
 the report was read. It is as follows : 
 
 The object of the resolution is to alter the criminal 
 code of the United States so far as to place within 
 the power of the President of the United States the 
 complete control over the punishment now affixed by 
 law to the crime of piracy, and to soften it down 
 from death to the less rigorous punishment of con- 
 finement in penitentiary houses. 
 
 In the catalogue of human offences, if there is any 
 one supremely distinguished for its enormity over 
 others, it is piracy. It can only be committed by 
 those whose hearts have become base by hal.-itual de 
 pravity. It is called by jurists an offence against the 
 
 universal laws of society. A pirate is hostis hwnam 
 generis. He is at war with his species, and has re- 
 nounced the protection of all civilized Governments, 
 and abandoned himself again to the savage state of 
 nature. His flag consists of a "black field, with a 
 death's head, a battle-axe, and an hour-glass." Theee 
 are the ensigns of his profession. He does not select 
 the enemies of his native country as the only objects 
 of his conquest, but attacks indiscriminately the de- 
 fenceless of every nation; prowls every ocean in 
 quest of plunder ; and murders or jeopardizes the 
 lives of all who fall within his power, without regard 
 to nation, to agt>, or to sex. With such a blood- 
 stained front, a pirate can have no claim to the clem- 
 ency of a Government, the protection of which he has 
 voluntarily renounced, and against which he has so 
 highly offended. 
 
 The Executive clemency has more than sufficient 
 range for its exercise, without the aid sought for by 
 this resolution. Whatever may be the public feeling 
 against a pirate previous to his trial and conviction, 
 as soon as that takes place that feeling subsides and 
 becomes enlisted on the part of the criminal. There 
 is not a favorable trait in his case but what is brought 
 up and mingled with as many circumstances of pity 
 and compassion as his counsel can condense in a pe- 
 tition, which everybody subscribes without any knowl- 
 edge of the facts ; and this is presented to the Execu- 
 tive, upon which alone he is to judge the case. All 
 the atrocious circumstances are kept out of view. 
 There is no one hardy enough to tell that this crimi- 
 nal and his associates had boarded a defenceless ship, 
 and, after plundering all that was valuable, had, with 
 the most unrelenting cruelty, butchered the whole 
 crew and passengers ; or crowded them into a small 
 boat, in the midst of the sea, without provisions or 
 clothing, and set them adrift, where their destruction 
 was inevitable ; or, the better to secure their pur- 
 pose, had shut all, both male and female, under deck, 
 and sunk the ship, to elude detection, or to indulge 
 an insatiable thirst for cruelty. 
 
 The object of capital punishment is to prevent the 
 offender from committing further offences, or to de- 
 ter others from doing so by the example. If it be 
 commuted for temporary confinement, it can effect 
 neither to any valuable purpose. The temptation is 
 so strong, and detection so difficult and so rare, that 
 but few, it is feared, can be deterred. The punish- 
 ment of death is inflicted upon pirates by all civilized 
 nations, notwithstanding which it is a growing evil ; 
 every sea is now crowded with them, which, instead 
 of diminishing, ought to increase the reasons for in- 
 flicting capital punishment 
 
 The committee are of opinion that capital punish- 
 ment is the appropriate punishment for piracy, and 
 that it would be inexpedient to commute it for con- 
 finement in penitentiary houses. 
 
 Election of President. 
 
 Mr. BARBOTTR then, from the joint select com- 
 mittee appointed on the subject, reported the 
 following resolutions: 
 
 Resolved, That the two Houses shall assemble in 
 the Chamber of the House of Representatives on 
 Wednesday next, at 12 o'clock, and the President of 
 the Senate shall be the presiding officer ; that one 
 person be appointed a Teller on the part of the Sen- 
 ,te, to make a list of the votes as they shall be de- 
 .lared ; that the result shall be delivered to the Pres- 
 ident of the Senate, who shall announce the state of
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 705 
 
 FEBRUARY, 1821.] 
 
 Electoral Votes for President. 
 
 [SENATE. 
 
 the vote, and the person elected, to the two Houses 
 assembled as aforesaid ; which shall be deemed a 
 declaration of the persons elected President and Vice 
 President of the United States, and, together with the 
 list of the votes, be entered on the Journals of the two 
 Houses. 
 
 Resolved, That if any objection be made to the 
 vote of Missouri, and the counting or omitting to 
 count which shall not essentially change the result 
 of the election ; in that case they shall be reported by 
 the President of the Senate in the following manner : 
 Were the votes of Missouri to be counted, the result 
 would be for A. B., President of the United States, 
 
 votes ; if not counted, for A. B., as President of 
 
 the United States, votes ; but, in either event, 
 
 A. B. is elected President of the United States ; and 
 in the same manner for Vice President. 
 
 Mr. BARBOTTR explained, in detail, the reasons 
 which influenced the committee in adopting the 
 resolutions which it recommended. 
 
 Mr. KING, of New York, spoke in particular 
 reference to what he deemed the correct course 
 of proceeding in joint meetings ; thinking it 
 consistent with the constitution, and with pro- 
 priety, that the House should come to the Sen- 
 ate, if the apartment had not rendered it incon- 
 venient ; and that, when a convenient plan 
 should he completed for joint meetings, he 
 hoped the practice heretofore prevailing would 
 not be considered in the light of a precedent, 
 but that they should repair thither, and the 
 President of the Senate preside in the joint 
 meeting, &c. 
 
 Mr. MACON offered some remarks, explanatory 
 of the views of the committee on the points be- 
 fore them some thinking the votes of Missouri 
 ought to be received and counted, and others 
 that they ought to be rejected ; that they had 
 agreed on the second resolution as the most 
 likely course to reconcile any difficulty. As to 
 the place of meeting, the Chamber of the Sen- 
 ate would have been recommended, (he was 
 understood to say,) but for the reason that it 
 could not accommodate comfortably the two 
 Houses. 
 
 The question being put on the first resolution, 
 it was agreed to, nem. con. 
 
 On the second resolution a long debate took 
 place. It was opposed by Messrs. SMITH, TAL- 
 BOT, WILLIAMS, of Tennessee, and LANMAN, on 
 various grounds; principally, for the reasons 
 that it was not competent in the Senate to de- 
 cide such a question in anticipation ; that the 
 proper time to consider and settle it was the 
 day appointed by the constitution ; that the 
 two Houses would not be bound to-morrow by 
 this report ; that it was useless to touch the 
 question now, whether Missouri was a State or 
 not, or had a right to vote ; that her votes could 
 not be legally known now, &c. 
 
 The resolution was defended by Messrs. BAR- 
 BOUB, OTIS, and JOHNSON, of Kentucky, on the 
 grounds that, as the question would certainly 
 vise to-morrow in joint meeting, it was much 
 better to adjust it now, and prevent all difficulty 
 or trouble ; that was wrong to allow the pleas- 
 Vou VI. 45 
 
 ure and good feelings growing out of the event of 
 to-morrow, a great and pleasing incident illus- 
 trative of our free institutions, to be disturbed 
 by a question which could be so well settled 
 previously, &c. 
 
 Mr. KING, of New York, in accordance with 
 the opinions he had submitted, wished some 
 amendment introduced to prevent the mode of 
 proceeding from being quoted as a precedent 
 hereafter an amendment declaring that, if any 
 question should arise relative to any votes, in 
 joint meeting, that the two Houses would 
 separate to consider the case, and not decide it 
 jointly. 
 
 Mr. BARBOTJR said that, on the present occa- 
 sion, as the election could not be affected by the 
 votes of any one State, no difficulty could arise ; 
 and that it was his intention hereafter to bring 
 the subject up, to remedy what he considered a 
 casus omissus in the constitution, either by an 
 act of Congress, if that should appear sufficient, 
 or, if not, by proposing an amendment to the 
 constitution itself. 
 
 The second resolution was then also agreed 
 to; and the Senate adjourned. 
 
 WEDNESDAY, February 14. 
 The Senate proceeded to the appointment of 
 a Teller on their part, in pursuance of the re- 
 port of the joint committee appointed to con- 
 sider and report a mode of examining the votes 
 for President and Vice President of the United 
 States ; and Mr. B ARBOUR was appointed. 
 
 Electoral Votes for President. 
 
 A message from the House of Representatives 
 informed the Senate that the House of Repre- 
 sentatives have rejected the resolution of the 
 Senate declaring the admission of the State of 
 Missouri into the Union. The House of Repre- 
 sentatives concur in the report of the joint com- 
 mittee appointed to make arrangements upon 
 the subject of counting the votes for PRESIDENT 
 and VICE PRESIDENT of the UNITED STATKS, and 
 have appointed tellers on their part, and are 
 now ready to receive the Senate to perform that 
 ceremony. 
 
 Whereupon, the two Houses of Congress, 
 agreeably to the joint resolution, assembled in 
 the Representatives' Chamber, and the certi- 
 ficates of the Electors of the several States, be- 
 ginning with the State of New Hampshire, were, 
 by the President of the Senate, opened and de- 
 livered to tellers appointed for the purpose, by 
 whom they were road, except the State of Mis- 
 souri ; and, when the certificate of the Electors 
 of that State was opened, an objection was made 
 by Mr. LIVERMORE, a member of the House of 
 Representatives from the State of New Hamp- 
 shire, to counting said votes. Whereupon, on 
 motion, by Mr. WILLIAMS, of Tennessee, the 
 Senate returned to their own Chamber. 
 
 A message from the House of Representatives 
 informed the Senate that the House of Repre- 
 sentatives is now readv to receive the Senate in
 
 706 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 Missouri State Constitution Citizenship of Free Persons of Color. [FEBRUARY, 1821. 
 
 the Chamber of the House of Representatives 
 for the purpose of continuing the enumeration 
 of the votes of the Electors for President and 
 Vice President, according to the joint resolu- 
 tions agreed upon between the two Houses. 
 On motion, by Mr. BARBOUR, it was 
 fiesohed, That the Senate proceed to meet the 
 House of Representatives, in order to conclude 
 the counting of the votes for President and Vice 
 President of the United States, according to the 
 last of the joint resolutions adopted for that 
 purpose. 
 
 Whereupon, the two Houses having again as- 
 sembled in the Representatives' Chamber, the 
 certificate of the Electors of the State of Mis- 
 souri was, by the President of the Senate, de- 
 livered to the tellers, who read the same, and 
 who, having examined and ascertained the 
 whole number of votes, presented a list thereof 
 to the President of the Senate, by whom it was 
 read, as follows : 
 
 s 
 
 * 
 
 
 Preside't. Vice President. 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 rS 
 
 ii 
 
 -y 
 
 4 
 
 
 h 
 
 
 J 
 
 1 
 
 BJ 
 
 1 
 
 \ 
 
 5 
 
 | 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 i 
 
 STATES. 
 
 P 
 
 IM 
 
 T 
 
 T 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 1 
 
 1 49 
 
 
 o 
 
 nS 
 
 cL 
 
 5 
 
 S^ 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 1 
 
 g. 
 
 H 
 
 1 
 
 ^ 
 
 _r 
 "7 
 
 f 
 
 1 
 a 
 
 
 o 
 
 *3 
 O" 
 a 
 
 C 
 
 s 
 
 TL 
 
 6 
 
 
 | 
 
 O 
 
 M 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 -g 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^C 
 
 'o 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 ? 
 
 ' 
 
 
 2 
 
 Q 
 
 8 
 15 
 
 New Hampshire - 
 Massachusetts 
 
 7 
 15 
 
 1 
 
 7 
 7 
 
 8 
 
 - 
 
 1 
 
 
 4 
 
 Rhode Island 
 
 4 
 
 - 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 
 
 9 
 
 Connecticut 
 
 9 
 
 _ 
 
 9 
 
 
 
 
 
 8 
 
 Vermont 
 
 8 
 
 _ 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 
 
 29 
 
 New York 
 
 28 
 
 _ 
 
 2!) 
 
 
 
 
 
 8 
 
 New Jersey 
 
 8 
 
 - 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 
 
 25 
 
 Pennsylvania 
 
 24 
 
 - 
 
 24 
 
 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 Delaware 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 11 
 
 Maryland 
 
 11 
 
 _ 
 
 10 
 
 _ 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 25 
 
 Virginia 
 
 28 
 
 _ 
 
 25 
 
 
 
 
 
 15 
 
 North Carolina - 
 
 15 
 
 
 15 
 
 
 
 
 
 11 
 
 South Carolina 
 
 11 
 
 _ 
 
 11 
 
 
 
 
 
 8 
 
 Georgia 
 
 8 
 
 _ 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 
 
 12 
 
 Kentucky 
 
 12 
 
 - 
 
 12 
 
 
 
 
 
 8 
 
 Tennessee 
 
 7 
 
 _ 
 
 7 
 
 
 
 
 
 8 
 
 Ohio 
 
 8 
 
 _ 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 Louisiana 
 
 8 
 
 _ 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 Indiana 
 
 8 
 
 _ 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 Mississippi 
 
 2 
 
 _ 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 Illinois 
 
 ( 
 
 _ 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 Alabama 
 
 I 
 
 _ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 9 
 
 Maine 
 
 '. 
 
 _ 
 
 9 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 Missouri 
 
 8 
 
 - 
 
 .'5 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 228 
 
 1 
 
 215 
 
 111 
 
 "^ 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 The whole number of the Electors appointed 
 
 being 235, including those of Missouri, of which 
 118 make a majority, or, excluding the Electors 
 of Missouri, the whole number would be 232, 
 of which 117 make a majority ; but, in either 
 event, JAMES MONROE, of Virginia, is elected 
 PRESIDENT, and DANIEL D. TOMPKINS, of New 
 York, is elected VICE PRESIDENT of the United 
 States. 
 
 Whereupon, 
 
 The President of the Senate declared JAMES 
 MONROE, of Virginia, duly elected President of 
 the United States, commencing with the fourth 
 day of March next ; and DANIEL D. TOMPKINS 
 Vice President of the United States, commencing 
 with the fourth day of March next. 
 
 The votes of the Electors were then delivered 
 to the Secretary of the Senate ; the two Houses 
 separated, and the Senate returned to their own 
 Chamber, and then adjourned. 
 
 FRIDAY, February 16. 
 
 Missouri State Constitution Citizenship of Free 
 Persons of Color. 
 
 Mr. ROBERTS asked and obtained leave to bring 
 in a resolution declaring the admission of the 
 State of Missouri into the Union. 
 
 The resolution is as follows : 
 
 " Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representa- 
 ives of the United States of America, in Congress as- 
 sembled, That the State of Missouri rhall be, and is 
 hereby declared, one of the United States of America, 
 and is admitted into the Union on an equal footing 
 with the original States in all respects whatever: 
 Provided, That the following be taken as fundamental 
 conditions and terms upon which the said State is ad- 
 
 itted into the Union, namely : that the fourth clause 
 of the twenty-sixth section of the third article of the 
 onstitution, submitted by the people of Missouri to 
 the consideration of Congress, shall, as soon as the 
 provisions of said constitution will admit, be so amend- 
 ed, that it shall not be applicable to citizens of any 
 State in this Union ; and that, until so amended, no 
 law, passed in conformity thereto, shall be construed 
 to extend to any citizen of either State in this Union." 
 
 Mr. VAN DYKE, of Delaware, said he hoped 
 the gentleman would not understand him, in 
 making the motion which he was about to make, 
 as offering any disrespect towards him or his 
 proposition ; but, Mr. VAN DYKE said, he should 
 consider it unfortunate for the Senate now to 
 take any step in this business. The Senate ought 
 to recollect the course this subject had taken ; 
 they had at an early period sent to the other 
 House a resolution for the admission of the State 
 into the Union, containing a proviso which it 
 was hoped would obviate all objection to it. 
 That resolution, however, had been rejected by 
 the House of Representatives. They have in- 
 formed us, by message, of its rejection, without 
 any indication of what would be acceptable to 
 them ; and that message is scarcely cold before 
 we have a proposition to bring forward another 
 resolution. He thought the Senate had better 
 not stir in the subject again so soon; but^that 
 it would be more expedient to wait a while at
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 707 
 
 FEBRUARY, 1821.] Missouri State Constitution Citizenship of Free Persons of Color. 
 
 [SENATE. 
 
 least, and see what the other House should do, 
 if it did any thing. He had no objection to 
 make another effort to get the State admitted, 
 but to make it so soon after the fate of the first 
 proposition had been announced from the other 
 House, would be premature, he thought, and 
 unwise. If the Senate had not moved first in 
 this business, but had now its resolution to send 
 to the other House as an original proposition, he 
 thought it highly probable it would prevail 
 there. With the best intentions, that resolution 
 had been sent there ; it had been rejected ; and 
 the Senate was as yet ignorant of the form of 
 admission which would be acceptable to that 
 body. He hoped the Senate would keep back, 
 a little longer at least, any new proposition ; 
 and therefore moved that the motion to grant 
 the leave asked for, be postponed until Monday 
 next. 
 
 Mr. ROBERTS was of opinion that the Senate 
 might, without the slightest departure from pro- 
 priety or dignity, receive the resolution; and 
 then he should have no objection to laying it on 
 the table for some days ; it would then be before 
 the Senate, and gentlemen could give it due re- 
 flection. Mr. E. said he offered this resolution 
 from a strong and serious conviction of duty ; 
 and, as the session was near its end, he trusted 
 that the Senate would not allow any punctilio 
 to interfere with an object so important. He 
 was one who had been unable to vote for the 
 former resolution which passed the Senate ; that 
 having failed in the other branch, he now offered 
 euch a one as he could support. He earnestly 
 desired the admission of the State into the 
 Union ; it was an object all important to the 
 nation and to its public councils, and he hoped 
 the Senate would so far indulge him at least as 
 to entertain his proposition, and then, if it saw 
 fit, lay it by for future decision. 
 
 Mr. WALKER, of Georgia, viewed this propo- 
 sition as a kind of peace offering on the part of 
 those gentlemen of the Senate who had opposed 
 the former resolution. He was extremely anx- 
 ious that the question should be settled and that 
 nothing should be left undone to effect a settle- 
 ment of it. He therefore acknowledged him- 
 self much obliged to the gentleman from Penn- 
 sylvania for bringing this proposition forward. 
 Whatever may be the decisions of the other 
 branch, said Mr. W., let us do all we can to 
 preserve the peace and harmony of the Union. 
 Ho hoped no point of etiquette would interfere 
 with the motion, but that the leave would be 
 granted; that the proposition would be ulti- 
 mately adopted, and the tranquillity of the nation 
 be restored by the admission of the State without 
 more delay. 
 
 Mr. MOERILL, of New Hampshire, adverted to 
 the unpleasant feelings and effects of this long 
 agitated Missouri question ; the great portion 
 of time which it consumed of the last and of the 
 
 K resent session ; the embarrassment it produced 
 i the public business. It pursues us, said he, 
 everywhere in the House, and from one House- 
 to the other, into the committee rooms and out 
 
 of doors. He sincerely hoped that it might be 
 terminated at the present session, and was a 
 little surprised that his friend from Delaware 
 should make an objection to receiving a propo- 
 sition which might bring the subject to a favor- 
 able issue. The act of the last session concern- 
 ing Missouri, Mr. M. said, passed both Houses 
 of Congress, and received the Executive sanc- 
 tion. Had that act been properly met by Mis- 
 souri, there would have been no difficulty in 
 her admission ; the former question was con- 
 sidered as settled, and, but for the clause now 
 objected to, her admission would have met with 
 no serious opposition. He thought every effort 
 ought to be made to bring the subject to an 
 amicable issue, and hoped it would be ended by 
 the passage of this resolution. There was noth- 
 ing, among the numerous subjects before Con- 
 gress, of more importance, and he thought the 
 Senate ought to receive, without postponement, 
 the proposition now offered. 
 
 Mr. JOHNSON, of Kentucky, could not see, 
 because the Senate had done its duty once, 
 that it was to do nothing more. He, for one, 
 was ready to embrace every opportunity of 
 performing it. How, he asked, were the Sen- 
 ate to ascertain the sentiments of the other 
 House, or of each other, but by proceeding in 
 this way ? Caucussing was no longer fashiona- 
 ble here, and the distance over which members 
 were scattered, completely prevented an inter- 
 change of opinions in private. It was the best 
 course to do what they could when the oppor- 
 tunity offered. This subject was of more im- 
 portance than any other before Congress ; it 
 distracted the legislative councils, and impeded 
 all other business. An immense quantity of 
 business of the deepest concern to the nation 
 continued before them, to be done during the 
 short remainder of the session more than he 
 had ever known, even at the commencement 
 of some sessions; yet none of this would or 
 could be done until this all-devouring subject 
 of Missouri was settled. Every other subject 
 was put in jeopardy by it. The relief of our 
 land debtors is endangered the army is endan- 
 gered the Union itself is endangered those 
 ties which have bound us together as a nation 
 of brothers, have been weakened by this all- 
 distracting question. lie would therefore meet 
 it, and continue to meet it, until the 4th of 
 March; he would discard all other subjects to 
 make an effort to terminate and adjust it. We 
 see, said he, that nothing else can be done ; we 
 send to the other House bill after bill, but in 
 vain ; we hear of nothing there but Missouri! 
 Missouri!! Missouri!!! and thus will it con- 
 tinue until we can end it. Mr. J. avowed that 
 he felt under obligations to the gentleman from 
 Pennsylvania, for bringing this proposition for- 
 ward; and, unless some member would get 
 up and say he was not ready to vote on grant- 
 ing the leave, ho should oppose the postpone- 
 ment. 
 
 Mr. BABBOUB, of Virginia, said he would 
 vote against the postponement, because it was
 
 708 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 Missouri State Constitution Citizenship of Free Persons of Color. [FEBRUARY, 1821. 
 
 an unusual course, and he was inclined to ad- 
 vance, under the hope that this resolution 
 would receive the sanction of the Senate and 
 of the House of Kepresentatives, and put an 
 end to this painful contest. This proposition 
 would either obtain with the other House, or 
 it would not, and though there might be some- 
 thing in its passage now, like a surrender of 
 etiquette on the part of the Senate, yet he 
 would not consider a little matter of form as 
 more important than the adjustment of this all- 
 important question. If it should finally fail, a 
 great responsibility would rest somewhere. 
 Gentlemen might smile, he said, but they who 
 treated the subject lightly were far removed 
 from the scene of real excitement. Could they 
 witness the sensations which it produced in 
 that part of the Union where its effects were 
 most to be dreaded, they would think more 
 gravely of it. When the Senate, said Mr. B., 
 shall have manifested a desire, an anxious de- 
 sire, to settle the question by one more effort, 
 and shall still fail, our skirts will be clear ; and 
 let what consequences ensue that may, our re- 
 cords will show that we have done what we 
 could to prevent them. If nothing serious 
 ensue, still we shall have nothing to regret. 
 Mr. B. hoped the proposition would at least be 
 received, if then laid on the table. 
 
 Mr. HOLMES, of Maine, was willing to grant 
 the leave requested, but merely as a matter of 
 courtesy not from a hope of its doing any 
 good. The Senate had passed a resolution to 
 admit the State; it was sent to the other 
 House, where it was amended, and then re- 
 jected. "Was it for the Senate immediately to 
 shape another and send to them, or to wait and 
 see if that House would agree on any proposi- 
 tion of its own ? If they send us none, it will 
 be evidence that they are not disposed to do 
 any thing. The public mind, Mr. H. said, had 
 been much excited on this subject, but a change 
 was taking place, and the people were begin- 
 ning to say, let Missouri into the Union if you 
 do not, let the responsibility rest where it be- 
 longs. 
 
 Mr. YAK DYKE disclaimed being influenced 
 in his motion, by motives of etiquette. He 
 acted from a conviction of its expediency in 
 regard to the object in view the admission of 
 the State. He believed Missouri would be ad- 
 mitted into the Union before the 4th of March, 
 on a footing with the other States; but he 
 thought it impolitic for the Senate again to 
 take up ibe subject so hastily, and that he was 
 walking in the plain path of his duty towards 
 Missouri, "in regard to her admission, in making 
 his motion to postpone the introduction of this 
 resolution. The proposition was the same in 
 substance as the former resolution, and if there 
 was no difficulty apprehended here, on it, why 
 should it be pressed again so soon ; why not 
 allow the other House some time to act on a 
 plan of its own, or at least wait a short time and 
 observe the indications there ? The strength of 
 Missouri was increasing in this House at least, 
 
 and it was prudent to rest awhile, and discover 
 what course the other House was likely to take. 
 The proposition could sustain no injury by the 
 delay ; it was before the Senate, in fact, though 
 not in form, for it had been printed and was on 
 the table of each member. All he asked was, 
 that the Senate would Tiold its hand until 
 Monday next, before it entertained the propo- 
 sition. 
 
 Mr. WALKEK, of Alabama, concurred in the 
 opinions of the gentleman from Delaware. 
 The Senate had evinced, at all times, a dispo- 
 sition to admit Missouri. It had at an early 
 period of the session, passed a resolution de- 
 claring her admission, and sent it to the other 
 House, where it was finally rejected. The Senate 
 knew that many propositions had been before 
 that House on this subject ; none of them had 
 succeeded, and there was, consequently, no evi- 
 dence of a disposition there to admit the State. 
 Nothing would be gained by this resolution, 
 but affording to the House of Representatives 
 another opportunity of having the subject be- 
 fore them at large ; for this identical proposi- 
 tion, with the exception of perhaps a single 
 word, had already been considered in that 
 House, and been rejected by it. He was of 
 opinion that it would be much better for the 
 Senate now to wait until the other House took 
 some step of its own in the business, as it had 
 rejected the resolution sent down by the Sen- 
 ate. He could perceive no probable good likely 
 to result from the Senate's again acting on the 
 subject ; its disposition was undoubted ; it had 
 done its duty ; and he was for giving the House 
 an opportunity of adopting its own plan, if it 
 had any. 
 
 Mr. CHANDLER, of Maine, conceived that the 
 Senate had done every thing, so far, that was 
 proper on the subject. If it entertained this 
 proposition, it might prevent the other House 
 from proceeding in its endeavors to agree on 
 some plan of its own ; and he was in favor, 
 therefore, of deferring any other step on the 
 part of the Senate for some time at least. 
 
 The question being then taken on postponing 
 the motion for leave, it was decided in the 
 negative 18 rising in favor of the postpone- 
 ment, and 20 against it. 
 
 The question then being on granting the 
 leave, 
 
 Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina, made a point 
 of order. The 13th of the joint rules of the 
 two Houses inhibited the re-introduction, in 
 either House, without a notice of ten days, of 
 any bill or resolution which should have been 
 passed by one House and sent to the other, and 
 there rejected. Mr. S. conceived that this rule 
 would oppose the introduction of this resolu- 
 tion at this time, ten days' notice not having 
 been given by the mover; and Mr. S. was pro- 
 ceeding to support his objection with some ar- 
 guments; when 
 
 The PRESIDENT overruled the objection taken, 
 referring to the practice of the Senate in former
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 709 
 
 FEBRUARY, 1821.] Missouri State Constitution Citizenship of Free Persons of Color. 
 
 [SENATE. 
 
 The question being then put on granting the 
 leave, it was carried without a division, and the 
 resolution received its first reading. 
 
 Death of the Representative William A. Bur- 
 well, Esq. 
 
 A. message having been received from the 
 House of Representatives, announcing the 
 death of the Hon. WILLIAM A. BUBWELL, a 
 member of that House from the State of Vir- 
 ginia 
 
 On motion of Mr. PLEASAXTS, it was 
 
 Resolved, unanimously, That the members of the 
 Senate will attend the funeral of the Hon. William 
 A. Burwell, late a member of the House of Repre- 
 sentatives from the State of Virginia, to-morrow, at 
 ten o'clock, A. M. ; and, as a testimony of respect 
 for the memory of the deceased, will go into mourn- 
 ing, and wear crape for thirty days. 
 
 The Senate then adjourned. 
 
 WEDNESDAY, February 21. 
 Missouri. 
 
 The Senate resumed, as in Committee of the 
 Whole, the consideration of the resolution 
 offered by Mr. ROBEETS. 
 
 Much debate took place on the merits of the 
 resolution, as well as on the expediency of now 
 acting on it, in the course of which Mr. BAB- 
 BOTTE moved to strike out the proviso, but sub- 
 sequently withdrew the motion. The resolu- 
 tion was advocated by Messrs. ROBEBTS, Low- 
 EIE, and BABBOUB, and was opposed by Messrs. 
 SMITH and VAN DYKE. 
 
 Mr. LOWBIE, after observing that the resolu- 
 tion had been brought forward by those who 
 had opposed the former resolution of the Sen- 
 ate, from a sincere desire to see the State ad- 
 mitted, and with the view of meeting gentle- 
 men on the other side, as far as they could ; 
 but, as the proposition appeared not to be ac- 
 ceptable to them, he, for one, would not press 
 it on them, and therefore moved its indefinite 
 postponement. 
 
 This motion was negatived yeas 18, nays 
 24, as follows : 
 
 YF.AS. Messrs. Brown, Chandler, Dickerson, 
 Eaton, Horsey, King of New York, Lanman, Low- 
 rie, Macon, Mills, Noble, Otis, Sanford, Smith, 
 Southard, Tichenor, Van Dyke, and Williams of 
 Mississippi. 
 
 NAYS. Messrs. Barbour, Dana, Edwards, Elliott, 
 Gaillard, Holmes of Maine, Holmes of Mississippi, 
 Johnson of Kentucky, Johnson of Louisiana, King of 
 Alabama, Knight, MorrilL Palmer, Parrott, Pleas- 
 ants, Roberts, Stokes, Talbot, Taylor, Thomas, Trim- 
 ble, Walker of Alabama, Walker of Georgia, and 
 Williams of Tennessee. 
 
 Mr. WILLIAMS, of Tennessee, made an nn- 
 successful motion to lay the resolution on the 
 table, with the view of taking up the Army 
 Bill. 
 
 Mr. KINO, of New York, renewed the motion 
 previously made and withdrawn by Mr. BAB- 
 
 BOUB, to strike from the resolution all the pro- 
 viso, as follows : 
 
 " Provided, That the following be taken as funda- 
 mental conditions and terms upon which the said 
 State is admitted into the Union, namely : that the 
 fourth clause of the twenty-sixth section of the third 
 article of the constitution, submitted by the people of 
 Missouri to the consideration of Congress, shall, as 
 soon as the provisions of said constitution will admit, 
 be so modified, that it shall not impair the privileges 
 or immunities of any description of persons who may 
 now be, or hereafter shall become, citizens of any 
 State in this Union ; and that, until so modified, no 
 law, passed in conformity thereto, shall be construed 
 to exclude any citizen of either State in this Union, 
 from the enjoyment of any of the privileges and im- 
 munities to which such citizen is entitled under the 
 Constitution of the United States." 
 
 The motion was decided, without debate, 
 in the negative, by yeas and nays, as follows : 
 
 YEAS. Messrs. Brown, Gaillard, Holmes of Mis- 
 sissippi, King of Alabama, King of New York, Ma- 
 con, Mills, Otis, Sanford, Smith, Tichenor, Van 
 Dyke, Walker of Alabama, Williams of Mississippi, 
 and Williams of Tennessee 15. 
 
 NAYS. Messrs. Barbour, Chandler, Dana, Dick- 
 erson, Eaton, Edwards, Elliott, Holmes of Maine, 
 Horsey, Johnson of Kentucky, Johnson of Louisiana, 
 Knight, Lanman, Lowrie, Morrill, Noble, Palmer, 
 Parrott, Pleasants, Roberts, Southard, Stokes, Tal- 
 bot, Taylor, Thomas, Trimble, and Walker of Geor- 
 gia 27. 
 
 Mr. BBOWN moved to amend the proviso so 
 as to deprive it of its injunction on the State 
 of Missouri, to amend its constitution in the 
 clause referred to, and leave it to read, that 
 the clause " should not be so construed as to im- 
 pair the privileges of citizens of other States," 
 &c. 
 
 Mr. ROBEETS objected to this amendment, 
 as it would change the whole principle of the 
 proviso, and give the resolution such a shape 
 as would compel him to oppose it 
 
 Mr. BEOWN maintained his motion at some 
 length. Had the resolution come from the 
 other House in the shape it now was, he 
 should perhaps vote for it, for the sake of clos- 
 ing this long-standing and disagreeable ques- 
 tion, to accomplish which, he was willing to 
 make great sacrifices ; but he was not ready 
 to play so bold a game as to volunteer to the 
 other House a surrender of the whole principle 
 for which they contended; especially as the 
 Senate had already tendered to it one propo- 
 sition, which had been there rejected. A com- 
 promise to the extent the proviso went, would 
 be time enough when it came from the other 
 House. 
 
 Mr. TALBOT conceived that the amendment 
 proposed by Mr. BBOWK would be mischievous, 
 and produce no good. On so great a subject, 
 and to settle a question so momentous, he was 
 willing to give up something, and hold out to 
 the other side the hand of compromise ; but it 
 was certainly a question which every one was 
 to settle with his own conscience.
 
 710 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 Admission of Missouri Message from the House of Representatives. [FEBRUARY, 1821. 
 
 The question being taken on Mr. BROWN'S 
 motion, it was negatived without a division. 
 
 Mr. TRIMBLE moved to amend the proviso, 
 by adding thereto the following clause : 
 
 And provided, also, That the 8th article of the 
 said constitution [the article authorizing the estab- 
 lishment of banks] shall be annulled as soon as said 
 constitution, in conformity with the provisions there- 
 of, is subject to amendment. 
 
 This amendment was rejected without de- 
 bate, and without division. 
 
 The question was then put on ordering the 
 resolution to be engrossed and read the third 
 time ; and was decided by yeas and nays as 
 follows : 
 
 YEAS. Messrs. Barbour, Edwards, Elliott, Holmes 
 of Maine, Horsey, Johnson of Kentucky, Johnson 
 of Louisiana, Lowrie, Morrill, Parrott, Pleasants, 
 Roberts, Southard, Stokes, Talbot, Taylor, Thomas, 
 Walker of Georgia, and Williams of Tennessee 19. 
 
 NAYS. Messrs. Brown, Chandler, Dana, Dicker- 
 son, Eaton, Gaillard, Holmes of Mississippi, King of 
 Alabama, King of New York, Knight, Lanman, Ma- 
 con, Mills, Noble, Otis, Palmer, Ruggles, Sanford, 
 Smith, Tichenor, Trimble, Van Dyke, Walker of 
 Alabama, and Williams of Mississippi 24. 
 
 So the resolution was rejected. 
 
 FRIDAY, February 28. 
 
 Florida Treaty Ratified, and Legislative Meas- 
 ures required for talcing Possession of the 
 Territory, and its temporary Government. 
 
 The following Message was received from the 
 PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES : 
 To the Senate and House, of 
 
 Representatives of the United States: 
 
 The Treaty of Amity, Settlement, and Limits, be- 
 tween the United States and Spain, signed on the 
 22d of February, 1819, having been ratified by the 
 contracting parties, and the ratifications having been 
 exchanged, it is herewith communicated to Congress, 
 that such legislative measures may be taken as they 
 shaF judge proper for carrying the same into execu- 
 tion. 
 
 JAMES MONROE, 
 
 WASHINGTON, Feb. 22, 1821. 
 
 The message and treaty were read, and re- 
 ferred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. 
 
 SATURDAY, February 24. 
 
 Admission of Missouri Message from the 
 House of Representatives. 
 
 On motion of Mr. HOLMES, of Maine, the 
 Senate proceeded to consider the message from 
 the House, announcing their appointment of a 
 committee to meet such committee as may be 
 appointed by the Senate, on the subject of the 
 admission of Missouri into the Union ; and the 
 question was on concurring with the other 
 House iu the course proposed. 
 
 Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina, observed, that, 
 from the hasty glance he could give the subject, 
 
 he saw no good reason for such a proceeding on 
 the part of the Senate. There was no doubt or 
 difficulty here on the subject of Missouri. If 
 there was any in the other House, he had no 
 objection to give them the advice of the Senate, 
 if necessary, but it could be no reason for the 
 appointment of a committee on the part of this 
 body to consult with them. Not being able to 
 see the expediency of the course proposed, Mr. 
 S. moved that the message lie on the table. 
 
 Mr. BARBOUR, of Virginia, remarked that 
 the time left to act on this matter was so short 
 that a little delay might defeat the object. 
 The subject was one of great importance, Mr. 
 B. said, and he hoped the Senate would act on 
 it immediately. The course proposed by the 
 other House, was not a novelty in the proceed- 
 ings of Congress, or of the English Parliament, 
 whence most of our rules were drawn. Com- 
 mittees of conference were frequently appointed 
 on subjects of much less importance than the 
 present ; and it was proper that, when the two 
 Houses do not agree on the principles of a pub- 
 lic act, there should be a joint committee to see 
 if they can devise any course in which the two 
 branches would probably meet. This was a 
 mere proposition for such an inquiry, and he 
 hoped the Senate would accede to it. 
 
 Mr. SMITH said he had no opportunity to see 
 what the proposition from the other House act- 
 ually was, as it had just been received, and 
 once read. If the Senate were straitened for 
 time, it was a reason for not acting precipi- 
 tately, and the importance of the subject, which 
 had been urged in favor of an immediate deci- 
 sion, was a reason for acting with caution. As 
 to the mode of proceeding in Parliament, it did 
 not apply to this case. If the other House had 
 sent back the resolution of the Senate for the 
 admission of Missouri, with an amendment, on 
 which the two Houses could not agree, a com- 
 mittee of conference would be proper on the 
 disagreeing votes; but a committee of confer- 
 ence to settle original principles was a novelty. 
 He hoped, at any rale, that the Senate would 
 allow a little time even half an hour to 
 think of this proposition. 
 
 Mr. HOLMES, of Maine, hoped that the mes- 
 sage would not be laid on the table. The sub- 
 ject involved in it was sufficiently embarrassed 
 and difficult already, and he should be sorry to 
 see any additional impediments thrown in the 
 way. It was simply a proposition from the 
 other House for a committee of inquiry into an 
 all-important matter ; and would it, he asked, 
 be proper for the Senate to refuse it? 
 
 The motion to lay the message on the table 
 was negatived. 
 
 The Senate then concurred in the proposi- 
 tion yeas 29, nays 7, as follows : 
 
 YEAS. Messrs. Barbour, Chandler, Eaton, Elliott, 
 Gaillard, Holmes of Maine, Holmes of Mississippi, 
 Horsey, Hunter, Johnson of Kentucky, Johnson of 
 Louisiana, King of Alabama, Knight, Lanman, Low- 
 rie, Morrill, Palmer, Parrott, Pleasants, Roberts, 
 Southard, Stokes, Talbot, Taylor, Trimble, Van
 
 DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 711 
 
 MARCH, 1821.] 
 
 Proceedings. 
 
 Dyke, Walker of Alabama, Walker of Georgia, and 
 Williams of Mississippi. 
 
 NAYS. Messrs. Dana, King of New York, Mills, 
 Otis, Haggles, Sanford, and Smith. 
 
 Messrs. HOLMES, of Maine, BARBOUR, ROB- 
 ERTS, MOBEILL, SOUTHARD, JOHNSON, of Ken- 
 tucky, and KING, of New York, were appoint- 
 ed the committee on the part of the Senate. 
 
 MONDAY, February 26. 
 
 Admission of Missouri Report of Joint Com- 
 mittee. 
 
 Mr. HOLMES, of Maine, from the Joint Com- 
 mittee of the two Houses of Congress, appoint- 
 ed on the subject, reported a resolution provid- 
 ing for the admission of Missouri into the Union 
 on a certain condition ; which was read, and 
 laid on the table. 
 
 TUESDAY, February 27. 
 
 Admission of Missouri Message from the House 
 of Representatives. 
 
 A Message from the House of Representa- 
 tives informed the Senate that the House have 
 passed a resolution providing for the admission 
 of the State of Missouri into the Union on a 
 certain condition, in which they request the 
 concurrence of the Senate.* 
 
 The Senate then proceeded to consider the 
 said resolution. 
 
 After an unsuccessful attempt by Mr. MACOX 
 to strike out the condition and proviso, which 
 was negatived by a large majority, and a few 
 remarks by Mr. BABBOUR in support of the ex- 
 pediency of harmony and concession on this 
 momentous subject, 
 
 The question was taken on ordering the reso- 
 lution to be read a third time, and was decided 
 in the affirmative, by the following vote : 
 
 YEAS. Messrs. Barbour, Chandler, Eaton, Elliott, 
 Gaillard, Holmes of Maine, Holmes of Mississippi, 
 Horsey, Hunter, Johnson of Kentucky, Johnson of 
 Louisiana, King of Alabama, Lowrie, Morrill, Par- 
 rott, Pleasants, Roberts, Southard, Stokes, Talbot, 
 Taylor, Thomas, Van Dyke, Walker of Alabama, 
 Williams of Mississippi, and Williams of Tennessee 
 26. 
 
 NAYS. Messrs. Dana, Dickerson, King of New 
 York, Knight, Lanman, Macon, Mills, Noble, Otis, 
 Palmer, Ruggles, Sanford, Smith, Tichenor, and 
 Trimble 15. 
 
 A motion was made to read the resolution a 
 third time forthwith, but it was objected to, 
 and, under the rule of the Senate, of course it 
 could not be done. 
 
 [ The next day the resolution was read the th ird 
 time, and passed, with a diminution of one tote, 
 and a gain of two as follows :] 
 
 The resolution from the House of Representa- 
 
 * This was the resolution reported in the House by the 
 grand committee raised upon the proportion of Mr. Clay, 
 and of which he was Chairman. 
 
 tives for the admission of the State of Missouri 
 into the Union, on a certain condition, was read 
 the third time. 
 
 On the question, " Shall this resolution pass? " 
 it was determined in the affirmative yeas 28, 
 nays 14, as follows : 
 
 YEAS. Messrs. Barbour, Chandler, Eaton, Ed- 
 wards, Gaillard, Holmes of Maine, Holmes of Missis- 
 sippi, Horsey, Hunter, Johnson of Kentucky, Johnson 
 of Louisiana, King of Alabama, Lowrie, Morrill, Par- 
 rott, Pinkney, Pleasants, Roberts, Southard, Stokes, 
 Talbot, Taylor, Thomas, Van Dyke, Walker of Ala- 
 bama, Walker of Georgia, Williams of Mississippi, 
 and Williams of Tennessee. 
 
 NAYS. Messrs. Dana, Dickerson, King of New 
 York, Knight, Lanmau, Macon, Mills, Noble, Otia, 
 Ruggles, Sanford, Smith, Tichenor, and Trimble. 
 
 THURSDAY, March 1. 
 
 The credentials of JOHN HOLMES, appointed 
 a Senator by the Legislature of the State of 
 Maine for six years, commencing on the fourth 
 instant, were read, and laid on file. 
 
 East and West Florida Bill to take Possession 
 of the Territory, and for its Temporary 
 Government. 
 
 The Senate proceeded to consider, as in Com- 
 mittee of the Whole, the bill to authorize the 
 President of the United States to take posses- 
 sion of East and West Florida, and to establish 
 a temporary government therein; and, no 
 amendment having been proposed, it was re- 
 ported to the House, and ordered to be en- 
 grossed and read a third time.* 
 
 SATURDAY, March 3. 
 
 The credentials of BENJAMIN RUGGLES, ap- 
 pointed a Senator by the Legislature of the 
 State of Ohio, for the term of six years, cora- 
 
 * The bill, thus so expeditious!/ passed, and without di- 
 vision or amendment, was the same which had been passed 
 seventeen years before, at the time of the acquisition of 
 Louisiana, and was a continuation of the despotic govern- 
 ment of Spain. The whole governing part was in the second 
 section, and in these words : 
 
 u That, until the end of the first session of the nest Con- 
 gress, unless provision for the temporary government of said 
 territories be sooner made by Congress, all the military, 
 civil, and judicial powers exercised by the officers of the ex- 
 isting Government of the same territories, shall bo vested in 
 such person or persons, and shall be exercised in such man- 
 ner, as the President of the United States shall direct, for 
 the maintaining the inhabitants of said territories in the fre 
 enjoyment of their liberty, property, and religion ; and the 
 laws of the United States relating to the revenue and its col- 
 lection, subject to the modification stipulated by the 15th 
 article of the said treaty, in favor of Spanish vessels and their 
 cargoes, and the laws relating to the Importation of persona 
 of color, shall be extended to the said territories. And the 
 President of the United States shall be, and he hereby is, 
 authorized within the term aforesaid, to establish such dis- 
 tricts for the collection of the revenue, and during the recett
 
 712 
 
 ABRIDGMENT OF THE DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 SENATE.] 
 
 Adjournment. 
 
 [MARCH, 1821. 
 
 mencing on the fourth instant, were read, and 
 laid on file. 
 
 The Senate adjourned to seven o'clock, P. M. 
 
 Seven o'clock, P. M. 
 On motion, by Mr. BARBOTJB, 
 Resolved, unanimously, That the thanks of 
 
 the Senate be presented to JOHN GAILLARD, for 
 the impartial, able, and dignified manner in 
 which he has discharged the duties of President 
 of the Senate during the present session. Where- 
 upon, 
 
 Mr. GAILLARD made his acknowledgments, 
 and the Senate adjourned without day. 
 
 of Congress, to appoint such officers, whose commissions 
 hall expire at the end of the next session of Congress, to 
 enforce the said laws, as to him shall seem expedient" 
 
 This act, now held by many to be unconstitutional and 
 void, was reported by a committee, passed by a Congress, 
 and approved by an Administration, which were all believed 
 in their day to know something about the constitution, and 
 also to care for it The committee were : Messrs. James 
 Barbour of Yirginia, Nathaniel Macon of North Carolina, 
 James Brown of Louisiana, William Hunter of Ehode Island, 
 and Rufus King of New York all of them familiar with the 
 formation and adoption of the constitution, and one of them 
 (Mr. Rufus King) a member of the Federal Convention 
 which framed it The Congress was that of 1S20-'21, the 
 first under the second administration of Mr. Monroe, him- 
 self the last of the revolutionary Presidents, and in the last 
 term of his public life both the Senate and the House im- 
 pressive and venerable from the presence of many survivors 
 of the first generation, and brilliant with the apparition of 
 the young luminaries of the second generation, then just ap- 
 pearing above the political horizon, soon to light up the 
 whole political firmament with the splendors of their genius, 
 and to continue shining in it, like fixed stars, until gathered, 
 in the fulness of time, to rest with their fathers. To name 
 some, would be to wrong others, equally worthy, less bril- 
 liant To name all who shone in this firmament would be 
 to repeat, almost the whole list of the members of the two 
 Houses ; for, either brilliant or useful, talent pervaded the 
 whole list even the plainest members respectable for the 
 honesty of their votes, and close attention to the business of 
 the House. I entered the Senate at that time, and felt my- 
 self to be among masters whose scholar I must long remain 
 before I could become a teacher whose example I must 
 emulate, without the hope of successful imitation. There 
 they were, day in and day out, at their places, punctual to 
 every duty, ripe in wisdom, rich in knowledge, modest, vir- 
 tuous, decorous, deferential, and wholly intent upon the 
 public good. There I made my first acquaintance with the 
 federal gentlemen of the old school, and while differing from 
 
 them on systems of policy, soon came to appreciate their 
 high personal character, to admire their finished manners, 
 to recognize their solid patriotism, (according to their views 
 of government,) and to feel grateful to them as the principal 
 founders of our Government; and in all this I only divided 
 sentiments with the old republicans, all living on terms of 
 personal kindness with their political adversaries, and with 
 perfect respect for each other's motives and opinions. They 
 are all gone their bodies buried in the earth, their works 
 buried under rubbish, and their names beginning to fade 
 from the memory of man and I, (who stood so far behind 
 them in their great day that praise from me would have 
 seemed impertinence,) I have become, in some sort, their 
 historiographer and introducer to the world. I abridge the 
 debates of Congress I those debates in which their wisdom, 
 virtue, modesty, patriotism lie buried. I resurrect the 
 whole 1 put them in scene again on the living stage, every 
 one with the best of his works In his hand : a labor of love 
 and pride to mo, of justice to them, and, I hope, of utility 
 to many generations. Such were the two Houses of Con- 
 gress which re-enacted the Florida Territorial Bill in 1321, 
 which had been first enacted (by predecessors not less illus- 
 trious) in the Orleans Territorial Bill of 1804, and approved 
 by Mr. Monroe's cabinet a cabinet unsurpassed by any one 
 before or since : John Quincy Adams, Secretary of State ; 
 William H. Crawford, Secretary of the Treasury ; John C. 
 Calhoun, Secretary at War ; Smith Thompson, Secretary of 
 the Navy; Return Jonathan Meigs, Postmaster-General; 
 William Wirt, Attorney-General ; and which acts, so made, 
 and so approved, are now to be called unconstitutional and 
 void. But they had a farther approval to undergo one of 
 practice ! and received it 1 received it from both Houses of 
 Congress, and from the Monroe Administration : and that 
 after it was put into operation by the first Governor of East 
 and West Florida, commissioned with the powers of Captain- 
 General and Intendant of Cuba, uniting in his own hands 
 the supreme military, civil, and judicial functions, and ex- 
 ercising them when he believed the public good required it 
 But of this hereafter.
 
 INDEX TO VOL. VI. 
 
 ABBOTT, JOEL, Kepresentative from Georgia, 59, 209, 464. 
 
 ADAMS, BENJAMIN, Kepresentative from Massachusetts, 58, 
 200, 463 ; on fugitives from justice and service, 110. See 
 Index, vol. 5. 
 
 ADAMS, J. Q., letter as Secretary of State relative to com- 
 pensation of Commissioners to Spanish American pro- 
 vinces, 134, 187; letter relative to arrests of foreign mer- 
 chant seamen in ports of Europe, 216; votes for as Pres- 
 ident in 1820, 706. See Index, vols. 2, 3, 4. 
 
 Addresses of the Senate and House, in answer to Presi- 
 dent's Messages. See Index, vols. 1, 2. 
 
 Admirals in the Jfavy.See Index, vol. 2. 
 
 African Slaves and Slavery. Set Index, vols. 1, 2, and In- 
 dex, vol. 6. Slavery. 
 
 Alabama. Bill to authorize the people to form a State gov- 
 ernment, passed the House, 225; State government bill 
 reported in Senate, 864, 865; State constitution referred 
 in the Senate, 875 ; vote for President in 1820, 706. 
 
 ALEXANDER, MARK, Kepresentative from Virginia, 464 ; on 
 a revision of the Tariff, 626. 
 
 Algerine War. Seo Index, vol. 1. 
 
 Allegiance, Foreign. See Index, voL 1 ; also Expatriation, 
 Tols. 2, 5. 
 
 ALLEN, HEMAN, Kepresentative from Vermont, 58, 200. 
 
 ALLEN, NATHANIEL, Kepresentative from New York, 464. 
 
 ALLEN, KOBERT, Representative from Tennessee, 464. 
 
 ALLEN, SAMUEL C.. Kepresentative from Massachusetts, 58, 
 207, 463 , moves aa amendment to the Missouri bill, 561. 
 
 Amelia Inland, message relative to, 19. 
 
 In the House. Resolution for a call for information 
 relative to certain persons who took possession of Ame- 
 lia Island, and also Galveston, considered, 63 ; much at- 
 tention already attracted to these establishments, 63; 
 object to obtain such information as would satisfy the 
 American people, 63 ; amendment moved, 63 ; docu- 
 ments will show that the Government, in suppressing 
 these establishments, had given due respect to the rights 
 of tlie Spanish provinces, 68 ; accounts show them to be 
 a horde of buccaneers, 63 ; the patriots would not coun- 
 tenance these establishments, 63 ; resolution passed, 64; 
 message from the President, 65. 
 
 Amendment to the Constitution. See Index, vols. 1, 2, 8, 5. 
 
 American Colonization Society, memorial of, 498. 
 
 ANDEP.RON, JOHN, letter to Lewis Williams, 88; brought to 
 the bar of the House, 90; letters, 99; examination at 
 the bar of the House, 101 ; address to the House, 102 ; 
 reprimanded, 103; suit against Thomas Dunn, 224; case 
 of, see bribery. 
 
 ANDERSON, RICUABD C., Jr., Representative from Kentucky, 
 69, 201, 464; on the case of John Anderson, 91; on fugi- 
 tives from justice and service, 110 ; on the admission of 
 Illinois, 202 ; on slavery in Illinois, 206 ; on a monument 
 to De Kalb, 262 ; on the SemLuole war, 296 ; on a com- 
 promise line on slavery, 867; on printing the secret 
 journal of the old Congress, 495; on the Spanish treaty, 
 594. 
 
 ANDERSON, WILLIAM, Representative from Pennsylvania, 
 59, 200. See Index, vols. 4, 5. 
 
 Appointments, Executive. See Index, voL 5. 
 
 Appropriations, estimate of, for 1818, 67. 
 
 Appropriations. See Index, vols. 1, 2, 8, 5. 
 
 ABCHEB, , Representative from Virginia, 585; on the 
 
 Spanish treaty, 585; on a revision of the tariff, 629. 
 
 Army. See Index, vols. 1, 2, 4, 5. 
 
 Arkansas Territory. See Territories. 
 
 ASHMTTN, ELI P., Senator from Massachusetts, 7. See Index, 
 vol. 5. 
 
 AUSTIN, AECHIBALD, Representative from Virginia, 63, 200. 
 
 BAKER, CALEB, Representative from New York, 464. 
 
 BALDWIN, HENBY, Representative frpm Pennsylvania, 60, 
 200, 464 ; on fugitives from justice and service, 109 ; on 
 the claim of Beaumarchais, 214; on the Semlnole war, 
 821; on printing the secret journal of the old Congress, 
 494; on a revision of the tariff, 60S, 620. 
 
 BALL, WILLIAM LEE, Representative from Virginia, 69, 209, 
 464 ; on the case of John Anderson, 89. 
 
 Bank of the United States. In the House, memorial of, 65; 
 a resolution of inquiry into certain proceedings ot; con- 
 sidered, 207 ; loud complaints through the country rela- 
 tive to the conduct of the officers, 208; it was due to the 
 nation and the bank that a fair inquiry should bo made, 
 208 ; a report expected shortly from the Secretary of the 
 Treasury, 208 ; resolution laid over, 208. 
 
 Resolution contemplates a wider scope of inquiry than 
 is in the power of Congress, 209 ; moved to strike out 
 certain points of inquiry, 210 ; the language of the reso- 
 lution is that of the charter, 210; if the power is given 
 to inquire if the charter of the bank has been violated, 
 power is also given to report the facts upon which that 
 violation is founded, 210; object of the resolution to in- 
 quire whether or not the charter had been violated, and 
 whether improper discounts had been made or not, to
 
 714 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 stockholders, 210; the resolution not intended to convey 
 charges against the bank, but to embrace nil the topics 
 respecting which the public mind had been agitated, 
 210. 
 
 No doubt of the power of tho House on the subject, 
 211; if certain specifications are not stricken out, th 
 inference would be, if reported true, that the censure o 
 Congress or the penalty of violation of the charter would 
 follow, 211 ; proceedings of the bank referred to, 211 ; 
 public opinion of its conduct, 212; amended resolution 
 passed, 212; report of the committee, 227; memorial 
 from the President, 823 ; report of committee consid- 
 ered, 868 ; bill to repeal charter of, ordered to bo reported, 
 868 ; resolutions of committee rejected, 868. See Index, 
 vols. 1, 8, 4, 5. 
 
 Bankrupt Bill, indefinitely postponed in the Ilouse, 115. 
 
 Bankrupt Act. See Index, vols. 2, 8. 
 
 BARBER, LEVI, Representative from Ohio, 50, 201. 
 
 BARBOUR, JAMES, Senator from Virginia, 8, 179, 874, CM; on 
 the African slave trade, 10 ; on providing for the officers 
 and soldiers of the Ee volution, 20; reports on the case 
 of E. W. Meade, 44; offers a resolution of honor to Col. 
 B. M. Johnson, 45; on tho British West India trade, 48; 
 moves to suspend the third rale of the Senate, 55; on 
 the petition of Matthew Lyon, 185; on the motion rela- 
 tive to duelling, 192; President pro tern, of the Senate, 
 874 ; on the bill relative to the admission of the State of 
 Maine, 881 ; on the admission of Maine separately from 
 Missouri, 386 ; on the restriction of slavery in Missouri, 
 425 ; moves to strike out the restriction from the Missouri 
 bill, 452 ; on considering the resolution to admit Missouri, 
 659; reports on the position of Matthew Lyon, 660; rel- 
 ative to the Virginia military lands, 702; on the plan of 
 proceeding in joint meeting, 705; on the Missouri con- 
 stitution, 707 ; on a Committee of Conference relative to 
 Missouri, 710. See Index, vol. 5. 
 
 BAEBOUR, PHILIP P., Representative from Virginia, 59, 200, 
 464; on the case of John Anderson, 93; remarks on vote 
 of thanks in the Senate, 199 ; on the Seminole war, 
 266; on the Missouri State government, 841; on a 
 compromise line on slavery, 867; on the restriction of 
 slavery in Missouri, 521 ; on a revision of the tariff, 634. 
 See Index, vol. 5. 
 
 BARON DE KALB, resolutions relative to, 119. 
 
 BASSETT, BURWELL, Representative from Virginia, 59, 201 ; 
 on the claim of Beaumarchais, 209. See Index, vols.' 3, 
 4,5. 
 
 BATEMAN, EPHRAIM, Eepresentative from New Jersey, 69, 
 200,464. See Index, vol. 5. 
 
 BATES, JAMES W., Delegate from Arkansas, 567. 
 
 Batture at Saint Louis, resolutions relative to, 182. 
 
 Batture at New Orleans. See Index, vol. 4. 
 
 BAYLEY, THOMAS, Representative from Maryland, 61, 200, 
 468. See Index, vol. 5. 
 
 Beaumarchais, claim of. In the Ilouse, a bill for the relief 
 of the heirs of Baron de Beaumarchais considered, 
 208 ; particulars respecting the claim, 208 ; the impor- 
 tant services rendered, 209 ; debate on the bill, 209 ; bill 
 lost, 214. See Index, vol. 8, 5. 
 
 BEECHER, PHILEMON, Representative, from Ohio, 59, 201, 464 ; 
 on the case of John Anderson, 84, 100; on the restriction 
 of slavery in Missouri, 560, 561 ; moves to print the re- 
 port of the Committee of Conference of Ilouse and Sen- 
 ate, 568. 
 
 BELLINGER, JOSEPH, Representative from South Carolina, 
 59, 200. 
 
 BENNETT, BENJAMIN, Representative fro New Jersey, 59, 
 200. See Index, vol. 5. 
 
 Bills, Money. See Index, vol. 1. 
 
 Blank Ballots, shall they be counted rSee Index, vol. 4. 
 
 BLOOMFIELD, JOSEPH, Representative from New Jersey, 59, 
 
 200, 464 ; reports a bill relative to Revolutionary sur- 
 vivors, 65 ; remarks, 6S. 
 
 BLOUNT, WILLIAM G., Representative from Tennessee, 59, 
 
 201. See Index, vol. r>. 
 
 Blue lights, as signal* to the enemy. See Index, vol. 5. 
 
 BODEJT, ANDREW, Representative from Pennsylvania, 59, 
 200, 464. 
 
 Boss, JOHN L., Jr., Representative from Rhode Island, 53, 
 200. See Index, vol. 5. 
 
 Breach of privilege. See Index, vols. 2, 4 
 
 BRKVARD, JOSEPH, Representative from South Carolina, 464. 
 
 Bribery. In the Ilouse, letter of Anderson to a member, 
 presented, 83; the Mter, 83; statement of facts, 83; 
 motion that the Speaker issue his warrant for tho arrest 
 of Anderson, 83 ; can a warrant be issued according to 
 the forms of proceeding of the Ilouse, and constitutional 
 provisions f 84 ; no doubt of the power of the Ilouse to 
 issue a warrant when an offence is committed against its 
 privileges and its dignity, 84; no oath required to the 
 statement, 84; warrant ordered unanimously, 84; reso- 
 lution for the appointment of a committee to report a 
 mode of proceedings, 84; no question of tho offence of 
 this man, but is the Ilouse justified in the course it pro- 
 poses to pursue ? 84 ; bribery could be punished only in 
 a court of justice, 84; does the House possess authority 
 to act on the case ? 84; does the House possess any com- 
 mon law power? 84; we have no power to confine and 
 punish individuals for acts done elsewhere, 85; if thes 
 positions are correct, the Ilouse has already violated the 
 constitution, 85; if the committee which it is proposed 
 to appoint, concur with these views, the gentleman will 
 be released from arrest, 85 ; the investigation should go 
 on, unless it is convincingly shown tho House has not 
 the power, 85; Anderson should be discharged, first on 
 account of the irregularity of the proceedings in the first 
 instance, 85; tho constitution declares no warrant shall 
 issue except sustained by oath, 85; fourtli article of the 
 amendment, 85; no statute of the United States declar- 
 ing bribery an offence, 85; a precedent on record which 
 has been deprecated by the most eminent men of the 
 United States, 85; was it not the duty of the House 
 upon every occasion to deliberate in that manner which 
 afforded the best lights on any subject? 86; was this an 
 occasion to depart from that course ? 86 ; the constitu- 
 tion is a dead letter if we have no power to protect our- 
 selves from violence of this description, 86; the charac- 
 ter of the precedent established, 86; the manner in 
 which it was determined, 86; when the constitution 
 gave being to this body, it gave to it every attribute ne- 
 cessary for its purity and security, 86; precedents found 
 in the Journal of 1795, 87; has this House power to 
 punish contempt in its galleries? 87; cases which havo 
 occurred subsequently, 88; what answer is given to the 
 clause of the constitution relative to the issue of a war- 
 rant? 88; the question is this, will or will not tho House 
 inquire what authority it had to punish those offending 
 in this respect? 88; if we have the authority, we ar 
 bound to use it in the present case, 89; two offences 
 committed, one a crime for which an individual might 
 be handed over to the courts; the other an offence 
 against this House, 89 ; this inquiry should have been 
 had before the warrant issued, 89; does the party ar- 
 rested object to the warrant? 89; resolution agreed to, 
 90. 
 
 Report of the committee, 90 ; address of the Speaker 
 to the prisoner, 90; reply of the prisoner, 90; resolu- 
 tions relative to the case of Anderson, and to inquire 
 into the expediency of a law for punishing contempts, 
 submitted, 90; object to procure a division of this Ilouse 
 on the abstract question of its right to proceed in tho 
 case of Anderson, 90; in deciding this question we act as 

 
 INDEX. 
 
 715 
 
 judges, and must demand the letter of tho law to au- 
 thorize our decision, 91 ; examination of the case, 91 ; 
 no doubt the prisoner should be immediately discharged, 
 91 ; there is no law declaring this act an offence of any 
 kind, 91 ; even If It was an offence, unless a punishment 
 has been affixed by law we are still powerless, 92 ; It is 
 admitted that you have power to remove a citizen from 
 your gallery, and is not this a punishment for a crime or 
 contempt? 92; If not justified by law, is it not an as- 
 sault, a false imprisonment? 92; will gentlemen point 
 to the clause of the constitution which confers the pow- 
 er? 92; further instances supposed, 92; it is said this 
 man is called here to answer some unknown law, 92 ; 
 the force of precedent, 93; the attempt imputed to tho 
 prisoner at the bar presents itself in two points ; first 
 as a crime to be punished because of its own enormity ; 
 second, as a breach of the privileges of this House, 93 ; 
 the act caanot be punished by this House as a crime 
 within itself, 98; was the attempt complained of, a 
 breach of the privileges of a member of this House ? 
 93; constitution our guide, 93; the matter of privilege 
 was not left to construction in tho constitution, 93; 
 third section of Jefferson's Manual, 93; if this is not a 
 breach of privilege, then there is no principle upon 
 which this House can take cognizance of it, 94 ; argu- 
 ments of tho opposite side considered, 94; the exercise 
 of the power of committing for contempt is of so em- 
 barrassing a character, and so little consonant with gen- 
 eral principles, that some other mode should be adopted, 
 94; this House possesses a power to punish for contempt, 
 94; and should not decline the exercise of it, 94; enu- 
 merated and incidental or accessory powers granted by 
 the constitution, 95 ; that a legislative body should ex- 
 ist without any power to punish the offence of bribing 
 its members, 96; three distinct propositions involved in 
 the decision of this question : Has this House power to 
 punish for contempt? Is the act charged a contempt? 
 Have the proceedings been such as to warrant a further 
 Prosecution ? 96 ; origin of the power examined, 97 ; the 
 House possesses an inherent power of self-defence, 93; 
 this point proven, 98; for want of legal provision, no 
 power to punish a violation of our privileges, 98; letter 
 of Anderson to the Speaker, 99 ; moved to lay the reso- 
 lutions on the table, 99. 
 
 The dignity of the House demands that the investiga- 
 tion should proceed, 99; the House should determine 
 the abstract principle, without reference to this case, 
 100 ; further debate, 100 ; motion to lay resolutions on 
 the table lost, 100; amendment moved, 101; indefinite 
 postponement carried, 101; Anderson ordered before 
 the bar of the House, 101 ; interrogatories to Anderson, 
 and his replies, 101 ; testimony of witnesses, 102; speech 
 of the prisoner in defence, 102 ; moved to strike out the 
 words " the privileges of," in the charge against Ander- 
 son, 103; motion lost, 108; will of the House expressed, 
 103; reprimand of the Speaker, 103; Anderson dis- 
 charged, 103. See Index, vol. 1. 
 
 British Aggression* on our Commerce. See Index, vol. 8. 
 
 British Colonial Trade, report on, 197. 
 
 British Intrigues See Index, vol. 4. 
 
 British Minister, conduct of. See Index, vol. 4. 
 
 British We.it India Trade. la the Senate, bill in relation 
 to, considered, 43; object of the bill is to relievo from 
 the effects of measures adopted by Great Britain in re- 
 lation to our commercial intercourse with her North 
 American and West India Colonies, 48 ; she has shut her 
 . ports in these possessions against American vessels and 
 American property, 48 ; but she insists upon bringing 
 every thing she pleases from these possessions to the 
 United States, and to purchase, and exclusively carry 
 tho products of tho United States in return, 4S; 
 
 the evil of long standing, 48 ; her conduct after the 
 Revolutionary war, 48; resulted in the Constitution of 
 the United States, 48; action of the new Government, 
 48; effects of tho state of things in Europe, 49; conduct 
 of Great Britain subsequently, 49 ; Madison's Message, 
 49 ; tho vicious theory upon which the colonial system 
 is founded, 49 ; the English Navigation Act of the four- 
 teenth century, 49 ; it is the new principle which in mod- 
 ern times has been incorporated in the Navigation Act, 
 to which objection is made, 50 ; this principle explained, 
 BO ; the late trade between the United States and the 
 British West Indies, 51 ; why has a measure of this im- 
 portance been so long deferred, 51 ; history of our com- 
 munications with England since the peace of 1783, 51, 
 62 ; American policy that of peace and freedom of 
 trade, 53; failure of all overtures for a reciprocal treaty 
 with England, 54; Jay's mission to England, 54 ; char- 
 acter of his treaty, 54; the decision of England relative 
 to a more favorable treaty, 55 ; passage of the bill, 55 ; 
 note, 55. 
 
 BBOWN, JAMES, Senator from Louisiana, 874, 654 See In- 
 dex, vols. 4, 5. 
 
 BEOWN, WILLIAM, Representative from Kentucky, 464 ; on 
 the Senate's amendments to the Maine bill, 555. 
 
 BEtrsn, HENKY, Representative from Ohio, 464. 
 
 BRYAN, HEXBY II., Representative from Tennessee, 464. 
 
 BBYAN, JOSEPH II., Representative from North Carolina, 67. 
 See Index., vol. 6. 
 
 BUFFUM, JOSEPH, Jr., Representative from New Hampshire, 
 463. 
 
 Burning of the Library of Congress. See Index, vol. 5. 
 
 BUBEILL, JAMES, Senator from Rhode Island, 3, 179, 874, 654; 
 on the African slave-trade, 11-18; on the petition of 
 Matthew Lyon, 1S5; on the admission of Maine sep- 
 arately from Missouri, 8S5; on the restriction of slavery 
 in Missouri, 409 ; on postponing the consideration of the 
 proviso relative to citizenship of free colored persons in 
 Missouri, 662 ; on the citizenship of free colored persons 
 in Missouri, 663. 
 
 BUEWELL, WILLIAM A., Representative from Virginia, 59, 
 200, 464 ; decease of, 709. See Index, vols. 8, 4, 5. 
 
 BDTLEB, JOSIAII, Representative from New Hampshire, 58, 
 200, 463 ; on a pension to Gen. Stark, 214. 
 
 BUTLEB, THOMAS, Representative from Louisiana, 200. 
 
 BCBTON, IIuTcniNS G., Representative from North Carolina, 
 464. 
 
 CALHOUN, JOHN C., reports, as Secretary of War, on the 
 
 civilization of tho Indians, 476. See Index, vols. 4, 5. 
 CAMPBELL, GEORGE W., Senator from Tennessee, 7; on the 
 
 African slave-trade, 11, 12. See Index, vols. 8, 4, 5. 
 CAMPBELL, JOHN W., Representative from Ohio, 59, 200, 464 
 Canadian Refugees. See Index, vols. 2, 5. 
 CANNON, NEWTON, Representative from Tennessee, 464 
 Caraccas, relief of. See Index, vol. 4 
 CABBOLL, MAJOB-GENEBAL WILLIAM, resolution of honor 
 
 to, 171. 
 
 CASE, WALTEB, Representative from Now York, 464. 
 Caucus Cong resiional. See Index, vol. 5. 
 Census of the Union. See Index, vol. 1. 
 CHANDLER, JOHN, Senator from Maine, 654 ; on the Missouri 
 
 Constitution, 708. 
 
 Charitable objects. See Index, vol. 1. 
 CHASE, JUDGE, official conduct and trial of. See Index, 
 
 vol. 8. . 
 
 Chesapeake f riff ate, attack on. See Index, vol. a 
 CLAGETT, CI.IFTON, Representative from New Hampshire, 
 
 63, 200, 463 ; on tho bill relating to fugitives from justice, 
 
 107.
 
 716 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 CLAIBORNE, THOMAS, Representative from Tennessee, 59,200; 
 on presenting a sword to Col. R. M. Johnson, 170 ; on 
 presenting medals to certain officers, 171, 172. 
 
 CLAEK, ROBERT, Representative from New York, 464. 
 
 CLAXTON, THOMAS, appointed doorkeeper of the House, 59. 
 See Index, vols. 2, 4, 5. 
 
 CLAY, HENRY, Representative from Kentucky, 59, 464; 
 chosen Speaker of the House, 59 ; remarks, 59 ; on refer- 
 ence of the President's Message, 60 ; as Speaker repri- 
 mands John Anderson, 108; on fugitives from justice 
 and service, 109; on the neutrality bill, 128, 124, 12S; 
 on Spanish American Provinces, 134, 185, 188 ; on ad- 
 mitting the Representatives from Illinois, 201 ; relative 
 to foreign merchant seamen, 216 ; on the Seminole war, 
 287 ; remarks upon vote of thanks of the House, 878 ; 
 chosen Speaker, 464 ; remarks, 464 ; on the admission of 
 the State of Maine, 471, 472, 473 ; on the Missouri bill, 
 his speeches not reported, note, 562 ; on the Spanish 
 Treaty, 574 ; on a revision of the Tariff, 626 ; remarks 
 upon vote of thanks of the House, 652. See Index, 
 vols. 8, 4, 5. 
 
 Coast Survey. See Index, voL 8. 
 
 COBB, THOMAS W., Representative from Georgia, 59, 201, 
 464 ; on Georgia militia claims, 73 ; on fugitives from 
 justice and service, 109 ; on a pension to General Stark, 
 218 ; on the report relative to the Seminole war, 226 ; on 
 the Seminole war, 228 ; against the adherence of the 
 House to its refusal to strike the slavery restriction 
 clause in the Missouri State Government bill, 871. 
 
 COCKE, JOHN, Representative from Tennessee, 464. 
 
 Cod Fisheries. See Index, vols. 1, 2, and Duties on Im- 
 ports, vol. 5. 
 
 COFFEK, GENERAL JOHN, resolution of honor to, 171. 
 
 Coin*, Domestic, report on the exportation of, 190. 
 
 COLSTON, EDWARD, Representative from Virginia, 59, 201 ; 
 on pensions to Revolutionary soldiers, 68 ; on presenting 
 medals to certain officers, 172; on the migration of 
 slaves, 218; on the Seminole war, 278. 
 
 Commerce of Vie, United- States. See Index, vol. 1. 
 
 Commutation Sill, considered in the House, 72. 
 
 Compensation of Members bill passed, 84. See Index, 
 vol. 5, Pay of Members. 
 
 Compensation of President and Vice President. See In- 
 dex, vols. 1, 2. 
 
 Compromise, Missouri, first suggestion of the policy of, 859. 
 
 COMSTOCK, OLIVER C., Representative from New York, 59, 
 200 ; on pensions to wounded officers, 76 ; on the case of 
 John Anderson, 89. See Index, vol. 5. 
 
 Congress, 1st session of 15th, 8 ; history of, proposal to pub- 
 lish, 128 ; history of, report on the, 169 ; history of, 
 amendments to the bill relative to, 174 ; 2d session of 
 15th convenes, 179 ; 1st session of 16th convenes, 874 ; 
 16th, 2d session commences, 654; meeting of the two 
 Houses to count the Electoral vote, 705. 
 
 History of, in the House. Bill reported to authorize 
 a subscription to the History of Congress, 169 ; report, 
 169; House refuse to concur with the committee in 
 striking out the first section, 174; amendment offered, 
 174; moved to subscribe for two hundred and fifty 
 copies, 174 ; this amount would defeat the bill, 174 ; ex- 
 pense of the work, 174 ; motion carried, 174 ; bill laid 
 on the table, 174. 
 
 Connecticut, vote for President in 1S20, 706. See Index, 
 vols. 1, 2, 8, 4, 5. 
 
 Contested Election, report on the case of Herrick, 76 ; con- 
 tested election, Ohio, debate on, 181. 
 
 Contested Elections. See Index, vols. 1, 3. 
 
 Contingent Expenses. See Index, vols. 2, 8. 
 
 Contracts, Government. See Index, vol. 8. 
 
 Controversies between State*. See Index, voL 5. 
 
 Convoy System. See Index, vol. 4. 
 
 COOK, DANIEL P., Representative from Illinois, 464; on 
 printing the secret journal of the Old Congress, 496. 
 
 COOK, ZADOCK, Representative from Georgia, 59, 200. Stt 
 Index, vol. 5. 
 
 Cotton Goods. See Index, vol. 5, Duties on Imports. 
 
 CROWELL, JOHN, Delegate from Alabama, 200 ; Represent- 
 ative from do., 4&S. 
 
 CBANCH, W., letter transmitting to Congress a code of juris- 
 prudence for the District of Columbia, 202. 
 
 CRAFTS, SAMUEL C., Representative from Vermont, 58, 200, 
 464 
 
 CRAWFORD, JOEL, Representative from Georgia, 59, 200, 464. 
 
 CRAWFORD, WILLIAM II., letter as Secretary of the Treasury, 
 on authorizing some person to sign notes of I'nited 
 States Bank, 55 ; reports on estimate of appropriations, 
 67 ; report and estimates for 1819, 204 ; reports as Secre- 
 tary of the Treasury, 465. See Index, vols. 8, 4, 5. 
 
 CEITTENDEN, JOHN J., Senator from Kentucky, 8, 183; rela- 
 tive to the sale of the public lands, 196. 
 
 CRUGER, DANIEL, Representative from New York, 59, 202. 
 
 Cuba, emigrants from. See Index, voL 4. 
 
 CULBRETH, THOMAS, Representative from Maryland, 59, 200, 
 464. 
 
 CULPEPPER, JOHN, Representative from North Carolina, 
 464; on the Senate's amendments to the Maine bill, 
 558. See Index, vols. 8, 4, 5. 
 
 Cumberland Road, bill making appropriations passed, 170. 
 See Index, vols. 8, 4, 5. 
 
 CUSHMAN, JOHN P., Representative from New York, 59, 
 200. 
 
 CUSHMAN, JOSHUA, Representative from Massachusetts, 468. 
 
 CUTHBEET, JOHN A^ Representative from Georgia, 465. 
 
 DAGOETT, DAVID, Senator from Connecticut, 8, 179. 
 Index, vol. 5. 
 
 DANA, SAMUEL W., Senator from Connecticut, 8, 197, 874, 
 654; on the admission of Maine separately from Mis- 
 souri, 388 ; on the bill for the relief of Commodore 
 Tucker, 708. See Index, vols. 2, 8, 4, 5. 
 
 DARLINGTON, ISAAC, Representative from Pennsylvania, 59, 
 200, 464 ; on restricting slavery in Missouri, 547. Set 
 Index, vol. 5. 
 
 DAVIDSON, WILLIAM, Representative from North Carolina, 
 214, 464. 
 
 Deaf and Dumb Asylum of Connecticut, petition of, 867. 
 
 Debates, reporting of. See Index, vol. 2. 
 
 Defensive measures against Great Britain under John 
 Adams. See Index, vol. 2. 
 
 Delaware, resolutions relative to slavery in new States, 42'1 ; 
 vote for President in 1820, 706. See Index, vols. 1, 2, 3, 
 4,5. 
 
 Delegates from Territories. See Index, vol. 1. 
 
 DENNIBON, GEORGE, Representative from Pennsylvania, 
 464. 
 
 Deserters, bounty to. See Index, vol. 5. 
 
 DESHA, JOSEPH, Representative from Kentucky, 59, 200; on 
 the compensation of members, 82; on the case of John 
 Anderson, 100 ; resolution of honor to, 171 ; on the re- 
 port relative to the Seminole war, 227. See Index, vols. 
 3, 4, 5: 
 
 DEWITT, JACOB H., Representative from New York, 464. 
 
 DICKERSON, MAHLON, Senator from New Jersey, 8, 179, 874, 
 654 ; on the petition of Matthew Lyon, 697. See Index, 
 vol. 5. 
 
 DICKINSON, JOHN D., Representative from New York, 464. 
 
 Diplomatic. Intercourse. See Index, vol. 2. 
 
 District of Coluntbia.ln. the Senate, letter on code of
 
 INDEX. 
 
 717 
 
 jurisprudence of, 202; a resolution to inquire into the ex- 
 pediency of giving the District of Columbia a delegate 
 in Congress, considered, 458; an inquiry which should 
 be left to the other House, 458 ; the people have not 
 asked it, 458; resolution agreed to, 459. See Index, 
 vols. 2, 3. 
 
 Divorces in, the District of Columbia. See Index, vols. 
 8,4 
 
 Domestic Manufactures. See Index, voL 5. 
 
 DOUGHERTY, THOMAS, elected Clerk of the House, 59; chosen 
 Clerk of the House, 464. See Index, vol. 5. 
 
 DOWSE, EDWARD, jr., Representative from Massachusetts, 
 463. 
 
 DOYLE, EDWARD, letter to General Jackson, 818. 
 
 DRAKE, JOHX E., Representative from New York, 59, 201. 
 
 Drawback*. See Index, vol. 1, Duties on Imports. 
 
 Duelling. In the Senate, a motion to request the President 
 to dismiss certain officers, considered, 192 ; the practice 
 of duelling is inhuman, 192; it is unjust and wicked, 
 192 ; what apology is offered to mitigate the crime of 
 the death of Mason? 193; character of Mason, 193; 
 affliction of the family, 193 ; let us not multiply the re- 
 grets already attending this melancholy event, 193; the 
 offenders are subject to a civil tribunal if a crime has 
 been committed, 194 ; reason why the resolution should 
 not be adopted, considered, 194 ; resolutions relative to 
 the practice of, considered, 459 ; occurrences of the kind, 
 459 ; occasion of the resolutions, 459, 460, 461 ; laid on 
 the table, 462. 
 
 DTTFOTTR, J. J., petition for extension of time to pay for land, 
 223. 
 
 DITHX, THOMAS, appointed Sergeant-at-arms of the House, 
 59 ; chosen doorkeeper of the House, 464. 
 
 Duties on Imports Specific and ad valorem duties. In 
 the Senate, motion to direct the Committee on Finance to 
 make inquiry relative to the collection of ad valorem 
 duties, 7 ; two classes of duties under present laws, 7 ; 
 specific and ad valorem, 7 ; these explained, 7 ; the for- 
 eign cost is the basis of the ad valorem duty, 8; the 
 quantity that of the specific, 8 ; manner of ascertaining, 
 8; the method of obtaining the value exceedingly 
 liable to evasion, by untrue statements, 8 ; of all temp- 
 tations to undervalue merchandise, it is not possible to 
 devise one more direct and dangerous, 8 ; the provision 
 of appraisement seems to promise security, but falls far 
 short of adequate remedy, 8 ; hence, an invoice of the 
 foreign cost is no security to the revenue this cost ia 
 determined by the oath of the person who makes the 
 entry, in all cases except of appraisement the appraise- 
 ment is subject to abuses greatly injurUfcs to the reve- 
 nue, 8 ; half the imports subject to duty on the valno 
 are manufactures of cotton and wool, 8 ; the fraud of 
 false statements is facilitated by the difference of fabrics, 
 and is practised to a great extent, 8 ; history of many 
 great Importations made within the last three years, S ; 
 instances of consignments, 8; appraisement increases 
 the value stated in the invoice but little, 9 ; the foreign 
 owner beyond the reach of our laws, 9. 
 
 Impossible to ascertain with exactness the extent to 
 which the revenue suffers by false invoices and appraise- 
 ments subject to ad valorem duties, 9 ; the records only 
 show differences in cases of appraisement, 9 ; of the total 
 net revenue now received from merchandise, about 
 two-thirds arise from the ad valorem duties, and one- 
 third arises from the specific duties, 9 ; the amount of 
 loss through fraud is estimated between one-sixth and 
 one-fifteenth of the total amount of ad valorem duties, 
 9 ; say ten per cent of the amount of the revenue, 9 ; 
 thus during the years 1815, 1816, and 1817, the loss has 
 exceeded five millions of dollars, 9 ; the system of de- 
 termining the value for ad valorem duties commenced 
 
 with the establishment of the Government, and might 
 have been tolerably successful while the duties were 
 low, 10; subsequent increase in the rate of duties, 10. 
 
 If these evils result from the present system, a reme- 
 dy must be found in some alteration of the system 
 itself, 10 ; one-fifth of the articles now imported may, 
 with entire convenience, be subjected to specific duties, 
 10 ; advantage of specific duties in point of security and 
 fair and equal operation, 10; the provisions of forfeiture 
 and appraisement would operate with efficiency, 10 ; or 
 the British system might be adopted, 10; features of 
 that system, 10 ; snccessfulness of it, 10. 
 
 In the House. Bill relative to, considered, 601 ; table 
 of the old and the proposed rates of duty, 602. 
 
 Revision of the Tariff, Protection. Explanation of 
 the views of the Committee of Manufactures, 603 ; this 
 nation can never be flourishing or independent unless it 
 can supply from its own resources its food, its clothing, 
 and the means of defence, 603 ; to be dependent on for- 
 eign nations for essential articles is inconsistent with 
 true policy, 603; the system must be radically changed, 
 603 ; other committees have declined or refused to act, 
 604 ; in a time of profound peace a loan is necessary for 
 the present year, and a larger one will be required for 
 the next, 604; you must either make perpetual loans, or 
 open new sources of revenue, 604 ; those who now com- 
 plain that the committee recommend too much, will, 
 when the day arrives, regret the rejection of this bill, 
 which proposes a change gradual but necessary, 604 ; the 
 consumption of foreign produce, not its importation, is 
 the source of revenue, 605 ; past policy of the Govern- 
 ment, 605 ; the present tariff was reported more to aid 
 the Treasury than to protect the industry of the conn- 
 try, 605; the protection afforded by the present bill ex- 
 ceeds in a small degree that of 1816, 605; what the bill 
 proposes, 605; there is no evidence that our duties have 
 ever been so high that there has been smuggling to any 
 great extent, 606 ; the] nation must command its own 
 consumption, its own means of defence, 606; we are 
 now to decide on the course of internal policy which 
 shall best develop the resources, promote the industry, 
 and secure the independence of the country, 607 ; agree- 
 ment entered into by the Congress of 1774, 607; tariff 
 of France, 608; all that is asked is to meet regulation by 
 regulation, and thus make competition fair and just, 
 603; the additional duty on cotton, 609; the duty on 
 silks, 610 ; the mode of ascertaining the value of goods, 
 610 ; if these principles do not meet the approbation of 
 the House, we had better say to those who want pro- 
 tection, "let things regulate themselves," 611; the duty 
 on hemp, 611; iron and glass, 612, 613; rum, 614; draw- 
 back on tin and copper when made up and exported, 
 614 ; the late war totally destroyed the impost, you were 
 left without revenue, 615; it is said, this bill will destroy 
 commerce, 616. 
 
 This is said to be an experiment, and we should be ex- 
 ceedingly cautious how we adopt experiments of a vague 
 and uncertain character, 616 ; to support national indus- 
 try is the inevitable consequence of the bill on your ta- 
 ble, 616 ; are the present manufacturers of the country 
 really entitled to this aid ? 616 ; if gentlemen imagine by 
 this bill to secure the permanent interest of the manufac- 
 tures they are greatly deceived, 617 ; what will be tho 
 effect of this measure? 61 7; we are [promised a home 
 market for our products, 617. 
 
 What remedy is proposed for the evils that afflict us ? 
 618 ; it is said, manufacturers are no more depressed than 
 other classes of the community, 619 ; an excise duty ia 
 foreseen if we pass this bill, 619; motion to strike out 
 the first section lost, 620. 
 
 Mode of Payment of Dutiet.Eil]. regulating the
 
 718 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 payment of dnties considered, 620 ; credit heretofore al- 
 lowed at the custom house, 620 ; its terms, 620 ; good 
 reason for allowing liberal credits while our commerce 
 was (struggling to compete with other nations, 621 ; these 
 credits should have been gradually diminished, but the 
 reverse has been our policy, 621 ; the practical applica- 
 tion of the maxim "let trade regulate itself," is devel- 
 oped by this custom-house system, 621 ; the continuance 
 and enlargement of these credits objected to, 621 ; the 
 cries of distress which assail us from commercial cities 
 accounted for, 622. 
 
 It is generally admitted that every interest of the 
 country is depressed, 622 ; this bill proposes the abolition 
 of the present system of credits on revenue bonds and 
 the adoption of an entire new system, 622 ; credits under 
 the act of 1T92, 623 ; the system which the bill proposes, 
 623 ; merchants now under bonds to the amount of 
 twenty millions, 623 ; this bill will add ten or fifteen 
 millions more, 623 ; credits allowed by the commercial 
 nations of Europe, 624 ; this bill discourages importa- 
 tions generally, 624 ; losses to Government, 624 ; the aid 
 to manufactures ought to be sought in some other way, 
 625 ; moved to strike out the first section, 626 ; nations 
 like individuals should be permitted to seek their own in- 
 terests in their own way, 626 ; statesmen were never more 
 uselessly employed than in attempting to direct the ave- 
 nues of trade, 626 ; England has not found it to her ad- 
 vantage entirely to exclude foreign articles, 627 ; the 
 situation of our country with regard to England in a 
 contest of this kind, 627 ; agriculture our most impor- 
 tant branch of industry, and should it be made to suffer 
 for the benefit of any other branches? 62S; if the fixed 
 capital of the existing manufactures be sufficient to sus- 
 tain them, they require no further support, 628; to raise 
 up new manufactures by a diversion of capital must op- 
 erate as a tax upon the consumption of the country, 
 628; the first objection to the bill related to its apparent 
 Inefficacy in reference to its avowed object, 629; not di- 
 rected to the attainment of any object of public policy 
 at all, 629 ; a project for the relief of the private adver- 
 sity of the manufacturers, 629; the impairment of man- 
 ufacturing capital furnishes no sufficient reason for this 
 bill, 680 ; tendency of capital to seek the best invest- 
 ment, 630 ; no direction of capital relatively useful can 
 require adventitious encouragement, 680; an employ- 
 ment which requires such encouragement must be a 
 losing one, 631; the advantages anticipated from the 
 success of the proposed system were referable to two 
 general heads the establishment of domestic sources of 
 supply of manufactured articles, and the establishment 
 or extension of a domestic market for the surplus of ag- 
 ricultural productions, 631 ; a home market the principal 
 argument for a protective system, 682 ; further debate, 
 633, 634 ; the avowed object of the bill is by increased 
 dnties on imports to encourage domestic manufactures, 
 634; advantage of the impost system for revenue, 635; 
 less loss to the government, 635 ; it is said we cannot 
 much longer get on without the aid of internal taxation, 
 636; it will diminish importations, 636; in violation of 
 the general principles of political economy, 636; the 
 strength of every country consists in the number, char- 
 acter and wealth of its population, 637 ; advantage of the 
 agricultural system over the manufacturing, 637, 638 ; 
 the profits of manufacturing had been such during the 
 war as to allure many into it without sufficient capital, 
 639 ; it is said England has derived her immense wealth 
 from manufacturing, 640; the emblem of England is a 
 painted sepulchre, 640; nations of Europe have pursued 
 the system of prohibition towards us, it is said, 640. 
 
 Whatever contrariety of opinion may prevail with 
 regard to the mass of theories on this subject, there is a 
 
 common foundation for them all; and that is that the 
 source of individual and national wealth is labor, and 
 the degree of the former will be in proportion to tho 
 activity of the latter, 643 ; first duties of a nation to 
 make the labor of its citizens active, and direct it to the 
 most profitable results, 6-13; if a nation expects to be- 
 come wealthy and powerful, it must exert itself to sup- 
 ply its wants by its own labor, rather than depend upon 
 foreign labor for the articles of the first necessity, 643; 
 the system is not a new one in the United States, 644; 
 we relied upon England before our independence, 644 ; 
 the demand exceeded our means of supply, 644 ; the de- 
 gree of encouragement is tho only remaining question, 
 645. 
 
 Illusory to suppose a bounty can be given to any 
 branch of industry, without at least a temporary sacri- 
 fice to some others, 646 ; between tho results of com- 
 mercial and manufacturing industry the difference is not 
 as great as has been represented, 646 ; the industry em- 
 ployed in commerce is American industry, and tho ac- 
 quisition even of foreign fabrics is the result of Ameri- 
 can industry and its encouragement, 646; by this bill 
 then you promote one branch of industry at the expense 
 of another, 646; the encouragement of manufactures in 
 the mode proposed must produce two effects one that 
 of withdrawing labor and capital from commerce or ag- 
 riculture, and thus enlarging the whole amount em- 
 ployed in manufactures the other that of effecting the 
 distribution of labor and capital among the different 
 branches of manufactures themselves, 647 ; view upon 
 which peculiar reliance is placed for the defence of this 
 bill, 647; how far is the propriety " of leaving things to 
 themselves " affected by the opposite system pursued by 
 foreign powers? 648; further debate, 649, 650; various 
 amendments proposed and lost, 651 ; bill passed, 651. 
 See Index, vols, 1, 2, 8, 4, 5. 
 Duties on Tonnage. See Index, voL 1. 
 
 EAKLE, ELIAB, Representative from South Carolina, 64, 202, 
 464. See Index, vols. 4, 5. 
 
 EATON, JOHN HENRY, Senator from Tennessee, 179, 374, 
 654 ; relative to the committee on the Seminole war, 
 195; on the admission of Missouri, 659; on the constitu- 
 tion of Missouri, 661, 662 ; offers a proviso relative to 
 citizenship of free colored persons in Missouri, 661, 687 ; 
 on the admission of Missouri, 687. 
 
 EDDY, SAMUEL, Representative from Rhode Island, 463. 
 
 EDWARDS, HENRY "W., Representative from Connecticut, 
 463. 
 
 EDWARDS, NINIAN, Senator from Illinois, 184, 874, 654 ; on 
 the restriction of slavery in Missouri, 401 ; relative to 
 the sale of the public lands, 455. 
 
 EDWARDS, SAMUEL, Representative from Pennsylvania, 464. 
 
 EDWARDS, WELDON N,. Representative from North Carolina, 
 69, 200, 465 ; offers a resolution on titles of nobility, 76 ; 
 on reference of the petition of Matthew Lyon, 201 ; on 
 the government of Florida, 228. See Indese, vol. 5. 
 
 Electors of President. See Index, vol. 1. 
 
 ELLICOTT, BENJAMIN, Representative from New York, 59, 
 201. 
 
 ELLIOTT, JOHN, Senator from Georgia, 374, 658; on the re- 
 striction of slavery in Missouri, 892. 
 
 Embargo.-See Index, vols. 8, 4, 5, & Index, vol. 1. Great 
 Britain. 
 
 Enlistments, encouragement of. See Index, vol. 5. 
 
 EPPES, JOHN W., Senator from Virginia, 8, 179. See Index, 
 vols. 8, 4, 5. 
 
 EBVIN, JAMES, Representative from South Carolina, 76, 202,
 
 INDEX. 
 
 719 
 
 46S; on the case of John Anderson, 98; on bill for re- 
 lief of Gen. St Clair, 112; on the Scminole war, 329; on 
 a mausoleum to Gen. Washington, ?>'.>*. 
 
 Excite, resolutions of Pennsylvania in 1791, relative to, 
 420. 
 
 Excise on Liquors. Set Index, vols. 1, 5. 
 
 Executive Department*. See Index, vol. 1. 
 
 Expatriation. In the House, a resolution to provide by 
 law for the exercise of the right of, considered, 65 ; the 
 question which had arisen during the late war made a 
 decision of it necessary, 65 ; American soldiers natives 
 of Great Britain taken prisoners during the last war 
 were treated as traitors, 65; how could the United States 
 take the ground of retaliation, when they had never 
 recognized in regard to our own citizens what we re- 
 garded of Great Britain ? 66; reason to believe the right 
 has been denied to our citizens, 66; ease of Isaac Wil- 
 liams as decided in our courts, 66; a decision more im- 
 portant now, from considerations growing out of the 
 present relations between the United States and foreign 
 nations, 66; case under the treaty with Spain, 66; to 
 hold a commission under a government at war with 
 S[>ain makes any of our citizens a pirate, 66; motion 
 adopted, 66; bill reported, 63. 
 
 Motion to strike out the first section of the bill consid- 
 ered, 115; Congress have not the constitutional power to 
 pass such a law, 115; origin and principles of the right, 
 115; if it exist at all it is a civil right, commensurate 
 with civil society and civil institutions, 115; the exer- 
 cise of the right should be regulated by rules resulting 
 from the nature and force of civil obligations, 116 ; the 
 Government of the United States has not the power to 
 proscribe rules on this subject, 116; its powers are lim- 
 ited, 116; its powers are federal, not national, 116 ; can 
 Congress then destroy the relation of citizenship be- 
 tween a citizen and the State? 117; personal rights of 
 the citizen in his relation to the individual state are not 
 under the control of Congress. 117 ; a citizen of one State 
 would be a foreigner in another without some provision 
 to the contrary, 117 ; this is the old feudal doctrine, 11T ; 
 it is contended that allegiance is a contract requiring the 
 consent of the person and the Government to cancel it, 
 117 ; it is said, that our citizens will avail themselves of this 
 law in case of another war, 118; what is the true ques- 
 tion to be decided? 113; this question stated, 118; ob- 
 ject of the bill is to declare that the principle of perpet- 
 ual allegiance, known to the common law of England, 
 has no existence in this country, 118; meaning of alle- 
 giance, 118; absurdity of perpetual allegiance manifest 
 even in England, 119 ; motion to strike out carried in 
 committee and in the House, 119. See Index, vols. 2, 5. 
 
 Exports, for the year 1818, 225. 
 
 Expunging the Journal of the Senate. See Index, vol. 3. 
 
 FAT, JOHJT, Representative from New York, 464. 
 
 Federal Judges. See Index, vols. 2, 8. Amendments to 
 
 the Constitution, fc Index, vols. 4, 5. 
 FISHER, CHARLES, Representative from North Carolina, 833, 
 
 464. 
 FISK, JAMES, Senator from Vermont, 8. See Index, vols. 
 
 8,4,5. 
 Flag of the U. In the House, motion to inquire into the 
 
 expediency of altering the national flag considered, 67; 
 
 the flag has been altered before, 67; incongruity of flags 
 
 in use, 67; motion to inquire carried, 67; report of the 
 
 committee, 81. 
 Bill to alter the. national flag considered, 182 ; our flag 
 
 was founded on a representative principle and made ap- 
 plicable to the number of States, 182 ; alterations that 
 have been made in the flag, 133 ; alterations proposed, 
 188. See Index, vol. 1. 
 
 Florida, Government of. In the House, resolution to in 
 quire relative to taking possession of East Florida un- 
 der the law of 1811 offered, 227; subject already before 
 the Committee of Foreign Relations, and will soon be re- 
 ported, 228; information already before the House, 228 ; 
 a message communicating a treaty for the acquisition ot. 
 869 ; bill for the occupation of, passed in the House, 370; 
 treaty ratification of, 710; bill to take possession of, or- 
 dered to a third reading, 711 ; note relative to, 711. See 
 Spanish Treaty. 
 
 Florida, purchase of. See Index, voL 8. 
 
 Florida Went, occupation of. See Index, vol. 4. 
 
 FLOYD, JOHN, Representative from Virginia, 63, 200, 464 ; 
 on the Spanish American Provinces, 153 ; on the report 
 relative to the Seminole war, 226; on the Seminole war, 
 823. 
 
 FOLGER, WALTER, Jr., Representative from Massachusetts, 
 
 58, 201, 463. 
 
 FOOT, SAMUEL A., Representative from Connecticut, 463 ; on 
 the admission of Maine, 474; on slavery in territories, 
 515 ; opposes the remission of forfeiture in a case of the 
 importation of slaves, 573; on a revision of the tariff, 
 650. 
 
 FORD, WILLIAM D., Representative from New York, 464 
 
 Foreign Ministers, abuse of privileges. See Index, voL 8. 
 
 Foreign Relations. See Index, vols. 4, 5. 
 
 FORNEY, DANIEL M., Representative from North Carolina, 
 
 59. See Index, vol. 5. 
 
 FOREEST, THOMAS, Representative from Pennsylvania, 464 ; 
 on the restriction of slavery in Missouri, 563. 
 
 FOBSYTH, JOHN, Representative from Georgia, 59, 200 ; on the 
 Spanish American Provinces, 62; on representative 
 qualification, 64 ; offers a resolution for the arrest of John 
 Anderson, 83, 84 ; on the case of John Anderson, 85, 87, 
 92, 99; on neutral relations, 123, 124, 125, 180; on the 
 Spanish American Provinces, 185, 145; Senator from 
 Georgia, 188; resigns his seat in the Senate, 195. See 
 Index, voL 5. 
 
 France, relations with. See Index, vols. 2, 5. 
 
 Franking Privilege. See Index, vols. 1, 2. 
 
 Free Colored persons, citizenship of, in Missouri. See Mis- 
 souri. 
 
 Freedom of Conscience. See Index, voL 1. 
 
 French Decrees. See Index, voL 5. 
 
 French Refugees. See Index, voL 1. 
 
 French Spoliations. See Index, vols. 2, 8. 
 
 FROMENTIW, ELEGITJS, Senator from Louisiana, 18, 179 ; on 
 the pension to Gen. Stark, 189. See Index, vol. 5. 
 
 Frontiers, Protection of. See Index, voL L 
 
 Fugitives from Justice. See Index, vol. I. 
 
 Fugitive Slaves. Set Slaves, Fugitite, voL 6, and Indea^ 
 vol. 5, Slaves. 
 
 FULLER, TIMOTHY, Representative from Massachusetts, 76, 
 214, 465; on fugitives from justice, 109; on the Missouri 
 State Government, 339. 
 
 FULLEBTOX, DAVID, Representative from Pennsylvania, 
 464 
 
 GADSDEK, JAM n, letter to Gen. Jackson, 814 
 GAOK, JOSHCA, Representative from Massachusetts, 59, 200, 
 GAILLARD, JAMES, Senator from South Carolina, 8, 179, 874, 
 654; elected Prcsidi-nt/wo tern, of the Senate, 8; Presi- 
 dent pro tern, of the Senate, 179 ; elected President pro
 
 720 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 tern, of the Senate, 416; President pro tern, of the Sen- 
 ate, 684. See Index, vols. 8, 4, 5. 
 
 GWM & Seaton, elected printers to the House, 872. 
 
 GARNETT, ROBEKT S., Representative from Virginia, 59, 200, 
 464. 
 
 General Welfare clause examined. See Index, vol. 1. 
 
 Georgia Militia Claims. In the House, bill for the pay- 
 ment of certain detachments of Georgia militia for ser- 
 vices In 1793 and 1794, in defence of that State consid- 
 ered, 73 ; the Indian outbreaks of those years along the 
 entire northwestern frontier, 73; formidable tribes on 
 the borders of Georgia, 73 ; tne Executive of Georgia 
 was alive to the horrors commencing on the frontiers, 
 78 ; representations made to the war department, 73 ; 
 correspondence on the subject, 74 ; pay-rolls destroyed 
 by the British in 1814, at the burning of the public build- 
 ings, 74 ; amount of force in service, 74 ; power of the 
 Governor suspended by the Secretary of "War, 75; fur- 
 ther correspondence and facts, 75. See Index, voL 3. 
 
 Georgia, vote for President In 1820, 706. Se Index, vols. 
 1, 2, 8, 4, 5. 
 
 Georgia Land Claim. Se* Index, vol. 3 
 
 German Language, Laws in. See Index, vol. 2. 
 
 GILBERT, SYLVESTER, Representative from Connecticut, 
 200. 
 
 GOLDBBOBOUGII, ROBERT H., Senator from Maryland, 7, 179; 
 on providing for the officers and soldiers of the Revolu- 
 tion, 30. Set Index, vol. 5. 
 
 GOODWYN, PETERSON, Representative from Virginia, 60 ; de- 
 cease of, 114. See Index, vols. 8, 4, 5. 
 
 GROSS, EZRA C., Representative from New York, 464. 
 
 GROSS, SAMUEL, Representative from Pennsylvania, 464 ; on 
 the Senate's amendments to the Maine bill, 554; on a re- 
 vision of the tariff, 618. 
 
 Great Britain, Russia, and France interpose to prevent a 
 rupture between the United States and Spain, 573. 
 
 Great Britain, retaliatory measures on. See Index, vol. 1. 
 
 Gunboats. See Index, voL 2. 
 
 Habeas Corpus, Suspension of. See Index, voL 8. 
 
 HACKLEY, AARON, Jr., Representative from New York, 464. 
 
 HALE, SAMUEL, Representative from New Hampshire, 58, 
 200. 
 
 HALL, GEORGE, Representative from New York, 464. 
 
 HALL, THOMAS H., Representative from North Carolina, 59, 
 200, 464. 
 
 HALL, WILLARD, Representative from Delaware, 68, 222, 
 469. 
 
 HAMBLY, WILLIAM, letter to Gen. Jackson, 313. 
 
 HAMILTON, ALEXANDER, Report as Secretary of the Treas- 
 ury. See Index, vol. 1. Treasury. 
 
 HANSON, ALEXANDER C., Senator from Maryland, 179; de- 
 cease of, 875. See Index, voL 5. 
 
 HAKDIN, BENJAMIN, Representative from Kentucky, 468; 
 on restricting slavery in Missouri, 499. See Index, voL 5. 
 
 Harmony in Indiana, Society of, See Index, voL 8. 
 
 HARPER, ROBERT G., Senator from Maryland ; votes for as 
 . Vice President in 1820, 706. See Index, vols. 1, 2, 5. 
 
 HARRISON, WILLIAM II., Representative from Ohio, 59, 200, 
 on pensions to sufferers in war, 66 ; relative to pensions 
 to Revolutionary soldiers, 68; on the resolution to arrest 
 John Anderson, 83; on the case of John Anderson, 100 ; 
 on the resolution of respect to Gen. Kosciusko, 104 ; on 
 presenting medals to certain officers, 171, 173; on ad- 
 mitting the Representatives from Illinois, 201 ; on slave- 
 ry in Illinois, 206; on a pension to Gen. Stark, 218; on 
 a pension to widows and orphans, 218; on the admission 
 
 of Cadets at West Point, 221 ; on a compromise line on 
 slavery, 367 See Index, vols. 2, 5. 
 
 HASBROUCK, JOSIAH, Representative from New York, 59, 200. 
 
 HAWLEY, WILLIAM, elected chaplain of the Senate, 7. 
 
 HAZARD, NATHANIEL, Representative from Rhode Island, 
 463; on relief to the family of Com. Perry, 556. 
 
 HEISTER, JOSEPH, Representative from Pennsylvania, 59, 
 214, 464. See Index, vols. 2, 8, 5. 
 
 HEMPHILL, JOSEPH, Representative from Pennsylvania, 
 464; on restricting slavery in Missouri, 502. 
 
 HENDRICK, WILLIAM, Representative from Indiana, 59, 200, 
 464 ; on restricting slavery in Missouri, 541. See Index, 
 vol. 5. 
 
 HERBERT, JOHN C., Representative from Maryland, 59, 200. 
 See Index, voL 5. 
 
 HERKIMEB, JOHN, Representative from New York, 59, 200. 
 
 HEBRICK, SAMUEL, Representative from Ohio, 59, 208, 464. 
 
 HIBSHMAN, JACOB, Representative from Pennsylvania, 464. 
 
 HILL, MARK Z., Representative from Massachusetts, 463; on 
 printing the journal of the Old Congress, 494. 
 
 HITCHCOCK, PETER, Representative from Ohio, 63, 214. 
 
 HOGG, THOMAS, Representative from Tennessee, 59, 20L 
 
 HOLMES, DAVID, Senator from Missouri, 654. 
 
 HOLMES, JOHN, Representative from Massachusetts, 58, 200; 
 463 ; on the government of certain towns in Florida, 
 228; on the Seminole war, 230; on appointing a com- 
 mittee to report a bill restricting slavery, 470 ; on the 
 admission of Maine, 472, 475 ; on restricting slavery in 
 Missouri, 483; on the Senate's amendments to the 
 Maine bill, 553; Senator from Maine, C54; on the con- 
 stitution of Missouri, 677 ; on the bill for the relief of 
 Com. Tucker, 703; on the Missouri constitution, 707 ; on 
 ' a Committee of Conference relative to Missouri, 710. 
 
 HOLMES, URIEL, Representative from Connecticut, 58 ; on 
 fugitives from justice and service, 109, 110. 
 
 Home Department. See Index, vol. 1. Executive Depart- 
 ments & Index, voL 5. 
 
 Home Manufactures worn in the House. See Index, vol. 8. 
 
 Honors to Vie Brave. In the House, resolutions to award 
 gold medals to Gens. Carroll, Coffee, and Desha, 171 ; 
 services of Gen. Desha, 171 ; moved to insert the name 
 of Gen. Henry, 171 ; reason for proposing medals, 171 ; 
 if the resolutions were passed, would it not be proper to 
 seek out meritorious officers of the Revolution, 172; 
 not customary to go below the commander of an army 
 in awarding medals, 172; medals generally given to 
 commanders, and swords to officers, 172; services of 
 Carroll and Coffee, 172 ; this House has no wealth to be- 
 stow, 172 ; moved to lay the resolutions on the table, 
 173; It would be invidious and unjust to reject the cases 
 now before the House, 173 ; resolutions laid on the ta- 
 ble, 178. 
 
 HOOKS, CHARLES, Representative from North Carolina, 464. 
 See Index, vol. 5. 
 
 HOPKISSON, JOSEPH, Representative from Pennsylvania, 59, 
 200; on the case of John Anderson, 86,100; on fugi- 
 tives from justice and service, 109; on Spanish Ameri- 
 can Provinces, 136; on presenting medals to certain 
 officers, 172; on the Seminole war, 290. See Index, 
 vol. 5. 
 
 HORSEY, OUTERBRIDGE, Senator from Delaware, 7, 374, 654 ; 
 on a National vaccine institution, 697. See Index, vola. 
 4,5. 
 
 HOSTETTEE, JACOB, Representative from Pennsylvania, 200, 
 464. 
 
 House convenes 1st session of 15th Congress, 58 ; adjourns at 
 close of 1st session of 15th Congress, 178 ; commences 
 at 2d session of 15th Congress, 200 ; convenes 1st session 
 of 16th Congress, 463 ; report of Committee of Confer- 
 ence on the Missouri bill, 567; adjourns at close of 1st 
 session of 16th Congress, 653.
 
 INDEX. 
 
 721 
 
 UUBBAKD, THOMAS IL, Representative from New York, 69, 
 
 .200. 
 
 HCNTEB, WILLIAM, Representative from Vermont, 59, 200. 
 UUNTER, WILLIAM, Senator from Rhode Island, 13, 184, 874, 
 
 658. See Index, vols. 4, 5. 
 HCNTINGTON, EBENBZEB, Representative from Connecticut, 
 
 58,200. 
 
 Illinois, State of. In the House, a bill to enable the people 
 of Illinois to form a State Government, considered, 178 ; 
 amendment moved relative to the boundary, 178 ; the 
 object is to gain for the State a coast on Lake Michigan, 
 173; this will secure a canal from Lake Michigan to the 
 Illinois river, 173 ; motion agreed to, 178 ; amendment 
 moved to appropriate a portion of the fund for roads to 
 purposes of education, 173 ; amendment agreed to, 174 ; 
 bill passed, 174 ; question of swearing in the Represent- 
 ative, as Congress had not concluded the act of admis- 
 sion, 201 ; the State constitution should first be exam- 
 ined, 201 ; precedent to the contrary, 201 ; House refuse 
 to allow the oath to be administered, 201 ; constitution 
 referred, 201 ; committee report, 202. 
 
 The resolution to admit the State of Illinois consider- 
 ed, 204; there should be before the House some docu- 
 ment to show that the territory had the required popu- 
 lation, 204; the principle of slavery is not sufficiently 
 prohibited, 204 ; sixth article of the ordinance relating 
 to the Northwest Territory, 204; the sixth article of the 
 constitution of the State of Illinois, 205; it embraces a 
 complete recognition of slavery, 205; constitution of 
 Indiana scrupulous on this point, 205; has the Stat^of 
 Illinois virtually complied with her contract, and fol- 
 lowed the example of two other States already erected 
 from the same territory? 205; all that was necessary 
 with respect to population was that Congress should be 
 reasonably satisfied, 206; nothing unconstitutional in 
 any view in Congress accepting what the people of Illi- 
 nois have done if they thought proper, 206 ; Congress 
 bound by a tie not to be broken, 206; to accept it would 
 be to violate a pledge solemnly given, 206 ; the people 
 of Illinois will never come to this House for permission 
 to after their constitution to admit slavery, 207 ; resolu- 
 tion carried, 207. 
 
 Illinois, vote for President in 1820, 706. 
 
 Impeachment. See Index, vol. 8. 
 
 Importation of Slaves. See Index, voL S. Duties on Im- 
 ports. 
 
 Imports. See Duties on -Imports. 
 
 Imprisonment for Debt. See Index, vol. 2. 
 
 Indemnity for Spoliations. See Index, voL 1. Great Sri- 
 tain. 
 
 Indian Affairs, report on, 106. 
 
 Indian Affairs. See Index, voL 4. 
 
 Indian Lands within a State, rights over. See Index, 
 vol. 1. 
 
 Indian Trading Houses. See Index, vol. 1. 
 
 Indian title, petition of Assembly of Tennessee, 128. 
 
 Indians, report on the civilization of, 476. 
 
 Indiana, vote for President in 1820, 706. See Index, voL 5. 
 
 Indiana, admission of. See Index, voL fc 
 
 IKGHAX, SAMCKL D., Representative from Pennsylvania, 
 59. 
 
 Intercourse, Commercial, do. foreign, do. Non. See In- 
 dex, vol. 4. 
 
 Internal Improvements. In the Senate, report of a com- 
 mittee, 67. 
 
 In the House. Resolution relative to the powefrof 
 Congress respecting internal improvements considered, 
 120 ; moved to amend, 121 ; lost, 121 ; moved to postpone 
 You VI. 46 
 
 indefinitely, 121 ; lost, 121 ; resolution declaring the gen- 
 eral power of Congress carried, 121 ; resolution relating 
 to post and military roads lost, 121 ; other resolution, 
 voted upon, 122 ; note, 122. See Index, voL 5. 
 
 Invalid Corps. See Index, vol. 5. 
 
 Irish Emigrant Association, memorial of, 82. 
 
 IBVING, WILLIAM, Representative from New York, 59, 200 
 See Index, voL 5. 
 
 JACKSON, ANDREW, remonstrance of, 107. See Index, vols. 
 2,3. 
 
 Jails of States. See Index, vol. L 
 
 JEEVAIS, SAMUEL, deposition of, 811. 
 
 JOHNSON, HENRY, Senator from Louisiana, 84, 179, 881, 654; 
 relative to the sale of the public lands, 457. 
 
 JOHNSON, JAMES, Representative from Virginia, 61, 207, 464 ; 
 on the expatriation bill, 117; on the Seminole war, 235; 
 on restricting slavery in Missouri, 544; on a revision of 
 the tariff, 626. See Index, vol. 5. 
 
 JOHNSON, RICHABD M., Representative from Kentucky, 59. 
 200 ; on the case of John Anderson, 84; makes a report 
 relative to surviving revolutionary officers, 214; on the 
 admission of cadets at West Point, 221 ; on the report 
 relative to the Seminole war, 227; on the Seminole war, 
 247; Senator from Kentucky, 881, 654; on the Missouri 
 constitution, 707. 
 
 Honors to. In the Senate, a resolution to present Col. 
 Johnson with a sword, considered, 45 ; can be no ques- 
 tion about the merit, only objections may relate to tho 
 time when the resolution was presented, or possibly to 
 the grade of CoL Johnson in the army, 45 ; reasons of 
 the delay, 45 ; his grade considered, 46 ; merit of CoL 
 Johnson, 46 ; sketch of his sen-ices on the Northern 
 frontier, 47 ; slaughter of Tecumseh, 47. 
 
 In the House. A resolution considered, to present a 
 sword to Col. R. M. Johnson for bravery at the battle, 
 170; moved to insert the names of Major General Car- 
 roll and Brigadier General Coffee, 170 ; reasons for the 
 amendment, 171; amendment withdrawn, 171; reso- 
 lution passed, 171. See Index, vols. 8, 4, 6. 
 
 JONES, FEANCIS, Representative from Tennessee, 59, 200 
 464 ; on the Seminole war, 257. 
 
 JONES, JAMES, Representative from Virginia, 464. 
 
 JONES, WILLIAM, memorial on the Bank of the United States, 
 828. 
 
 Journal of the Old Congress. In the House, a resolution 
 for the publication of the Secret Journal of Congress, 
 from the Treaty of Peace to the formation of the con- 
 stitution, 492 ; ordered to be engrossed for a third read- 
 ing, 493; object of the proposed publication, 498; it is 
 said to contain matters interesting to the people to know, 
 494 ; occurrences of that period, 494 ; it had been thought 
 inadvisable to dissolve the correspondence of the Secret 
 Journal, which was the reason it had not been ordered 
 to be published, 494 ; reports and papers connected with 
 it should be published, 495 ; a proposition to expose our 
 family bickerings, 495; further debate, 496; referred, 
 497; moved to take up the resolution previously offered, 
 572 ; difficult to see what reasons can exist against the 
 publication, 572 ; comprises only sixty or eighty pages, 
 572; resolution passed, 572. 
 
 Judges, Federal, removal of. See Index, vols. 2, 4 
 
 Judiciary System. See Index, vol. 2. 
 
 KENDALL, JOHAB, Representative from Massachusetts, 463.
 
 INDEX. 
 
 KENT, JOSEPH, Kepresentative from Maryland, 464. See 
 Index, vols. 4, 5. 
 
 Kentucky, vote fpr President in 1820, 706. See Index, vols. 
 4,5. 
 
 Kidnapping, bill relative to, 462. 
 
 KING, EUFUS, Senator from New York, 3, 179, 416, 654; on 
 the African slave-trade, 11, 12, 17 ; relative to the officers 
 and soldiers of the Revolution, 20; on the British West 
 India trade, 49 ; on the pension to General Stark, 189 ; 
 on the restriction of slavery in Missouri, 435, 458 ; on 
 the bill for the sale of the public lands, 456 ; on giving 
 the District of Columbia a delegate on the floor of Con- 
 gress, 458; on considering the citizenship of free colored 
 persons in Missouri, 661, 662, 687 ; relative to the Vir- 
 ginia Military Lands, 702; on the bill for the relief of 
 Commodore Tucker, 708 ; on the proceedings in joint 
 meeting, 705. See Index, vols. 1, 4, 5. 
 
 KCRG, WILLIAM E., Senator from Alabama, 880, 654; draws 
 lots relative to class of Senators, 3SO. See Index, vols. 
 4,5. 
 
 KINSEY, CHARLES, Representative from New Jersey, 59, 200 ; 
 on the Missouri Compromise, 568. 
 
 KINSLEY, MAETIN, Representative from Massachusetts, 463. 
 
 KIETLAND, DOEBANCE, Representative from New York, 59, 
 200. 
 
 KOSCIUSKO, GENEEAX. In the House, resolution to in- 
 quire what measures should be adopted to express 
 proper respect to General Kosclusko, 103 ; his decease 
 announced, 104 ; sketch of his life, 104 ; his views in re- 
 lation to Poland, 104; his efforts there, 104; his subse- 
 quent career, 105 ; a substitute moved for the resolution, 
 106 ; do. withdrawn, 106 ; the usual practice not in ac- 
 cordance with the measure proposed, 106. 
 
 LACOCK, ABNER. Senator from Pennsylvania, 8, 179 ; on the 
 African slave-trade, 18. See Index, vols. 4, 5. 
 
 Lake Superior Copper Lands. See Index, vol. 2. 
 
 LAMBERT, WILLIAM, memorial of, 202. 
 
 Lands, Western. See Index, vols. 1, 8, 4, Public Lands. 
 
 LANMAN, JAMES, Senator from Connecticut, 374, 658. 
 
 LATHBOP, SAMUEL, Representative from Massachusetts, 468. 
 
 LAWYER, THOMAS, Representative from New York, 59, 200. 
 
 LEAKE, WALTER, Senator from Mississippi, 7,179,374; on 
 the restriction of slavery in Missouri, 404 
 
 LEWIS, WILLIAM J., Representative from Virginia, 59, 200. 
 
 Library of Congress. See Index, vol. 2. 
 
 Library of Mr. Jefferson. See Index, voL 5. 
 
 Lieutenant-General. See Index, voL 5. 
 
 Light House Duties. See Index, voL 3. 
 
 Limitation, statutes of. See Index, vols. 2, 4. 
 
 LINCOLN, ENOCH, Representative from Massachusetts, 200, 
 463 ; on encouragement to vine cultivation, 223. 
 
 Lara, JOHN, Representative from New Jersey, 59, 200, 464 ; 
 on the migration of slaves, 213. 
 
 LITTLE, PETER, Representative from Maryland, 59, 200, 464. 
 See Index, vols. 4, 5. 
 
 LrvERMORE, ARTHUR, Representative from New Hampshire, 
 58, 200, 463 ; relative to the warrant for the arrest of 
 John Anderson, 84; on the case of John Anderson, 85, 
 88 ; on fugitives from justice and service, 110 ; on a pen- 
 sion to General Stark, 213, 214 ; on th Missouri State 
 Government, 845 ; on fixing a line for the limitation of 
 slavery, 366, 367 ; on the admission of Maine, 472 ; on 
 the Senate's amendment to the Maine bill, 554. 
 
 LLOYD, EDWARD, Senator from Maryland, 381, 658 ; on the 
 admission of Maine separately from Missouri, 3S4 ; on a 
 National Vaccine Institution, 697, 702. 
 
 Loan BiU.See Index, voL 5. 
 
 LOGAN, WILLIAM, Senator from Kentucky, 874 ; on the ad- 
 mission of Maine separately from Missouri, 888. 
 
 Louisiana and Missouri Land Tittea.See Indetr, vol. 5. 
 
 Louisiana, purchase of, see Index, vols. 2, 3 ; Treaty, s<* 
 Index, vol. 8 ; Territory, see Index, vols. 8, 4 ; State, 
 see Index, vol. 4. 
 
 Louisiana, vote for President in 1820, 706. See Index, 
 vols. 4, 5. 
 
 LOWNDEB, WILLIAM, Representative from South Carolina, 
 59, 207, 464; on the repeal of internal duties, 64; makes 
 a report on salt duties, 120; on the Neutrality bill, 127, 
 180 ; on the Spanish American Provinces, 134 ; on the 
 Bank of the United States, 211 ; reports on the regu- 
 lation of coins, 272 ; on the Seminole war, 298 ; on the 
 bill for the Missouri Convention, 469 ; on appointing a 
 committee to report a bill for the restriction of slavery, 
 470 ; on accountability for public money, 498 ; offers a 
 resolution to provide for the family of Commodore 
 Perry, 554, 555 ; on the Missouri Compromise, 568; on 
 the Spanish treaty, 581 ; on a revision of the Tariff, 625, 
 645. See Index, vols. 2, 8, 4, 5. 
 
 LOWRIE, WALTER, Senator from Pennsylvania, 874, 654; on 
 the restriction of slavery in Missouri, 405. 
 
 LYMAN, JOSEPH 8., Representative from New York, 464. 
 
 LYON, MATTHEW, memorial of, 465 ; report on the petition 
 of, 660. See Index, vols. 2, 3, 4, and Sedition, voL 6. 
 
 MACLAY, WILLIAM, Representative from Pennsylvania, 59, 
 61,201. See Index, voL 5. 
 
 MACLAY, WILLIAM P., Representative from Pennsylvania, 
 59, 200, 464; on fugitives from justice and service, 109; 
 on a pension to General Stark, 213. See Index, vol. 5. 
 
 MACON, NATHANIEL, Senator from North Carolina, 8, 179, 
 874, 654 ; on providing for the officers and soldiers of the 
 Revolution, 26; on the petition of Matthew Lyon, 187 ; 
 Reports on the British Colonial Trade, 197 ; on the ad- 
 mission of Maine separately from Missouri, 885 ; on the 
 restriction of slavery in Missouri, 411 ; on the bill for 
 the relief of Commodore Tucker, 703 ; on the plan of 
 proceeding in joint meeting, 705. See Index, vols. 1, 2, 
 8,4,5. 
 
 MADISON, JAMES, letter to Robert Walsh, 333. See Index, 
 vols. 1, 2, 4, 5. 
 
 Maine. In the Senate, a bill for the admission of, consider- 
 ed, 381 ; moved to refer it to the Judiciary Committee 
 to amend by providing for the admission of Missouri, 
 881 ; postponed, and House bill with same amendment 
 taken up, 382 ; report in the Senate, 454. 
 
 In the House. A bill for the admission of Maine con- 
 sidered, 471; no objection in relation to Maine itself 
 with regard to admission, but certain new doctrines 
 have sprung up relative to States west of the Mississippi, 
 which should be determined before this State was ad- 
 mitted, 471 ; case of Kentucky and Vermont, 471 ; the 
 application of Maine was a distinct question, 472 ; the 
 precedent with regard to representation, 472 ; it is said 
 if restrictions were to be imposed on Missouri, then 
 Maine and Missouri ought to go hand hi hand, but the 
 territory acquired from France stands on a distinct foot- 
 ing, 472 ; if we have no right to impose conditions on 
 Maine, then none should be imposed on Missouri, 472 ; 
 the argument untenable, that because the Territory of 
 Missouri was purchased, she was therefore our vassal, 
 472 ; the doctrine is an alarming one, 472 ; it is a dis- 
 tinction which neither exists in reason, nor can bo car- 
 ried into effect in practice, 478; no similarity in the 
 cases of Maine and Missouri, 473 ; a majority of the 
 House believe in the right of annexing conditions to
 
 INDEX. 
 
 723 
 
 Missouri, but not one believes so with regard to Maine, 
 473 ; does Maine stand in the way of Missouri, or does 
 something else ? 478 ; it is said equality is equality, then 
 apply the principle to the present case, 473 ; what say 
 the friends of Maine with regard to the admission of 
 Missouri? 474; why should you give privileges to Maine 
 which you deny to Missouri? 474; some provision 
 should be incorporated in the bill relative to the repre- 
 sentation from Maine, 474 ; the compact between Maine 
 and Massachusetts, 474; Congress can legalize it, 475; 
 further debate, 475; bill reported to the House, 475; 
 various amendments made, 475 ; bill ordered to third 
 reading, 476. 
 
 Amendments of the Senate to the bill for the admis- 
 sion of Maine, considered, authorizing the people of 
 Missouri to form a State Government, and- prohibiting 
 slavery north of 86' 80", except in Missouri, 558 ; moved 
 to disagree, and moved to refer to the Committee of %e 
 Whole, 553 ; immediate action opposed, 553 ; connection 
 of the bills disapproved, 554 ; the Senate a right to an- 
 nex any amendments to a bill from this House, 554 ; 
 commitment lost, 555; bill postponed, 555; taken up, 
 556 ; motion to disagree to the amendment adding Mis- 
 souri to the bill, carried, 557 ; all amendments disagreed 
 to except that containing the compromise, 557. 
 
 Message that the Senate insist, 560; moved to post- 
 pone, 560 ; lost, 560 ; moved to disagree to the sections 
 adding the Missouri bill, 560 ; other amendments dis- 
 agreed to, 561 ; message from the Senate asking a con- 
 ference, 561 ; assented to, 562. 
 
 Maine, vote for President in 1820, 706. 
 
 MARCHAND, DAVID, Representative from Pennsylvania, 59, 
 200,464. 
 
 MAKE, GEOEGE W. L., Representative from Tennessee, 59, 
 228. 
 
 MARTIN, LCTHER, extract from report of, to the Legislature 
 of Maryland, 4S5. 
 
 Maryland, vote for President in 1820, 706. See Index, vols. 
 1, 2, 8, 4, 5. 
 
 Maryland Memorial on the state of National Affairs. See 
 Index, voL 5. 
 
 MABON, JONATHAN, Representative from Massachusetts, 68, 
 200, 463 ; on fugitives from justice and service, 110. 
 
 MASON, JAMBS B., Representative from Rhode Island, 90, 209. 
 
 Massachusetts, vote for President in 1820, 706. See Index, 
 vols. 1, 2, 8, 4, 5. 
 
 Massachusetts Memorial on the War of 1812. See Index, 
 voL5. 
 
 McCor, "WILLIAM, Representative from Virginia, 59, 200, 
 464. See Index, vols. 4, 5. 
 
 McCKEAKY, JOHN, Representative from South Carolina, 464. 
 
 McLxxE, Louis, Representative 'from Delaware, 59, 201, 
 464 ; on the expatriation bill, 115 ; on the Bank of the 
 United States, 208, 209; first suggests a compromise line 
 for the limitation of slavery, 859; on the prohibition of 
 slavery in Arkansas Territory, 859 ; on restricting slavery 
 in Missouri, 507; on the Senate amendments to the 
 Maine bill, 555; on a revision of the Tariff, 641, 
 
 MCLEAN, ALKEY, Representative from Kentucky, 464 See 
 Index, voL 5. 
 
 MCLEAN, JOHN, Representative from Illinois, 214 See In- 
 dex, voL 5. 
 
 MKADE, R. W. In the Senate, report on the case of, 44 
 
 In the House. A resolution calling for information 
 relative to the impressment of Mcade, considered, 70 ; 
 explanation of the case, 70 ; no violation has been done, 
 of either the letter or spirit of any part of the Spanish 
 criminal code, 70; there was no cause for complaint 
 against him, 70; a public order was issued commanding 
 his release, and a private order at the same time was 
 sent commanding his detention, 70; further remarks, 
 
 71 ; motion agreed to, Tl ; a resolution requiring the 
 President to make a demand on the King of Spain for 
 the liberation of Meade, considered, 174; this resolution 
 preferred, because the resolution of the committee is 
 not strong enough, 175; the facts as reported, 175 ; report 
 of the committee goes as far as the duty of the HOUSA 
 ought to go, 176; substitute lost, 177. 
 
 Mediterranean Trade. See Index, voL 2. 
 
 MEBCH, EZRA, Representative from Vermont, 469. 
 
 MEIGS, HENRY, Representative from New York, 464; offers 
 resolutions to provide a remedy for slavery, 502. 
 
 MELLEN, PRESTOS, Senator from Massachusetts, 179, 374 ; 
 on the admission of Maine separately from Missouri, 
 884; on the restriction of slavery in Missouri, 400. 
 
 MERCER, CHARLES F., Representative from Virginia, 59, 200, 
 464; on the case of John Anderson, 96; on the resolu- 
 tions relative to the slave-trade, 225 ; on the report rela- 
 tive to the Seminole war, 226; on a monument to DC 
 Kalb, 262; on the Seminole war, 278; on postponing 
 the bill to authorize the Missouri Convention, 469 ; on 
 appointing a committee to report a bill restricting sla- 
 , very, 470 ; on printing the Secret Journal of the Old 
 Congress, 494 ; on the Senate's amendments to the Maine 
 bill, 554 
 
 MERRILL, ORSAMUS C., Representative from Vermont, 59, 
 200,464 
 
 Message to 1st session of 15th Congress, 4; relative to 
 Amelia Island, 19 ; relative to return duties by Great 
 Britain, 84; relative to the Seminole Indians, 44; on re- 
 lations with Spain, 122 ; on Spanish American Provinces, 
 136 ; on the Seminole war, 137 ; at 2d session of 15th Con- 
 gress, 179; relative to deported slaves, 184 ; relative to 
 the act for the gradual increase of the Navy, 224 ; com- 
 municating a treaty for thS acquisition of Florida, 869; 
 at 1st session of 16th Congress, 875 ; relative to the 
 Sierra Leone Colony, 879 ; on our relations with Spain, 
 458 ; from Senate to the House annexing the passage 
 of the Missouri bill with an amendment, 567 ; relative 
 to the Florida cession, 573 ; at 2d session of 16th Con- 
 gress, 655 ; stating the ratification of (he Florida Treaty, 
 710. 
 
 METCALFB, THOMAS, Representative from Kentucky, 464 
 
 MIDDLETOX, HENRY, Representative from South Carolina, 
 59, 200. See Index, vol. 5. 
 
 Military Academy and Academiea.-'See Index, vols. 2, 5. 
 
 MILLER, STEPHEN D., Representative from South Carolina, 
 59,223. See Index, voL 5. 
 
 MILLS, ELIJAH II., Representative from Massachusetts, 114, 
 218; Senator from Massachusetts, 653. See Index, voL 8. 
 
 Mint, establishment of. See Index, vols. 1, 2. 
 
 Miranda's Expedition. See Index, vol. 4 
 
 Mississippi, committee appointed in the Senate to inquire 
 if any legislation necessary for admission of, 4 
 
 Mississippi, vote for President in 1820, 706. 
 
 Mississippi River, free navigation of. See Index, vol. 2. 
 
 Mississippi Territory. See Index, voL 4, Territories, 
 State, see Index, vol. 5. 
 
 Missouri. In the House, petition of inhabitants for ad- 
 mission as a State, 123. 
 
 In the Senate. A. bill from the House to authorize 
 the people of Missouri Territory to form a State Gov- 
 ernment, and another for admission, referred to a com- 
 mittee, 195; moved to postpone, 198; lost, 198; moved 
 to strikeout the restriction clause, 198; carried, 198; 
 House refuse to concur, 198; Senate resolve to adhere, 
 193; House adhere, 199; note, 199. 
 
 In the Ifouse. Bill to enable the people of the terri- 
 tories of Missouri and Alabama to form State Govern- 
 
 Restriction moved. Moved to restrict the existence 
 of slavery in Missouri, 833; note on the distinction be-
 
 724 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 tween restriction and compromise, 888 ; the restrictive 
 proviso, 834 ; questions of right and expediency involved, 
 884; free governments beyond the Mississippi all in- 
 volved in this question, 884 ; has Congress the power to 
 require of Missouri a constitutional prohibition against 
 the further introduction of slavery, as a condition of her 
 admission into the Union, 884 ; Congress has Jio power 
 except expressly delegated or necessary to the execution 
 of some delegated power, 834; what are the grants in 
 relation to territories, 834 ; practice of Congress, 884 ; 
 the exercise of this power never questioned until now, 
 835 ; it is said that by the treaty of 1808 with the French 
 Eepublic, Congress is restrained from imposing this con- 
 dition, 885; terms of the treaty, 385; object of the arti- 
 cle, 835 ; President and Senate no power to bind Con- 
 gress to admit new States, 385 ; the treaty no operation 
 on the question in debate, 885 ; how the treaty has been 
 complied with, 885; it is said the amendment violates 
 the treaty, because it impairs the property of the master 
 in the slave, 885; is it wise to exercise this power? 886 ; 
 history will record the decision of this day, 836 ; advan- 
 tages to the negro by dispersion over the country, 836 ; 
 effect of the amendment in reducing the value of slave 
 property, considered, 837 ; amendment calculated to 
 disfranchise our brethren of the South by discouraging 
 their emigration wesu of the Mississippi, 887 ; its ad- 
 mission will have the same effect in regard to the North, 
 887 ; how are laboring men regarded by slaveholders ? 837; 
 by this prohibition, it is said we shall reduce the price 
 and diminish the sales of land, $88 ; the relative value 
 of lands in adjoining States, 888; results of experience, 
 888 ; Congress has a discretionary power in the admis- 
 sion of new States, 339 ; our duty requires we should 
 examine the actual state of things in the proposed 
 state, 389 ; the prohibition of slavery implies nothing 
 more than that its constitution shall be republican, 839 ; 
 the republican character of slaveholding States not to be 
 questioned, 889 ; provisions of the constitution recog- 
 nizing the right in the States holding slaves at its adop- 
 tion to continue to hold them, 840 ; the attempt to ex- 
 tend slavery is in violation of the clause guaranteeing 
 a republican form of government, 840 ; first clause of 
 the second section of the fourth article of the constitu- 
 tion examined, 840 ; it is said the amendment abridges 
 the rights of the slaveholding States to transport their 
 slaves to new States for sale or otherwise, 840 ; the ex- 
 pediency of the measure is very apparent, 841 ; it is 
 said, we are bound by treaty to admit the Territory 
 as soon as possible, 841. 
 
 Effect of the proposed amendment is to prohibit the 
 further introduction of slaves into the new State of Mis- 
 souri, and to emancipate at the age of twenty-five the 
 children of all those slaves now within its limits, 841 ; 
 no constitutional right to enact this provision, 841 ; Mis- 
 souri would labor under a disadvantage with respect to 
 the other States, if this prohibition is adopted, 842 ; if 
 we have a right to go one step in relation to a new State 
 beyond the footing upon which the original States 
 stand, we have the same fight to take any other attri- 
 bute from them, 842 ; the force of legislative precedent 
 protested against, 842 ; these precedents examined, 842 ; 
 If it were within our power, we were forbidden from 
 exercising it by every consideration of justice, human- 
 ity, and sound policy, 848; the justice of the measure, 
 843 ; the policy of the measure examined, 343 ; affect 
 the value of countless millions of public lands, 344. 
 
 The amendment accords with the dictates of reason 
 and the best feelings of the human heart, 345; what is 
 slavery ? 845 ; it is not established by our constitution, 
 845; until the ceded territory sh.aU have been made into 
 States, and the new States admitted into the Union, we 
 
 can do what we please with it, 845; an opportunity is 
 now presented to diminish, at least to prevent, the 
 growth of a sin which sits heavy on the soul of every 
 one of us, 846 ; resolution passed in committee, 846. 
 
 Bill reported to the House and amendments agreed to, 
 except the prohibition of slavery, 846; protest against 
 the introduction, under the insidious form of an amend- 
 ment, of any principle, the obvious tendency of which 
 wouH be to sow the seeds of discord, 846; Congress has 
 not the power to impose this or any condition, under the 
 constitution, as a prerequisite of admission, 346; remarks 
 of Madison, 347 ; constitutional point further examined 
 847 ; the practice under the constitution has been differ- 
 ent from that now contended for, 848 ; the restrictions 
 unwarrantable from the provisions of the treaty of ces- 
 sion, 848 ; the admission of Louisiana an example, 848 ; 
 the people of Missouri were, if admitted into the Union, 
 to come in on an equal footing with the original states, 
 849 ; it is admitted that a constitution formed on this 
 provision can be altered immediately on admission, why 
 then legislate for what can produce no practical effect? 
 849. 
 
 All reasons for acquiescing In slavery cease when you 
 cross the Mississippi, 850 ; we are warned to beware of 
 the Ides of March, 851 ; if a dissolution of the Union 
 must take place, let it be so, 851; violent expressions in 
 debate, 851 ; has slavery become a subject of such dell- 
 cacy that it cannot be discussed? 851 ; look at the coun- 
 try west of the Mississippi, in the future peopled by 
 planters with their slaves or without them, 852 ; it is 
 said we have no right to annex conditions to a State on 
 its admission, 852 ; the constitution is silent as to the 
 terms of admission of new States, 852 ; Congress has a 
 right to prescribe the time and condition of admission, 
 852 ; it is said this is a new principle for which we con- 
 tend, 858 ; see the law for the admission of Louisiana, 
 853; it is said the amendment is contrary to the treaty 
 and cession of Louisiana, 353; the treaty-making power 
 has no right to stipulate the terms upon which a people 
 shall be admitted into the Union, 853; the argument of 
 bettering the condition of slaves by spreading them over 
 the country, 854; it is said, long habit has rendered 
 slaves necessary to the southern and western people, 
 . 854.; upon this subject the eyes of Europe are turned 
 upon you, 854; sectional contrasts drawn, 355; it is said, 
 any attempt to control this subject by legislation is a 
 violation of that faith and mutual confidence upon which 
 the constitution was adopted, 855 ; amendment agreed 
 to, 856 ; bill ordered to a third reading, 856. 
 
 Amendments of the Senate considered, 870 ; indefinite 
 postponement moved.and lost, 370; question on concur- 
 rence with the Senate lost, 870 ; message from the Sen- 
 ate announcing their adherence, 871; moved that tho 
 House adhere, 871 ; debate, 371 ; adherence carried in 
 the House, 872; bill lost, 872; note, 872. 
 
 In the Senate. Memorial from the Legislative Coun- 
 cil of Missouri, praying admission into the Union, 881. 
 
 Maine and Missouri. Bill from the House for the 
 admission of the State of Maine, with amendments au- 
 thorizing the people of Missouri to form a convention 
 preparatory to admission, 882 ; moved to refer the bill 
 separate from the amendment embracing Missouri, 382; 
 the question of the admission of Maine was one ques- 
 tion, that of the admission of Missouri another, 882; 
 that of uniting the two in one bill was a distinct ques- 
 tion now submitted, 382; proceedings in Maine, 883; 
 proceedings relative to the two bills, 383 ; is it regu- 
 lar or even justifiable to connect two subjects in ono 
 bill ? 383 ; no good reason why they should be sepa- 
 rated, 883 ; if any difference existed, the preference was 
 in favor of Missouri, 383 ; the bill in relation to Maine
 
 INDEX. 
 
 725 
 
 passed the House of Representatives in the simplest 
 form, 884; impropriety of this junction in two bills, 884; 
 two subjects are not different in their nature, 884; shall 
 Maine and Missouri be admitted into the Union on an 
 equal footing? 884; only one course under the power 
 granted In the constitution, 884 ; if the Senate have a 
 right to impose restrictions on Missouri, they have also 
 on Maine, 385 ; it is conformable to the rules and prac- 
 tice of the Senate, to separate the two subjects, 885; 
 case? distinct in their nature, 885 ; no necessity to re- 
 commit the bill, 885 ; nothing more common than for 
 Congress to pass bills for particular objects and "for 
 other purposes," 886 ; the Senate had, in more instances 
 than one, tacked one bill to another of a different nature, 
 886; instance, 886; history of the progress of this sub- 
 ject, 386; objections urged to uniting the bills, 386; ob- 
 jects of referring a bill to a committee, 887; further 
 debate, 887 ; motion to recommit lost, 888. 
 
 Restriction moved. Moved to add the restriction of 
 slavery to the amendment whereby Missouri is admitted 
 to form a State constitution, 3S9 ; manner in which this 
 Government was established, 339 ; the occasion which 
 offered, in 1787, to apply the just, social principles recog- 
 nized in 1776, 3S9 ; the ordinance of '87, and the articles 
 of compact it contains, 890; the great men who execu- 
 ted this trust looked not at the bearings of interest, or 
 to the gratification of an unworthy ambition, 890 ; tho 
 framing of the constitution, 390 ; the cession by North 
 Carolina, 391; after this long-settled construction, can it 
 be contended that Congress, in the admission of Missouri, 
 can propose no check on the evils of slavery ? 891 ; act 
 of Louisiana relative to the migration of slaves, 891. 
 
 "What is the question we are called upon to decide 1 
 892 ; claims of the people of Missouri to admission : 1st, 
 under the constitution ; 2d, from the obligations volun- 
 tarily assumed by the United States, in the treaty of 
 1803; 8d, from the suggestions of sound policy, 392; 
 sections of the constitution examined, 393; migrate, 
 393 ; if Congress, under the constitution, may refuse ad- 
 mission to new States, she is pledged, under the treaty, 
 in this case, 394 
 
 Necessity that our Government be wisely adminis- 
 tered, 894 ; the uncontrolled extension of involuntary 
 servitude will tend to impair all those virtuous qualities 
 which compose stamina, nerve, muscle, and hope of the 
 nation, 895 ; Congress have the right and power to-pro- 
 hibit slavery in every territory within their dominion, 
 and in every State, formed of territory acquired without 
 the limits of the original States, 895; this position ex- 
 amined and enforced, 896. 
 
 The sectional feeling indicated by the sentiments ex- 
 pressed in this debate to be regretted, 398; powers 
 granted to Congress, 398; the words "migration and 
 importation," 899; note, 899; shall we take upon our- 
 selves to judge for the people of Missouri what is most 
 for their advantage, if they think different from us ? 400 ; 
 the people are either capable of self-government, or they 
 are not ; if the former, permit them to frame a constitu- 
 tion for themselves, 400; it is said an alarming degree of 
 excitement exists in the public mind, 401; in what does 
 this excitement consist, 401; there is a difference of 
 opinion, but no excitement except in the imagination of 
 gentlemen, 401 ; it is said, sectional jealousies and ani- 
 mosities will be the Immediate consequence.of the suc- 
 cess of this amendment, 401. 
 
 Neither the slaveholding States, nor those who oppose 
 the restriction, are influenced by a desire to increase 
 slavery in the United States, 402; neither is the pro- 
 posed restriction necessary to prevent, nor its omission 
 calculated to augment the importation of fresh slaves, 
 402 ; interest of every State at the West, that fair and 
 
 equal inducement to emigration thither should be af- 
 forded to the citizens of every section, 402; the only 
 point of difference relates to the slaves that are now 
 among us, 408 ; the present subject does not furnish any 
 adequate motives for the present attempts at excite- 
 ment, 408; on what ground are the jealousies of our 
 slaveholding brethren predicated, 408; take the case of 
 Virginia, 408 ; can the slaveholding States oppose this 
 restriction from any other motives than those which are 
 truly national? 404; their principles calculated to di- 
 minish their own power and to abolish slavery, 404; 
 source whence the power to impose the restriction is 
 derived, 404; what fs a State, within the meaning of 
 the constitution? 404; meaning of the word territory, 
 405. 
 
 First principles, 405; have Congress the right to pro- 
 pose to the State of Missouri the restriction contained 
 in the amendment, 405; State sovereignty, 405 ; migra- 
 tion, importation, authority of Madison and Judge Wil- 
 son, 406; construction of the clause relating to territo- 
 ries, 406; practice of the government, 406; Congress 
 possesses all the rights of France over this territory, 
 406; France could have imposed this condition, 407: 
 cases supposed, 407; history of the new States, 407 r 
 the obligation imposed upon this government by the 
 treaty of cession, 407 ; it is said, the treaty guarantees 
 their property to all the inhabitants of Missouri, 407 ; 
 a case in point, 408 ; ordinance of 1787, 407 ; the policy 
 of adopting the proposed restriction, 408 ; it cannot be 
 pretended that the toleration of slavery is necessary 
 for the self-preservation of the people of Missouri, 408 ; 
 it is said, humanity to the slaves requires the rejection 
 of the amendment, 408; it is said, nothing is done to 
 spread slavery by opening the extensive regions of the 
 West, 408; go to Africa and see if you can discover 
 the gap where the negroes have come who have black- 
 ened half of America, 408 ; it is said, the constitution 
 gives us no power to impose the restriction, 409; is 
 not the burden of proof thrown on those who make the 
 assertion ? 409 ; our Federal Government the result of 
 compromise, 409 ; how far this compromise went, 409 ; 
 the limitation of the otherwise unlimited power of Con- 
 gress over this subject, was confined to the States then 
 existing, 410 ; the clause is not a grant but a limitation 
 of power, which relates to the importation of slaves, 
 410 ; migration, the term examined, 410 ; the terms ap- 
 plied as they were intended, 410 ; Orleans territory, re- 
 strictions relating to, 410 ; a continual reference to and 
 acknowledgment of the ordinance of 1787 in all the acts 
 of cession and for admitting new States, 411 ; it is said, 
 the adoption of this amendment would place the State* 
 on a footing of inequality, 411. 
 
 The time of the adoption of the constitution, 411 ; the 
 amendment is calculated to produce geographical par- 
 ties, or why admonish us to discuss it with moderation 
 and good temper ? 412 ; all the States now have equal 
 rights, and all are content, 412 ; all the country west of 
 the Mississippi was acquired by the same treaty, and on 
 the same terms, and the people In every part have the 
 same rights, but if the amendment be adopted Missouri 
 will not have the same rights as Louisiana, 412; its ope- 
 ration is unjust as regards the people who have moved 
 there from the other States, 418; the object now avowed 
 is to pen up the slaves and their owners, and not allow 
 them to cross the Mississippi to better their condition, 
 418; a wise Legislature will always consider the charac- 
 ter, condition, and feeling of those to b legislated for, 
 418; let the United States abandon this new scheme, let 
 their magnanimity and not their power be felt by the 
 people of Missouri, 418 ; Great Britain lost the Tinted 
 States by attempting to govern too much, 413 ; can you
 
 726 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 expect to persuade Missouri to yield to our opinion on I 
 any better reasons than Great Britain had to persuade j 
 the United States f 418; the character of those who set- 
 tle our frontiers, 414; experience of Pennsylvania with 
 the "Wyoming settlers, 414; why depart from the good 
 old way which has kept us in quiet, peace, and harmo- 
 ny? 414; opinions have changed in the slavcholding 
 States within a few years, 415 ; treatment of slaves at 
 the South, 415; the view of Virginia friends of freedom, 
 415. 
 
 If the bill for admitting Missouri would be accompa- 
 nied by such grounds and provisions as would forever 
 preclude the spread of this moral pestilence, it might 
 be supported by some who now oppose it, 416; no such 
 disposition yet manifested by the friends of the bill, 416; 
 it is said, a more grave and portentous question never 
 entered these walls, 416; if the obligations imposed 
 upon us by the constitution were rigorous to the extent 
 which gentlemen seem to insist, our condition is deplo- 
 rable, 417; without this power of annexing conditions, 
 the United States would be a strange anomaly in the 
 society of nations, 417; a State formed of people called 
 Shakers, 418; other instances, 418 ; it is said, Congress 
 has not the constitutional power to establish, so neither 
 is it competent to abolish slavery, 418. 
 
 First clause of the ninth section of the first article of 
 the constitution examined, 419 ; in looking to the rea- 
 sons, you must employ all the ground necessary to as- 
 certain for what purpose a particular principle was 
 adopted, 419 ; view taken of " migration," by those who 
 press the restriction, 419 ; do. by those who oppose the 
 restriction, 419; morality of the slaveholding States 
 compared with the non-slaveholding States, 420 ; rebel- 
 lion in Massachusetts, 420 ; Pennsylvania on the excise 
 laws, 420 ; conduct of the slaves at Pittsburg, 421 ; New 
 York has given as hopeful signs of a turbulent temper as 
 Pennsylvania or Massachusetts, 421 ; a question involv- 
 ing the construction of the great charter of our liberties, 
 421 ; was the Declaration of Independence designed to 
 dissolve the bonds of social order throughout the 
 United States, to reduce all men to a state of nature, 
 and set at large a host of slaves? 422; wherever eman- 
 cipation has been effected it has been by the authority 
 of State laws, 422; the treaty of Ghent contains a stip- 
 ulation for the restoration of slaves, 422 ; Congress have 
 enacted laws regarding slaves as property, 422 ; the con- 
 stitutional question examined, 423 ; it is a written com- 
 pact thus created, thus adopted, whose powers we ex- 
 amine, 423 ; to the advocates of power in any instance 
 the people may with propriety say, show the grant of 
 the power in the constitution, 428 ; it must bo admitted 
 by every statesman that this constitution never was de- 
 signed to have jurisdiction over the domestic concerns 
 of the people in the several States, 428; to accomplish 
 the proposed object Congress must invent a new mode 
 of legislation a legislation in perpetuity, 424; you im- 
 pose by statute a restriction to be and remain irrevoca- 
 ble, 424 ; this bill is not simply a law, but a law to make 
 in part a constitution for the State of Missouri, 424 ; 
 Missouri would thus enter the Union shorn of some of 
 those beams of sovereignty which surround her sister 
 States, 424 ; it is said, similar terms were prescribed to 
 the States of Ohio, Indiana and Illinois, 424 ; these States 
 furnish not even the frail authority of precedent, 424 ; 
 course pursued in the debate, 425 ; have not the South- 
 ern members invariably supported with unanimity, 
 every proposition which had for its object the suppres- 
 sion of the slave trade ? 425 ; the real question is, shall 
 we violate the constitution by imposing restrictions 
 upon Missouri ? 425 ; while exercising the great privilege 
 of forming their government, shall we disregard the 
 
 solemn obligations Imposed by treaty ? 425 ; the terms 
 u migration " and " importation " examined, 426 ; migra- 
 tion was intended to refer to free foreigners coming to 
 this country, while importation was intended to apply 
 to slaves from abroad, 426; exposition of the clause 
 given at a period near the adoption of the constitution, 
 426 ; if your discretion even as to admission is limited, 
 and in the present case all the constituent qualifications 
 exist on the part of the people of Missouri for self-gov- 
 ernment, you are bound to admit them as a State, 426; 
 it is said, the uniform course of the Government since 
 the ordinance of 1787, amounts to a precedent, 427 ; the 
 ordinance was founded in usurpation, 427 ; the course of 
 the Government under it is not entitled to the least 
 weight as a precedent, 427; it is said,- we have greater 
 power with the States to be formed out of acquired ter- 
 ritory, than in that originally a part of the United States, 
 427 ; it is asked, shall we suffer Missouri to come into 
 the Union with this savage mask on her countenance? 
 428; how has it happened that these doctrines have 
 slept until this moment? 428; the principal feature in a 
 legislative act is that it is in the power of our successors 
 to change it, 428 ; the immeasurable injustice of this 
 proposition, 428 ; it is said, the political influence result- 
 ing from the slaves is the principal objection to Missouri 
 coming in without restriction, 429; what sophistry is 
 this ? 429 ; much said of the moral and political effects 
 of slavery, 480 ; it is said, we are legislating for ages, 
 430 ; who can pretend to predict that the present order 
 of things will ride out the storm ? 480 ; however dark 
 and inscrutable may be the ways of heaven, who is he 
 that arrogantly presumes to arraign them ? 431. 
 
 The question has fairly met us, whether freedom or 
 slavery is to be the lot of the regions west of the Mis- 
 sissippi, 431 ; it is said, the people of the South are to be 
 put by this proposition under the ban of the empire, as 
 from its operation they cannot settle in the new State, 
 481 ; it is asked why we did not propose this restriction 
 earlier? 431; it is a question whether slavery shall be 
 extended and slaves increased ; no art nor subtlety can 
 successfully be applied to make it appear otherwise, 
 482; it is said, the ordinance of 1787 was a fraud, 482; 
 was an act of usurpation, 488 ; in depicting the effects 
 of the very limited proposition, gentlemen have in- 
 dulged in the most extravagant language, 438; much of- 
 fence taken at the pamphlets published relative to the 
 extension of slavery, 438 ; it is said, slaves are the hap- 
 piest poor people in the world, 434 ; question on the re- 
 strictive amendment taken and lost, 434. 
 
 An additional section as an amendment proposed pro- 
 posing 86 80' as a line, 435. 
 
 The Maine bill and the amendment reported by the 
 Judiciary Committee, considered, 485; the constitu- 
 tional question is a mere question of interpretation, 436 ; 
 distinction that is to be made between Maine and Mis- 
 souri, 436 ; it is said, we have the power, and reference 
 is made to the parts of the constitution where it exists, 
 437; if such a power be any thing but nominal, it is 
 much more than adequate to the present object; it is a 
 power of vast expansion, to which human nature can 
 assign no limits, 437 ; slavery, we are told, is a foul blot 
 on our otherwise immaculate reputation, 43S ; as a dis- 
 cretionary power it is every thing or nothing, 438 ; this 
 provision is but a pioneer to others of a more desolating 
 aspect, 488; it is not necessary to prove that this discre- 
 tion will be abused, 439; the free spirit of our constitu- 
 tion and of our people is no assurance against the prop- 
 osition of unbridled power to abuse, when it acts upon 
 colonial dependants rather than ourselves, 439; time 
 produces great vicissitudes in modes of thinking aad 
 feeling, 439 ; what is that Union into which a new
 
 INDEX. 
 
 727 
 
 State may be admitted ? 439 ; is the right to hold 
 slaves a right which Massachusetts enjoys? then Massa- 
 chusetts is under this Union in a different character 
 from Missouri, 440.; what is a State? 440; the whole 
 amount of the argument on the other Bide is that you 
 may refuse to admit a new State, but if you admit you 
 may prescribe the terms, 440 ; if admitted, a State must 
 be admitted in the sense of the constitution, 440; a ter- 
 ritory cannot surrender to Congress by anticipation the 
 whole- or a part of the sovereign power which, by the 
 constitution of the Union, will belong to it, when it be- 
 comes a State, 441 ; an error to consider the proposed 
 restriction as levelled at the introduction or establish- 
 ment of slavery, 441 ; if we look too closely at the rise 
 and progress of long-sanctioned establishments, we may 
 discover other subjects than that of slavery with which 
 fraud and violence may claim a fearful connection, 442 ; 
 grounds upon which the broad denial of the sovereign 
 right of Missouri, if she shall become a State, to recog- 
 nize slavery by its laws is rested, examined, 442 ; tne 
 doctrine advanced by gentlemen, directly in conflict 
 \vitii their restriction, 442 ; how do they support their 
 doctrine ? 443; it is said, the nations of antiquity as well 
 as of modern times have concurred in laying down the 
 position that man cannot enslave his fellow-man, 448 ; 
 Eoman law, Magna Charta, Bill of Eights of 1688, Dec- 
 laration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, 
 443, 444 ; idle to make the rightfulness of an act the meas- 
 ure of sovereign power, 444 ; distinction between fed* 
 eral rights and local rights is an idle distinction, 445 ; the 
 compact of the Union, 445 ; will it be said, that it is the 
 quantity of Agrees, not the quality of slavery, which 
 takes from a Government the republican form ? 446 ; the 
 form of a State Government, 446; reasons which have 
 been assigned for the notion that involuntary servitude 
 and a republican form of Government are perfect antip- 
 athies, 446; definition Sparta, Borne, Athens, 446; ex- 
 perience at home, 447 ; consequence to which such ar- 
 guments lead, 447; they have no disposition to meddle 
 with slavery in the old States perhaps not but who 
 will answer for their successors ? 447 ; if a republican 
 form of Government is that in which all men have a 
 share in the public power, the slave-holding States will 
 not alone retire fiom the Union, 447; if all men, why 
 not all women ? 448 ; the clause of the constitution re- 
 lating to migration or importation, 443 ; examined, 449 ; 
 note, 450. 
 
 Concurrence with the amendment reported by the 
 Judiciary Committee carried, 450 ; bills united, 450. 
 
 Compromise. Moved to amend by prohibiting slave- 
 ry north of 86 30', 450; moved to amend the amend- 
 ment by substituting 40, 450 ; lost, 450 ; other motions 
 made and lost, 451; a substitute offered, 451; amend- 
 ment to the substitute moved and lost, 451 ; amendment 
 carried, 451 ; amendment altering the North line of the 
 State, carried, 452 ; House disagree, 452 ; motions to re- 
 cede, lost, 452 ; conference with the House requested, 
 452 ; amendment to the bill moved in the Senate, 452 ; 
 carried, 458 ; other amendments made and bill passed, 
 458; note, 453. 
 
 In the House. A. motion to postpone the bill author- 
 izing a convention of the people of Missouri to form a 
 State Constitution, &c., 469 ; the question whether any 
 compromise can be effected may be decided in much 
 less time, 469 ; Importance to the people of early action, 
 469 ; motion carried, 469 ; motion to postpone again and 
 await the action of the other House, made, 476 ; lost, 
 477. 
 
 Compromise. Motion to amend the bill by Insert- 
 ing a section to prohibit slavery north of 88, 477; un- 
 derstanding of the proposition, 477; power of Congress 
 
 over the territories supreme and unlimited before ad- 
 mission, 477 ; the parallel of 39 degrees almost precisely 
 makes the division between the reason and argument 
 of the North and the South, 478 ; an increasing spirit of 
 local and sectional envy and dislike between North and 
 South, noticed for the last twenty years, 478 ; reason di- 
 vided by parallels of latitude, 478 ; motion lost, 479. 
 
 Restriction. Moved to amend by imposing a restric- 
 tion on slavery, 479 ; no attribute of sovereignty more 
 important than that exercised in the admission of new 
 States, 479 ; additional importance acquired by the fact 
 that the territory is no part of our ancient domain, 479 ; 
 a map of the territory shows the magnitude of the ques- 
 tion, 479 ; the unparalleled excitement produced by th 
 bill shows its importance, 480; the admission of Mis- 
 souri without restriction is opposed by a majority of the 
 States, 480 ; the adoption of the amendment is neces- 
 sary to retard the growth of the slaveholding spirit, 
 480 ; the power of Congress in relation to the admission 
 of new States, 480; the only limitation to our sover- 
 eignty over the territory acquired from France must b 
 found in the constitution, 481 ; the first truth pro- 
 nounced by the Declaration of Independence is that all 
 men are born free and equal, 4S1 ; shall we pronounc* 
 this a falsehood ? 481 ; terms of the purchase of the ter- 
 ritory, 482 ; the inhabitants have no right to calculate 
 on a power of holding slaves, 482 ; the act of 1802 shows 
 the solicitude of Congress to prohibit the extension of 
 slavery, 482 ; their subsequent acts, 483. 
 
 The proposition is to abolish slavery in Missouri as 
 a condition of her admission into the Union, 483 ; I am 
 sworn to support the constitution as I understand it, 
 not as private interest or public zeal may urge, 483; no 
 such power exists in it, 483 ; confusion in the ranks of 
 the advocates of restriction on this subject, 483; they 
 present six sources of power, 483 ; opinion relative to 
 migration and importation, 484; the constitutionality 
 of the measure examined, 4S4; shall the old States pre- 
 serve rights of which the new shall be deprived? 484; 
 you have nt the power to appoint militia officers in a 
 new State, 484; hence the danger that might arise to 
 freedom by forming a new class of States, over which 
 Congress shall possess different powers than over ths 
 old States, 485; has the power to legislate over slavery 
 been delegated to Congress? 485; the only condition 
 that may be required of a new State is that it shall be 
 republican, 485 ; the constitution recognizes the right 
 of slave property, and it thereby appears that it was 
 intended by the convention and by the people that 
 property should be secure, 485; resolutions of Virginia 
 and New York on adopting the constitution, 486 ; thia 
 prohibition violates the provision that " no person shall 
 be deprived of property without due process of law," 
 486 ; by adopting this proposition you will have proved 
 that the clauses of the constitution deemed most sacred 
 by the people are not sacred with yon, 486; you cannot 
 limit the new States in the exercise of their retained 
 powers, 486; it will be not your act, but the act of Mis- 
 souri, that will become a law, 486; it is said, the consti- 
 tution vests in Congress power to make all needful regu- 
 lations respecting the territory, Ac., 486; it relates to 
 territories belonging to the United States as property 
 only, 487; note, 467; it speaks not of the jurisdiction, 
 487 ; by treaty we are bound to admit Missouri, 487 ; you 
 have no right to Missouri but what the treaty gives yon, 
 487 ; the effect of the proposed measure on the safety of 
 the community, 483; dispersion is the true policy to 
 pursue, 4S3 ; the tendency of the proposition is to create 
 jealousies between the States, 488; we are about to 
 prove to the Southern and Western people that their
 
 728 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 property and lives are unsafe under onr Government, 
 488; every State is interested that every State shall 
 preserve Its rights, 488 ; the slaves of the South are held 
 to a service which is certain and moderate, 489 ; but it 
 is argued that Congress has ever imposed restrictions 
 upon now States, and no objection has been urged until 
 this time, 490 ; upon the basis of precedent you cannot 
 extend this restriction to Missouri, 490; the power is not 
 to be found in the constitution or derived from prece- 
 dent, 490 ; the expediency of this amendment, 490 ; fur- 
 ther debate,. 491, 492; motives which actuate the oppo- 
 site sides on this question, 499; the mass of memorials 
 and petitions to operate on the House, 500 ; what kind 
 of property has a man in his slaves ? 500 ; time that this 
 plea of necessity for the extension of power should be 
 disregarded, 500; the amendment is fraught with the 
 greatest injustice to the people of Missouri, 500; what 
 is tin- result of its adoption? 501 ; what is to be the con- 
 sequence if this question is not settled in some way this 
 session ? 501 ; suppose they set up for themselves, are 
 we to drive them to submission at' the point of the bay- 
 one'-,? 502. 
 
 The present amendment does not interfere with the 
 slaves BOW held by the inhabitants, 502 ; all the powers 
 of Congress may be abused, 503 ; is there any cause of 
 alarm in regard to the power in question ? 503 ; it is 
 said, even this condition in restraint of slavery would 
 manacle a limb of the sovereignty of the proposed 
 State, 503 ; the peculiar kind of sovereignty that is to 
 bo withheld from Missouri, 503 ; does Congr-ess possess 
 the power to admit the inhabitants of Missouri to com- 
 pose a State, and at the same time annex 'a condition 
 restraining slavery, 504 ; instances of the recognition of 
 tho ordinance of 1787, 504; note, 504; meaning of the 
 words migration and importation, 504, 505 ; it is repre- 
 sented as a violation of every principle of justice to pre- 
 vont slaveholders from carrying their slaves with them 
 to this State if they should be so inclined, 506; it has 
 been intimated that this is a measure of high excite- 
 ment, 506; impossible under the circumstances to com- 
 promise a question of this character, 5oV; it is said, if 
 the restriction is carried the Union will be dissolved, 
 607. 
 
 Influence to be given to the will of the people when 
 fairly ascertained, 608 ; manner of action on constitu- 
 tional questions by a Representative, 508 ; what the 
 amendment does not propose, 508 ; the great question is 
 whether Congress can interfere with the people of Mis- 
 souri, in the formation of their constitution, to compel 
 them to introduce into it any provision touching their 
 municipal rights, against their consent, and to give up 
 their right to change it, whatever may be their future 
 condition, 509; the people of Missouri come here with 
 the treaty of 1803, and demand admission as a matter of 
 right, and to refuse is to violate plighted faith, 509 ; the 
 various powers of the Government, 509 ; articles of the 
 treaty, 510 ; Missouri can be incorporated only as a State 
 exercising a State government, 510 ; one principal point 
 of difference between the two great parties into which 
 the people were originally divided, was in regard to the 
 force and effect of the treaty-making power, 511 ; con- 
 struction of tho treaty of 1S03, 511 ; the reference which 
 has been made to the Declaration of Independence, as 
 declaratory of the principles of the constitution, noticed, 
 511 ; the clause respecting " needful rules and regula- 
 tions," 512 ; examined, 512 ; the right to govern a terri- 
 tory is clearly incident to the right to acquire it, 512, 
 note, 512 ; interpretation of the words migration and 
 importation, 518; the clause has no reference to the 
 power to remove slaves from State to State, 514 ; is not 
 tho whole object hazarded by persisting in a measure so 
 
 repugnant to the ardent feelings of a moiety of this 
 Empire ? 514 
 
 The principle contended for concerns ages to como 
 and millions to be born, 516 ; nature of tho proposition 
 contained in the amendment, 516 ; important to consider 
 the ordinance of 1787, and the history of the States 
 formed under it, 616 ; charge of usurpation made against 
 it, 517 ; it was a solemn compact between the existing 
 States, 517 ; the question of expediency, 517 ; the evil 
 of slavery, 517 ; this is said not to be an extension, but 
 only a diffusion of it, 517; is diffusion a reasonable de- 
 sire ? 518 ; the idea of diffusion is altogether founded in 
 error, 518; by enlarging the limits of slavery, you are 
 thus preparing the means for its indefinite increase and 
 extension, 518; where is this diffusion to end? 518: it 
 is asked will you not suffer a man to migrate with his 
 family? 519; it is impossible to admit the introduction 
 of slaves at all, without giving up the whole matter. 
 619 ; this is the first step beyond the Mississippi, 519 ; 
 by increasing the market for slaves, you postpone and 
 destroy the hope of extinguishing slavery by emancipa- 
 tion, 519 ; the political aspect of the subject is not less 
 alarming, 520 ; no fear that this question will produce a 
 fatal division, or even generate a new organization of 
 parties, 520. 
 
 The picture of the sufferings incident to slavery is too 
 strongly drawn, 521 ; have we the power to impose the 
 condition which the amendment proposes ? 521 ; the af- 
 firmative should prove this power, 521 ; character of the 
 ordinance of 1787 examined, 522 ; the Federalist quoted 
 to show its character of usurpation, 522, note, 522 ; if 
 done without constitutional authority, the act must be 
 void, 522 ; two parties for the contract were not compe- 
 tent, 522 ; the assent of Virginia was necessary in that 
 case, and so the assent of France must be necessary in 
 this case, 522 ; the effect of the proposed amendment is 
 to diminish the rights and powers of tho citizens of Mis- 
 souri, 522 ; let us leave all the citizens of the United 
 States at liberty, by their own legislation, either to re- 
 tain or abolish slavery, and then they are all upon an 
 equal footing in point of right, 523 ; does not the proposed 
 amendment diminish the powers of Missouri as a State ? 
 528 ; it is said, no State but those parties to the original, 
 can claim the benefit of it, 523; it is said, the powers 
 which the constitution does not give us, we can get from 
 the States by compact, 524 ; if the amendment prevail, 
 will Missouri govern herself by her own authority and 
 laws in relation to the subject of slavery ? 524 ; it has 
 been said that the States had the right to admit new 
 States upon conditions to be prescribed by them, 524 ; 
 the conclusion of the whole matter, 525 ; the clause giv- 
 ing power to make needful rules and regulations, 525 ; 
 examined, 525 ; the clause relating to migration and im- 
 portation, <fcc., 525 ; have you the power to emancipate 
 children of acknowledged slaves ? 526 ; the proposed re- 
 striction a violation of the constitution, 526 ; the ques- 
 tion is, whether there is in this country a tribunal or 
 legislative council having a discretion superior to the 
 power of the people, 527 ; that portion of the State 
 constitution you now propose to make for the people of 
 Missouri, has not and probably would not have their 
 consent, 527 : the Federal Convention is a national, or 
 rather an international compact, in which the relations 
 of sovereignty between the respective States, and be- 
 tween those States and the General Government, arc 
 prescribed and adjusted, 627 ; error to say that Congress 
 may prescribe a condition, because it has power to re- 
 fuse admission, 528 ; some conditions allowable, 528; the 
 compact between Virginia and Kentucky, 528; power 
 inferred from the capacity of Congress to carry it into 
 execution, 523 ; if Congress has power to impose the re-
 
 INDEX. 
 
 729 
 
 striction, it must first be derived from the legislative 
 powers of the constitution, or acquired by tlie capacity 
 to make a compact for that object, 529 ; a view of the 
 migration and importation clause, 529 ; propose to nego- 
 tiate a compact or treaty with Missouri, making the 
 House partake of the treaty-making power, 580 ; conces- 
 sions asserted to have been made by the North and 
 East to the South in the formation of the constitution, 
 531 ; an unpardonable error relative to the* inequality of 
 representation, 582 ; the concession was from the South- 
 ern and Western States, 532; and exposition of this will 
 show the true motives which have given rise to this 
 measure, 532; historical sketch, 582; the pretensions 
 and claims of the North and^ast unfounded, 583; who 
 supports this Government ? 588; the migration and im- 
 portation clause examined, 534 ; what was the intention 
 of the convention that formed the constitution, In this 
 article ? 584 ; reasons for restraining the power to prevent 
 migration hither for twenty years, 584; in proportion 
 to the increase of the State Governments, the strength 
 and solidity of the Federal Government are augmented, 
 585 ; the case of Louisiana, 536 ; the rights of Missouri 
 rest on the constitution so strongly as not to require the 
 aid of the treaty, 536 ; the treaty of itself is sufficient, 
 if there was no right under the constitution, 536; forbid 
 to adopt this inhibition by both the constitution and the 
 treaty, 536; the ordinance of 178T noticed, 586; recol- 
 lect the circumstances the Old Congress were in when 
 they passed the ordinance, 537 ; they had dwindled to 
 almost nothing, 53T, note, 587; from opinions expressed, 
 it is most clear that the members on the opposite side 
 know nothing of the Southern States, their lands, pro- 
 ducts, or slaves, 538; if the arguments of gentlemen are 
 correct, Congress possesses sovereign power, and the 
 people are their servants, 538; the language of the con- 
 stitution is sufficiently explicit as to what we may do, 
 638 ; different clauses and sections of the constitution 
 examined, which are supposed to enable us constitution- 
 ally to impose this restriction, 589, 540; objections of 
 Luther Martin to the constitution, 540. 
 
 The history of the North-west Territory is connected 
 with the earliest and proudest days of the Eepublic, 
 541 ; the amendment speaks to the people of Missouri 
 Territory, and not to the State of Missouri, 541 ; condi- 
 tions imposed on the territory, not on the State, 541 ; 
 the treaty places the inhabitants in the same position 
 they would have been in on tho Treaty of Peace, had 
 they been in the original limits, 542 ; the treaty does not 
 stand in the way of the free operation of the constitu- 
 tion, 542; the positive language of the constitution, 
 542 ; the constitution recognizes the slave of the South 
 as the property of his master, 548 ; willing to rest on the 
 wisdom of those who have gone before, 543 ; the act 
 relative to the territory of Orleans, 643. 
 
 By whom has this excitement been produced? 544; 
 the clauses of the constitution relied upon by the friends 
 of restriction, 544 ; th amendments to the constitution, 
 545; the doctrines of humanity and religion have not 
 been much pressed into service by the restrictionists 
 latterly, 546 ; with what propriety can those, who during 
 the Revolution embarked with us their fortunes and 
 their hopes, now that all is peace and sunshine, turn 
 upon us and upbraid us with tho stains of slavery ? 546. 
 
 It is said there are political jugglers behind the scenes 
 who are making use of tho proposition and its advocates 
 as the forlorn hope and last desperate effort of an ex- 
 piring party, 547 ; the sparse population now In Missouri 
 may not yet perceive the evils of slavery, and may 
 therefore be willing to indulge in the dangerous grati- 
 fication, 548 ; it Is said all citizens of the United States 
 have a right to this territory west of the Mississippi, 548. 
 
 Much heard of the excitement and Irritation, 549; the 
 attempts to show the constitutional right to impose tho 
 restriction, 549 ; what will be the consequence if yon 
 persist in this measure? 550. 
 
 Attempt to show that slavery does not proceed from 
 the exercise of a legitimate attribute of sovereignty, 
 and that hence, admitting all for which gentlemen con- 
 tend, as to a waht of power in Congress to interfere with 
 State rights, their constitutional objections must fail, 
 551, 552. (See Maine, pp. 553.) 
 
 It is erroneously stated that Missouri demanded that 
 which she ought more modestly to sue for, as a matter 
 of special grace and favor, 557 ; it is not a question 
 whether slavery should be permitted to exist merely 
 where should the slaves now in America be permitted 
 to reside, 558 ; it threatens not only the peace and wel- 
 fare of Virginia, in common with all the slaveholding 
 States, but their very political existence, 559 ; the re- 
 striction agreed to, 559 ; moved to amend by inserting 
 the compromise, 560 ; motion lost, 561 ; moved to insert 
 the word white in the part of the bill designating tho 
 kind of persons who shall vote for delegates to the con- 
 vention, 561 ; various amendments moved and lost, 562 ; 
 note, 562 ; bill reported to the House, 562 ; moved to 
 concur in the restrictive amendment, 562 ; moved to 
 substitute a section to refer to the Territorial Conven- 
 tion, 562; further debate, 563; motion lost, 564; re- 
 strictive amendments concurred in, 564; bill ordered 
 to be engrossed, 565 ; bill passed, 567. 
 
 Message from the Senate announcing they had passed 
 the Missouri bill without the restrictive clause, but 
 with the compromise section, 567 ; report from the Com- 
 mittee of Conference, 567 ; moved to print, 568 ; further 
 debate, 568; motion withdrawn, 568; further debate, 
 569 ; note, 569 ; questiom to concur with the Senate on 
 striking out the slavery restriction, carried, 570 ; do. in 
 inserting the compromise section, carried, 570; title 
 amended, 571 ; bill passed by both Houses, 571. 
 
 Moved to reconsider, 571 ; declared out of order, 571 ; 
 moved to retain posession of the bill until reconsider- 
 ation shall be in order, 571 ; out of order, 571 ; moved 
 to reconsider, 571 ; bill reported to be in the hands of 
 the Senate, 571 ; resolution relative thereto offered, 571 ; 
 lost, 571. 
 
 Admission. In the Senate, resolution for the admis- 
 sion read second time, 654 ; the resolution conformable 
 to those adopted on similar occasions, 659 ; moved to 
 postpone to a future day, 659 ; controverted points in 
 the constitution of the new State, and time desired to 
 examine if it was in all respects conformable to the 
 Constitution of tho United States, 659 ; tho other Houso 
 acting upon it at the same time, and more desirable that 
 such should not be the case, 659 ; no reason why the 
 Senate should wait for the other House, 659 ; tho ques- 
 tion should be decided without further delay, 659; post- 
 poned, 660. 
 
 Resolution offered providing that nothing in tho con- 
 stitution shall contravene the clause of the constitution 
 providing that the citizens of one State shall enjoy 
 privileges, Ac., 661 ; this amendment should not be de- 
 cided without reflection, 660 ; postponement asked, 661 ; 
 doubts as to the constitutionality of the constitution of 
 Missouri existed in some minds, 661 ; postponed, 662 ; 
 taken up, 662; no good in the proviso, 662; substitute 
 offered relating to preventing free negroes and mulattoes 
 settling in tho State, 662; amendment lost, 662; resolu- 
 tion lost, 662. 
 
 OitUeniihip of Free Negroes and Mulattos. Ques- 
 tion on tho third reading of tho original resolution, 663 ; 
 contrary to the Constitution of the United States to ac- 
 cept this constitution, 663; Congress should ascertain
 
 730 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 this point, 663 ; objection to the clause providing that 
 such laws shall bo passed as ma/ be necessary to prevent 
 free negroes or mulattocs from coming to settle in the 
 State under any pretext whatever, 664 ; repugnant to 
 the Constitution of the United States, 664; what con- 
 stituted citizens of the United States ? 664 ; has Missouri 
 a right to prevent a large class of citizens of Massachu- 
 setts from entering the State f 664 ; admit the legality of 
 the clause and Missouri can go further, and prohibit 
 citizens born in certain districts or portions of the 
 United States, 664; all distinctions among citizens rest- 
 ing on color arise from State laws alone nothing In the 
 constitution recognizes it, 664; Congress must decide 
 the question, 664 ; dangers apprehended from rejecting 
 the constitution of Missouri, 665. 
 
 Proceedings on the admission of new States hereto- 
 toforo, 665, 666; case of Indiana, 667; why not require 
 each State, when it alters or remodels its constitution, to 
 submit it to Congress, 667 ; Rhode Island never has had 
 a constitution, 667; why does not Congress issue jte 
 writ of quo warranto J 667 ; there should be a uniformity 
 in the course of Congress, if it has the power to guar- 
 antee a republican form of government, 668 ; the con- 
 vention that formed our constitution has not been as 
 explicit as we could wish in telling us what is a repub- 
 lican form of government, 668 ; this being the first time 
 this question has occurred relative to free negroes, it 
 must be ascertained by such evidence as from the nature 
 of the case we are compelled to give the highest cre- 
 dence to, 668 ; if the Declaration of Independence was 
 for blacks as well as whites, why did you not all emanci- 
 pate your slaves at once ? 669 ; examination of the con- 
 stitutions of States that have been admitted into the 
 Union, 669 ; by universal assent throughout the Union, 
 free negroes and mulattoes are not known In your po- 
 litical institutions, 670 ; law of Indiana relative to free 
 negroes, 670 ; act incorporating the city of Washington, 
 670; proceedings on it, 670; other instances of laws, 
 671, 672, 678, 674; the law and constitution of New 
 York, 675. 
 
 The prohibition upon free negres and mulattoes is 
 said to infringe our constitution, 678 ; all free blacks are 
 not to be prohibited, 678 ; purchasers of land in Missouri 
 previous to the law are provided for, 678 ; extent and 
 meaning of the clause, 678 ; the part of the Constitution 
 of the United States said to be infringed, 678 , incon- 
 veniences which would result from denying this power 
 to a State, 679 ; if a State does not possess this power, 
 the condition of the non-slaveholding States is most 
 alarming, 679; no suitable place has yet been found, 
 which afforded a safe and comfortable retreat to the 
 emancipated slave, 679 ; definitions of a citizen exam- 
 ined, 679, 680 ; a meaning for the word which will com- 
 port with the constitution, the practice, and the con- 
 venience, 680; how determined by the naturalization 
 laws, 660 ; definition of European writers, 680 ; rights of 
 an American citizen, 681 ; Missouri has a right to ex- 
 clude free blacks, and a contrary decision would be 
 against all precedent and the constant practice of most 
 of the States of the Union, 681 ; this question may be 
 safely trusted to the judiciary, 681 ; suppose Missouri 
 rejected by disagreement between the two Houses, 682. 
 
 When the dictates of conscience, and the obligation 
 of oaths, and language of the constitution left no alter- 
 native, it was the part of those who had duties to per- 
 form to discharge them with firmness, after due deliber- 
 ation, and to trust to the consequences and effects, 682 ; 
 we are asked, if Missouri is not a State, what is she ? 
 682 ; it is said several States have been admitted with- 
 out any evidence to be found on record of an exami- 
 nation of their constitutions, 683 ; we are called upon to 
 
 show what constitutes a citizen, 684; citizens of Massa- 
 chusetts, 6S4 ; incidents arising from the relationship of 
 a free citizen to his State, 684; it is objected t: 
 men are not citizens in every State, because in nearly 
 all, they are or have been made liable to certain disa- 
 bilities not common to the free white citizens, G>1; thu 
 soundness of this position examined, 684; womon and 
 minors are subject to disqualifications, but not disfran- 
 chised, 684; further examined, 685; by the constitution 
 or laws of several States the political rights of white 
 citizens are abridged, 6S5 ; disqualification <f clergymen, 
 685 ; law relating to intermarriage of blacks and whites, 
 685; further debate, 686. 
 
 Rejected amendment re-offered, 687; objected to as 
 exhibiting the Senate, in passing the act of adiui^ion, 
 as omitting to consider and allow its due weight to the 
 only provision in that constitution upon which the ob- 
 ligation to admit or not to admit Missouri depends, 687; 
 further debate, 687 ; amendment agreed to, CS7. 
 
 Objects of the confederation, 688 ; oath to support the 
 constitution, 688 ; does any paragraph in the constitution 
 of Missouri contravene that of the United States, C>!> ; 
 this point examined, 689 ; color has no share in charac- 
 terizing an inhabitant or a citizen, 689 ; provisions of th* 
 constitution relative to the powers of the several States, 
 689 ; persons of color are citizens in some States, 6S9 ; 
 they cannot enjoy the privileges in Missouri, her con- 
 stitution is therefore not compatible with that of the 
 United States, 690; the formality observed in admitting 
 new States icto the Union, 690 ; the consequences of this 
 provision, 691 ; examples of citizens of color in some of 
 the States, 691 ; can we suffer one, even the meanest of 
 our citizens, to be deprived of his privileges, 692 ; in- 
 stances of intemperance in behalf of citizens, 692 ; if 
 Missouri can do this, why not keep a standing army, en- 
 ter into a treaty, coin money, and grant titles of nobility, 
 692 ; color no more comes in to decide who is a citizen 
 than size or profession, you may as well say a tall citi- 
 zen shall not settle in Missouri as a yellow citizen shall 
 not, 692 ; objections examined, 693, 694 ; motion to re- 
 commit the resolution, lost, 695 ; resolution as amended 
 ordered to be engrossed, 695; passed, 696. 
 
 Electoral Vote. Resolutions relative to counting the, 
 of Missouri, offered, 705 ; views of the committee on the 
 points, 705 ; not competent in the Senate to decide this 
 question in anticipation, 705 ; better be adjusted now to 
 prevent difficulty in the joint meeting, 705 ; resolution 
 agreed to, 705. 
 
 Admission. Permission asked to offer a resolution 
 declaring the admission of Missouri, 706 ; previous reso- 
 lution rejected by the House of Representatives, and no 
 intimation given of their views, 706 ; no departure from 
 dignity to receive the resolution, 707 ; a kind of peace- 
 offering, 707 ; the question should be settled at the pres- 
 ent session, 707; a most important measure, and should 
 be decided without further delay, 708 ; further debate, 
 708 ; leave granted, 709 ; indefinite postponement, 
 moved, 709 ; lost, 709 ; various amendments offered and 
 lost, 709 ; resolution rejected, 710. 
 
 Message from the House relative to a Committee of 
 Conference, 710 ; no good reason for the appointment of 
 such a committee on the part of the Senate, 710 ; the 
 increase was not a novi-lty, and the Senate should ac- 
 cede, 710; further debate, 710; Senate concur, 710; 
 joint resolution reported from the committee, 711 ; mes- 
 sage from the House that they had passed the joint res- 
 olution, 711 ; resolution ordered to be read a third 
 time, 711 ; passed, 711 ; note, 711. 
 Missouri, vote for President in 1820, 706. 
 Missouri Territory. See Index, vols. 4, 5. 
 MOXELL, ROBEBT, Representative from New York, 464
 
 INDEX. 
 
 731 
 
 MONEOE, JAMES, message to 1st session of 15th Congress, 4; 
 message at 2d session of 15th Congress, 179 ; message at 
 1st session of 16th Congress, 8T5 ; message at 2d session 
 of 16th Congress, 655 ; votes for, as President, 706. See 
 Index, vols. 1, 2, 4, 5. 
 
 MOORE, ROBERT, Representative from Pennsylvania, 59,200, 
 464. 
 
 MOOBE, SAMUEL, Representative from Pennsylvania, 200, 
 464. 
 
 MOEKILL, DAVID 8., Senator from New Hampshire, 8, 179, 
 874,654; on the African slave-trade, 16 ; on providing 
 for the officers and soldiers of the Revolution, 25 ; on 
 the Fugitive Slave bill, 89; on the petition of Matthew 
 Lyon, 187 ; on the pension to General Stark, 189 ; on the 
 motion relative to duelling, 192, 194 ; on the restriction 
 of slavery in Missouri, 894 ; oil duelling, 459 ; on the 
 Missouri constitution, 707. 
 
 MORROW, JEBEMIAH, Senator from Ohio, 7,179; reports a 
 bill relative to Virginia land warrants, 11. See Index, 
 vols. 8, 4, 5. 
 
 MORTON, MABCUS, Representative from Massachusetts, 58, 
 200,468. 
 
 MOSELY, JONATHAN O., Representative from Connecticut, 
 53, 200, 468. See Index, vols. 4, 5. 
 
 Mounted. Troops. See Index, vol. 4. 
 
 MUJWOED, GEORGE, Representative from North Carolina, 59, 
 200 ; report on the case of, 114 ; decease of, 224. 
 
 MCBBAY, JOHN, Representative from Pennsylvania, 59, 200, 
 464. 
 
 National Observatory. See Index, vols. 2, 5. 
 
 Naturalization Laws. See Index, vols. 1, 2, 4 
 
 Navy, appropriations for, in the year 1819, 223. 
 
 Naval Establishment, increase of, resolution relative to, 18; 
 bill to authorize the building seven small vessels, 459. 
 See Index, vols. 1, 2, 8, 4, 5. 
 
 Naval Exploits. See Index, vol. 5. 
 
 Navigation Laws. See Index, vol. 4. 
 
 NEALE, RAPHAEL, Representative from Maryland, 464 
 
 Needful Rule* and Regulations, meaning of, discussed, 487. 
 
 Negroes, kidnapping. See Index, vol. 2. 
 
 NELBOS. HUGH, Representative from Virginia, 59, 201, 464. 
 See Index, vols. 4, 5. 
 
 NELSON, JEREMIAH, Representative from Massachusetts, 58, 
 201, 468. See Index, vol. 5. 
 
 NELSON, THOMAS M., Representative from Virginia, 60, 200 ; 
 on Amelia Island and Spanish patriots, 63 ; on the Semi- 
 nole war, 234 See Index, vol. 5. 
 
 NKSBITT, WILLIAM, Representative from South Carolina, 60. 
 
 Neutral Relations. See Index, vols. 8, 4, 5. 
 
 Neutrality Law. In. the House, a bill for the punishment 
 of certain crimes against the United States, considered, 
 128 ; various amendments reported by the committee in 
 order to combine in one all previous acts, and give tho 
 Executive sufficient power to enforce it, 123 ; ought to 
 be entitled an act for the benefit of Spain, 128 ; moved 
 to strike out so much of the second section as makes it 
 penal to go abroad with the intent to enlist in any fA- 
 eign service, 128; the committee found the easiest 
 course to amend and bring into one bill all the acts, 123; 
 motion agreed to, 124 ; motion to reduce the fine nega- 
 tived, 124 ; other amendments proposed, 124 ; moved to 
 Strike out all except so much as retains tho act of 1794, 
 and repeals the acts of 1797 and 1817, 124 ; only neces- 
 sary to show that the act of last session ought to be re- 
 pealed, and that it goes beyond any neutral duty w,- can 
 owe, 124; the act was predicated on the ground that ex- 
 isting provisions did not reach tho caso of the war be- 
 
 tween Spain and her South American Provinces, 124 ; 
 unprecedented in compelling citizens of the United 
 States to give bonds not to commit acts without the* 
 jurisdiction of the United States, 124; does the act of 
 1794 embrace the case of the Spanish patriots ? 124 
 
 Public sentiment has not condemned the act of 1817, 
 125 ; no political sentiment expressed on the passage of 
 the bill, 125 ; the act of 1817 was passed in consequence 
 of the recommendation of the President, 126; it cor- 
 rected defects of existing laws, 126 ; the objectionable 
 provision examined, 126 ; was our situation more criti- 
 cal in 1817 than in 1794? 126; it does not appear that 
 this act was passed so much to do what was just to our- 
 selves as to accommodate the views of foreign nations, 
 127 ; the cases that induced the passage of the act of 
 1817 were provided for in the act of 1792, 127 ; the act of 
 1817 authorized the collector of a port to stop any vessel 
 built for warlike purposes, 127 ; what breach of neu- 
 trality is it to suffer such vessels to depart 1 127 ; the act 
 of 1817 was the deliberate j udgment of both Houses, 127 ; 
 the only difference between us is in the remedy proposed 
 for these unlawful acts, 127 ; the opinion of the House and 
 the country must be that so long as we profess neutral- 
 ity, we ought to observe it, 127 ; it was perfectly fair 
 that those who left our country with the means of mis- 
 chief on board, should give security against involving 
 the interests and the peace of the country, 127 ; we are 
 responsible for injuries done by vessels of the United 
 States after they leave our ports before they arrive at 
 foreign ports, 128 ; further debate, 128, 129 ; objection to 
 the power given to a collector, 129. 
 
 In the Senate, the biU read the third time and passed, 
 194. See Index, voL 5. 
 
 NEW, ANTHONY, Representative from Kentucky, 59, 200. 
 See Index, vols. 1, 2, 8, 4, 5. 
 
 New Hampshire, vote for President in 1820, 706. See In- 
 deaj, vols. 1,2, 8, 4,5. 
 
 New Jersey, resolutions relative to the admission of Mis- 
 souri presented, 416; vote for President in 1820, 706. 
 See Index, vols. 1, 2, 8, 4, 5. 
 
 New Orleans, defence of. See Index, voL 5. 
 
 NEWTON, THOMAS, Representative from Virginia, 59, 200 ; on 
 the decease of Peterson Goodwyn, 115 ; relative to for- 
 eign merchant seamen, 216, 217 ; on the bill to regulate 
 passenger ships, 222. Set Index, vols. 2, 3, 4, 5. 
 
 New York Society's memorial for the manumission of slaves, 
 presented, 190 ; resolutions relative to slavery in new 
 States, 424 ; resolutions on the restriction of slavery, 
 658. 
 
 New York, vote for President in 1820, 706. See Index, Tola. 
 1,2,8,45. 
 
 Niagara frontier sufferers. See Index, vol. 5. 
 
 NOBLE, JAMES, Senator from Indiana, 8, 179, 874, 654 ; on the 
 sale of the public lands, 457. See Index, voL 6. 
 
 Non-Exportation in foreign bottoms. Set Index, voL 4 
 
 Non-Importation. See Index, vols. 8, 4 
 
 Non- Intercourse. See Intercourte. 
 
 North Carolina, vote for President in 1820, 706. See Indx, 
 vols, 1,2, 8, 4, 5. 
 
 Oaths. See Index,-\ol 1. 
 
 Officers of the Revolution, report on petition, relative to, 
 
 214 
 
 Officers, removal of. See Index, voL 1. 
 Offices, plurality of. See Index, vol. a 
 Office, a certain inquiry respecting constitutionality ot.Se 
 
 Index, vol. 6. 
 
 OGDEN, DAVID A., Representative from New York, 84, 201. 
 OGLE, ALEXANDER Representative from Pennsylvania, 68,
 
 732 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 200; on presenting medals to certain officers, 172; 
 against a compromise line, on slavery, 86T. 
 
 Ohio, resolutions relative to the extension of slavery, 434; 
 vote for President in 1820, 706, Set Index, vols. 4, 6. 
 
 OMo State Government. See Indent, voL 2. 
 
 Ordinance, of 178T, recognitions of, 604 ; note o^ 687. See 
 Index, vols. 8, 4, and Index vol. 6, Missouri. 
 
 Orleans Territory. See Index, vol. 4, Territories. 
 
 OBB BENJAMIN, Representative from Massachusetts, 68, 200; 
 relative to pensions to Revolutionary soldiers, 68. 
 
 Ons, HARRISON G., Senator from Massachusetts, 4, 188, 874, 
 653 ; on the petition of Matthew Lyon, 185, 188 ; on the 
 admission of Maine separately from Missouri, 887 ; on 
 the restriction of slavery in Missouri, 416 ; on postpone- 
 ment of bill relative to the sale of the public lands, 455 ; 
 on the constitution of Missouri, 682 ; on the bill relative 
 to Commodore Tucker, 704. 
 
 OVERSTREET, JAMES, Representative from SouthCarolina, 464. 
 
 OWEN, JAMES, Representative from North Carolina, 59, 201. 
 
 Painting* of the principal events of the Revolution. See 
 
 Index, vol. 5. 
 
 PALMER, JOHN, Representative from New York, 69, 200. 
 PALMER, WILLIAM A., Senator from Vermont, 179, 674, 654. 
 PARKER, JAMES, Representative from Massachusetts, 468. 
 
 See Index, vol. 5. 
 PARRIS, ALBION K, Representative from Massachusetts, 58. 
 
 See Index, vol. 5. 
 PARROTT, JOHN F., Representative from New Hampshire, 
 
 58, 200 ; Senator from New Hampshire, 874, 654. 
 PATTERSON, THOMAS, Representative from Pennsylvania, 
 
 59, 200, 464 
 
 PAWLING, LEVL, Representative from Pennsylvania, 59, 214, 
 
 Fay of Members. In the House, a bill for fixing the com- 
 pensation of members at nine dollars per day during at- 
 tendance, and nine dollars per every twenty miles 
 considered in committee, 82 ; moved to strike out nine 
 and insert fix, 82; mortifying to observe the anxiety 
 manifested on this occasion, 88; because the House is 
 interested, must this business be urged forward to the 
 exclusion of all other ? 83 ; nine dollars per day is about 
 three dollars per hour, 83 ; moved to insert eight, 83 ; 
 carried, 88. See Index, vol. 5. 
 
 PECK, HARMANTS, Representative from New York, 464. 
 
 PEGBAM, JOHN, Representative from Virginia, 200. 
 
 Pennsylvania Insurgents. See Index, vol. 1. 
 
 Pennsylvania, resolutions against slavery in new States, 
 882; vote for President in 1820, 706. See Index, vols. 1, 
 2,3,4,5. 
 
 Pensions to wounded officers of the War of 1812. In the 
 House, a resolution relative to granting pensions to 
 wounded officers of the War of 1812, considered in com- 
 rnittoe. 76 ; motives in offering the resolution explained 
 at length, 76, 77. 
 
 PETER, GEOBGE, Representative from Maryland, 59, 200. See 
 Index, voL 6. 
 
 Petitions, reception of. See Index, voL 2, and Slavery, 
 vol. 1. 
 
 PHELPS, ELISHA, Representative from Connecticut, 468. 
 
 PHILSON, ROBERT, Representative from Pennsylvania, 469. 
 
 PINCKNEY, CHARLES, Representative from South Carolina, 
 464; on the restriction of slavery in Missouri, 485 ; on 
 printing the Journal of the Old Congress, 493, 494, 495, 
 672 ; on restricting slavery in Missouri, 531. See Index, 
 vol. 2. 
 
 PINKNEY, WILLIAM, Senator from Maryland, 882, 659 ; on 
 the proviso relative to the constitution of Missouri, 662. 
 See Index, vols. 1, 5. 
 
 PINDALL, JAMES, Representative from Virginia, 59, 200 ; on 
 fugitives from justice, 108, 109; on tho petition of J. 
 J. Dnfour, 228 ; on the restriction of slavery in Missouri, 
 627. 
 
 Piracy, report relative to the punishment of, 704 
 
 PITCHER, NATHANIEL, Representative from New York, 464. 
 
 PITKIN, TIMOTHY, Representative from Connecticut, 58, 200 ; 
 on the case of John Anderson, 87, 99, 101 ; on admitting 
 the Representatives from Illinois, 2M ; on the claim of 
 Beaumarchais, 209 ; on the bill for the benefit of tho 
 Connecticut Asylum, 369. See Index, vols. 3, 4, 5. 
 
 PLBASANTS, JAMES, Representative from Virginia, 59, 200, 
 464; Senator from Virginia, 879, 654; on tho bill rela- 
 tive to Commodore Tucker, 704. See Index., vols. 4, 5. 
 
 PLFMEB, WILLIAM, Jr., Representative from New Hamp- 
 shire, 463. 
 
 POIHDEXTEB, GEOEGE, Representative from Mississippi, 65, 
 200 ; on the case of John Anderson, 100 ; on presenting 
 a sword to Col. R. M. Johnson, 171 ; on presenting med- 
 als to certain officers, 178; on admitting the Repre- 
 sentatives from Illinois, 201 ; on slavery in Illinois, 205 ; 
 on the migration of slaves, 213 ; on the report relative 
 to the Seminole war, 226 ; on the Seminole war, 808. 
 
 POPE, NATHANIEL, Delegate from Illinois, 63 ; on the boun- 
 daries of Illinois, 178. See Index, vol. 5. 
 
 POETER, JAMES, Representative from New York, 59, 201. 
 
 Postage of Newspapers. See Index, voL 8. 
 
 Post Office. See Index, voL 1. 
 
 Post Office patronage. See Index, vol. 6. 
 
 Potomac River Bridge. See Index, voL 8. 
 
 Protective Duties, see Index, voL 1., and Duties on Im- 
 ports, voL 5. 
 
 Presents to Ministers. See Index, voL 2. 
 
 Presidency, vacancy in. See Index, vol. 1. 
 
 Previous Question. See Index, vols. 1, 4, 5. 
 
 Private Losses in Service. See Index, voL 5. 
 
 Privateers. See Index, vols. 4, 5. 
 
 Public Buildings. See Index, voL 5. 
 
 Public Lands. In the Senate, report on the sale of, 191 ; a 
 bill making further provision for the sale of the public 
 lands, with amendments, considered, 454; motion to 
 postpone, lost, 455; amendment providing reversion, 
 lost, 455; the bill will operate with peculiar hardship 
 npon those who have not the good fortune to have the 
 present command of money, and retard settlement, 455 ; 
 the present system has been successful, 455 ; can it be 
 wise to select the moment for abolishing all credit on 
 the sales, when money is scarcer than it has ever been ? 
 455; amendment offered, 456; the change of system 
 highly favorable to poor men, 456 ; eighty acre lots can 
 be bought by almost any man, 456 ; further debate, 457 ; 
 amendment lost, 457 ; moved to strike out the provision 
 for cash sales, 457 ; bill passed, 458 ; subject further con- 
 sidered, 601 ; bill passed, 601. See Index, vols. 1, 2, 8. 
 
 Quakers, memorial of. See Index, vols. 1, 2, 8. 
 QUARLES, TUNSTALL, Jr., Representative from Kentucky, 
 % 59,200,464 
 Quartermaster's Department. See Index, vol. 4 
 
 RANDOLPH, JOHN, Representative from Virginia, 404; 01 
 restricting slavery in Missouri, 493 ; on printing the Se 
 cret Journal of the Old Congress, 496 ; on accountability 
 for public money, 498; on provision for the family of 
 Commodore Perry, 556 ; on tho Senate's amendment* 
 to the Maine bill, 656, 561 ; offers an amendment to the 

 
 INDEX. 
 
 733 
 
 Missouri bill, 561 ; on the decease of David Walker, 666 ; 
 against the Missouri bill, 56T ; moves to reconsider the 
 vote on the Missouri bill, by which the restriction was 
 struck out, 571 ; appeals to the House, 571 ; offers reso- 
 lutions relative to the transfer of the House Missouri 
 bill to the Senate, 571 : notices the death of Commodore 
 Decatur, 572. See Index, vols. 2, 8, 4, 5. 
 
 EASKIX, CHRISTOPHER, Kepresentative from Mississippi, 
 464 ; on restricting slavery in Missouri, 638. 
 
 Ransom, prohibition of. See Index, vol. 5. 
 
 Seal Estate and Slaves, valuation of. See Index, voL 5. 
 
 EED, PHILIP, Representative from Maryland, 59, 200 ; on a 
 monument to De Kalb, 262. 
 
 REID, EGBERT W., Representative from Georgia, 464; on 
 restricting slavery in Missouri, 489. 
 
 Re/port on the case of R. W. Meade, 44 ; relative to pur- 
 chasing certain works on the statistics of the United 
 States, 56 ; on the case of George Mnmford, 114 ; on salt 
 duties, 119 ; relative to surviving Revolutionary officers, 
 214 ; on the Bank of the United States, 227 ; on the regu- 
 lation of coins, 272 ; on the petition of the Connecticut 
 Deaf and Dumb Asylum, 8d7 ; of Committee of Con- 
 ference on admission of Maine, 454 ; on the civilization 
 of the Indians, 476 ; relative to the punishment of piracy, 
 T04. 
 
 Representation, ratio of. See Index, vols. 1, 2, 4. 
 
 Representatives, qualifications of. In the House, a resolu- 
 tion of inquiry as to members" of the House who have 
 accepted office since 1817, 64 ; a novel proceeding, 64 ; 
 imposing extraordinary duties on the committee, 64 ; 
 It imputes impurity to the House, 64 ; time enough to 
 Inquire when any specific allegations were made, 64 ; 
 the object was to inquire whether persons in certain 
 situations had a right to a seat or not, a doubtful point 
 which should be settled, 64 ; ten or eleven members, 
 whose right to a seat depended on the question, 64 ; mo- 
 tion adopted, 64 ; message from the President in answer, 
 72; list of members, 72. 
 
 Resignation, does it cause a vacancy ? See Index, voL 1. 
 
 Resolution, relative to information respecting the salt duty 
 and fishing bounty, 11 ; relative to an increase of the 
 Navy, 13 ; relative to the petition of the Society of 
 Friends, 13 ; relative to the gallantry of Generals Har- 
 rison and Selby, 44 ; relative to reference of President's 
 Message, 60 ; relative to Spanish American Provinces, 
 61 ; on Amelia Island and Spanish Patriots, 63 ; on rep- 
 resentative qualifications, 64; on exportation, 65; on 
 pensions to sufferers in war, 66; on the National Flag, 
 67; calling for information in the case of R. W. Meade, 
 TO ; relative to titles of nobility, 76 ; on pensions to 
 wounded officers, 76 ; to arrest John Anderson, 83 ; rela- 
 tive to the case of John Anderson, 90, 101 ; to manifest 
 respect to General Koscinsko, 104 ; withdrawn, 106 ; on 
 the decease of Peterson Goodwyn, 115; relative to 
 Baron De Kalb, 117; on Internal Improvement, 120; 
 relative to the batture at St. Louis, 132 ; of honor to the 
 brave, 171; on the case of R. W. Meade, 174; relative 
 to the first article of the treaty with Great Britain, 188 ; 
 respecting a monument to General Washington, 184; 
 relative to the exportation of gold and silver coin, 184 ; 
 relative to the memorial of Matthew Lyon, 184; relative 
 to the illegal transportation of slaves, 189 ; relative to 
 duelling, 194 ; in Senate, on decease of George Mumford, 
 190 ; relative to the Seminole war, 195 ; of thanks by 
 Senate to its presiding officer, 199 ; relative to the Bank 
 of the United States, 207, 212 ; relative to the migration 
 of slaves, 218 ; report relative to surviving officers of, 
 214; relative to the decease of George Mumford, 214; 
 respecting Arkansas Territorial Governmcn: 
 the slave trade, 225 ; on the trial and execution of Ar- 
 buthnot and Ambrister, 226; relative to the Govern- 
 
 ment of Florida, 228; respecting a monument to De 
 Kalb, 262 ; of honor to Joseph Lancaster, 272 ; relative 
 to the Bank of the United States, 868 ; relative to the 
 Military Academy, 869 ; of thanks to the Speaker, 872 ; 
 relative to duelling, 459; relative to appointing a^pin- 
 mittee to report on prohibition of slavery in the Terri- 
 tories, 468 ; to publish the Journal of the Old Congress, 
 492 ; to provide a remedy for slavery, 602 ; relative to 
 slavery in Territories, 515 ; to provide for the family of 
 Commodore Perry, 555 ; for a conference with Senate 
 on the Maine bill, 562 ; on the decease of David Walk- 
 er, 566 ; relative to the transfer of the House Missouri 
 bill to the Senate, 671 ; relative to the Spanish treaty, 
 574 ; relative to fugitive slaves, 574 ; relative to a mauso- 
 leum to General Washington, 597 ; of thanks to Speaker 
 Clay, 652 ; relative to the Act of July, 1798, 661 ; rela- 
 tive to counting the Electoral vote, 695 ; relative to tho 
 decease of Nathaniel Hazard, 696 ; relative to the de- 
 cease of James Burrill, 696 ; relative to the decease of 
 John Linn, 697 ; relative to counting the Electoral vote, 
 704; admitting Missouri, 706; relative to the decease of 
 W. A. Bnrwell, 709. 
 
 Revenue, collection of the. See Index, voL 6. 
 
 Revenue Cutters. See Index, voL 4 
 
 RHEA, JOHH, Representative from Tennessee, 59, 200, 464 ; 
 relative to Amelia Island and Spanish Patriots, 63 ; on the 
 case of John Anderson, 101 ; on fugitives from justice 
 and service, 109, 110 ; on presenting medals to certain 
 officers, 173 ; on the Seminole war, 285 ; against fixing a 
 line for the limitation of slavery, 366 ; on appointing a 
 committee to report a bill restricting slavery, 470. Se 
 Index, vols. 8, 4, 5. 
 
 Rhode Island, admission of. See Index, vol. 1. 
 
 Rhode Island, resolutions relative to pay of members of 
 Congress, 654 ; vote for President in 1820, 706. See In- 
 dex, vols. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. 
 
 RICE, THOMAS, Representative from Massachusetts, 68, 105, 
 200. See Index, vol. 5. 
 
 RICH, CHABLES, Representative from Vermont, 59, 200, 464 ; 
 on the case of John Anderson, 101 ; on the bill relating 
 to fugitives from justice, 107 ; on fugitives from justice 
 and service, 109 ; on restricting slavery in Missouri, 551. 
 See Index, voL 6. 
 
 RICHARDS, MAKE, Representative from Vermont, 59, 200, 
 464. 
 
 RICHMOND, JONATHAN, Representative from New York, 464. 
 
 RINGGOLD, SAMUEL, Representative from Maryland, 59, 214, 
 464. See Index, vol. 5. 
 
 Rio de la Plata, manifesto of United Provinces of, 141. 
 
 RoaQ Post. See Index, vol. 3. 
 
 ROBERTS, JONATHAN, Senator from Pennsylvania, 8, 179, 
 874, 654; on the pension to General Stark, 168; on the 
 admission of Maine and Missouri, 382 ; on the restriction 
 of slavery in Missouri, 389, 481 ; against incorporating a 
 National Vaccine Institution, 697, 702; on the bill rela- 
 tive to Commodore Tucker, 708 ; offers a resolution for 
 the admission of Missouri, 706 ; on the Missouri consti- 
 tution, 707. See Index, vols. 4, 5. 
 
 ROBERTSON, GEORGE, Representative from Kentucky, 59, 
 200, 464 ; on Arkansas Territorial Government, 222. 
 
 ROBERTSON, THOMAS B., Representative from Louisiana, 59 ; 
 on the Spanish American Provinces, 61 ; on expatriation, 
 65-68 ; on commutation cf bounty lands, 72 ; on the 
 neutrality bill, 124-126 ; on the Spanish American Prov 
 inees, 155; reports on the history of, 169. Set Index, 
 vols. 4, 5. 
 
 RODGKRS, THOMAS J., Representative from Pennsylvania, 
 182,200,464 
 
 RODNEY, DANIEL, votes for as Vice President in 1820, 706. 
 
 Ross, JOHN, Representative from Pennsylvania, 65 ; on the 
 compensation of members, 82. See Index, vols. 4, 5.
 
 734 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Ross, f HOMAB E., Representative from Ohio, 464. 
 
 RUGOLES, BENJAMIN, Senator from Ohio, 8, 179, 874,654; 
 relative to the sale of the public lands, 457; relative to 
 the Virginia Military Lands, 708. Se Index, vol. 5. 
 
 RUBBLES, NATHANIEL, Representative from Massachusetts, 
 68,200. See Index, voL 5. 
 
 RUSH, RICHARD, votes for, as Vice President In 1820, 706. 
 
 Russ, JOHN, Representative from Connecticut, 463. 
 
 Salt Duty and fishing Bounty, resolution relative to, 11 ; 
 report relative to duties on, 119. See Index, vol. 6, Du- 
 ties on Imports. 
 
 SAMPSON, GABRIEL, Representative from Massachusetts, 68, 
 200,468. 
 
 BANFORD, NATHAN, Senator from New York, 8, 179, 874, 654 ; 
 on ad valorem, duties, 7 ; presents the memorial of the 
 Irish Emigrant Association, 82. See Index, vol. 5. 
 
 SAVAGE, JOHN, Representative from New York, 59, 200. 
 See Index, voL 5. 
 
 Savannah, relief of. See Index, vol. 2. 
 
 SAWYER, LEMUEL, Representative from North Carolina, 59, 
 200 ; on the Seminole war, 270. See Index, vols. 8, 4. 
 
 ScntiYLER, PHILIP J., Representative from New York, 59, 200. 
 
 SCOTT, JOHN, Delegate from Missouri, 68, 200, 464 ; on Ar- 
 kansas Territorial Government, 222 ; on the prohibition 
 of slavery in Missouri, 846 ; on the bill for the Missouri 
 Convention, 469 ; on the restriction of slavery In Mis- 
 souri, 557. See Index, vol. 5. 
 
 SCUDDER, TREDWELL, Representative from New York, 59, 
 200. 
 
 Seamen, foreign merchant. In the House, a bill to author- 
 ize the apprehension of, when deserting, considered, 
 216 ; effects of desertion on the voyage, 216 ; such regu- 
 lations exist in all other countries, 216 ; letter of Secre- 
 tary of State on the subject, 216; objected that the bill 
 provides for the surrender of the seaman to the captain 
 without inquiry into the case or trial, 216 ; other details 
 objectionable, 217; under the bill only tw parts au- 
 thorize the surrender the part of a contract and that 
 of desertion, 217 ; is it not possible a seaman may be jus- 
 tified in quitting the merchant service f 217 ; on what 
 grounds is the passage of this bill asked for ? 217 ; the 
 bill introduces no new principle, 217; the same provi- 
 sions have been in operation for twenty-eight years, 218; 
 a treaty, as reported, can have no bearing on this sub- 
 ject, 218 ; there can be no difficulty with respect to nat- 
 uralized foreigners, 218. A 
 
 Seamen, protection of. See Index, vols. 8, 4. 
 
 Seat of Government. See Index, vols. 1, 2, 8, 5. 
 
 Secret Proceedings, publication of. See Index, vol. 4. 
 
 Sedition Law of 1798, memorial. In the Senate, a reso- 
 lution offered in consequence of the petition of Matthew 
 Lyon, to reimburse all persons fined under the Sedition 
 Law of 1798, considered, 184; the act was unconsti- 
 tutional, not only from a defect of power in Congress to 
 pass such a law, but because its passage was forbidden 
 by the constitution, 184 ; the sense of the nation had 
 pronounced it so, 184 ; a revision of the proceedings im- 
 portant, so far as relates to the individuals subject to 
 prosecution under it, 184 ; the constitution guarantees 
 certain rights, and under this guarantee individuals are 
 entitled to Indemnity, 184 ; relief is asked from Con- 
 gress on the ground of not having a fair trial, 185 ; this 
 should be proved, and not merely asserted, 185; un- 
 necessary to discuss the constitutionality of the act, 185 ; 
 the facts alleged cannot be proved, 185 ; the course pro- 
 posed in the amendment is daily practice, 185 ; the con- 
 stitutional question now presented should not rest upon 
 
 an Individual claim, 185 ; the question is : Did the Gov- 
 ernment violate the constitution by this act, and oppress 
 Individuals f 185 ; gentlemen mistaken when they pro- 
 nounced the act unconstitutional, 186; if the President 
 -and Congress were convinced there was a necessity for 
 such a law, they had a right to enact it, 186 ; note, 186; 
 it was passed at a period of great danger and alarm, 186 ; 
 the second section of the law, 186 ; public opinion re- 
 volted against Its principles and provisions, because of 
 the temper manifested in enacting it, 186; no evidence 
 of the truth of the applicant's allegations in this case, 
 187; the Sedition Law was an amelioration of the com- 
 mon law, 187; the true question is: Will you review 
 the proceedings under the Sedition Law now that party 
 spirit is hushed? 187; its constitutionality, 187; the law 
 only punished false, licentious, and malicious writings, 
 188 ; not intended to abridge the liberty of the Press, 
 but its licentiousness resolution lost, 188. 
 
 In the House. The petition of Matthew Lyon re- 
 ceived and referred to the Judiciary Committee, 201. 
 
 In the Senate. Report of the Select Committee, 697 ; 
 moved to postpone Indefinitely, 697 ; merits and demer- 
 its of Matthew Lyon, 697 ; it is said the Treasury is 
 empty, 698 ; the present case comes before us In a way 
 that demands and must receive serious consideration, 
 69S ; how far Was this act an abridgment of the liberty 
 of the Press ? 699 ; what was said at the time ? 699 ; cases 
 of attainder in England, 700, 701 ; resolutions indefinite- 
 ly postponed, 702. See Index, vol. 4, and Index, vol. 2, 
 Defensive Measures and Seditious Practices. 
 Seminole War. In the Senate, a message from the Presi- 
 dent with documents, moved to refer to a select com- 
 mittee, 190 ; moved to confer authority to send for per- 
 sons and papers, &c., agreed to, 190 ; moved that an- 
 other member be added to the committee, 195 ; moved 
 to postpone, 195 ; postponement lost, 195 ; debate on the 
 motion, 196 ; carried, 196 ; report of the committee, 197. 
 
 In the House. A resolution presented by the Com- 
 mittee on Military Affairs, with a report that the House 
 disapproves of the execution of Alexander Arbuthnot 
 and Robert C. Ambrister, 226; a resolution also submit- 
 ted by a member of the committee, that General Jack- 
 son and his officers and men were entitled to the thanks 
 of the country in terminating the Seminole war. 226 ; 
 moved to refer to the Committee of the Whole on the 
 state of the Union, 226 ; these papers involve principles 
 of great consequence, on which, to some extent, depends 
 the character of the nation, 226 ; important questions as 
 to the laws of nations also involved, and as to the con- 
 stitution of the country, 226 ; papers should be referred, 
 as in ordinary cases, to the Committee of the Whole, 
 226; reasons therefor, 226; debate on the reference, 
 226; motion carried, 227. 
 
 Report of the committee considered, 228 ; report does 
 not go far enough, other matters of infinitely greater 
 importance, 228; the charges exhibited against these 
 two Englishmen, 229 ; what law was violated ? 229 ; the 
 evidence under which one or both of them was con- 
 victed, 229 ; the sentence under which Ambrister was 
 executed, 229 ; is this committee prepared to brand these 
 men with the titles of outlaws and pirates ? 280 ; did 
 the commanding general of the American Army possess 
 the power to exercise the right of retaliation ? 230. 
 
 Necessary to show that the Indians commenced the 
 war, 231 ; the President has power to repel the enemy, 
 and the question arises, on what ground he may meet 
 them, 282 ; state of affairs over the Florida line, 232 ; 
 admit the Spaniards and Indians had concurrent juris- 
 diction, 282; what reason is there why Gen. Jackson 
 should not cross into Florida, which would not equally 
 prohibit him to cross the Indian line ? 233 ; having en- 

 
 INDEX. 
 
 735 
 
 tered Florida, what were his duties to those professing 
 allegiance to Spain ? 233 ; the right of discrimination 
 between neutrals and enemies devolved on him, 283 ; 
 whafhas been said relative to the conduct of the Exec- 
 utive in engaging in this war? 233. 
 
 That part of the subject to which the report is con- 
 fined, is the only one on which a majority of the com- 
 mittee could be united, 234; an effort has been made to 
 show that Spain has given no just cause for war, and 
 therefore Gen. Jackson had a right to take possession of 
 the Spanish garrisons in West Florida, 234; what au- 
 thority had he to establish a Government, and appoint 
 officers, and put in force the revenue laws of the United 
 States? 235; had Gen. Jackson aright to capture Pensa- 
 cola and the Barancas ? 235 ; principles of Vattel's Law 
 of Nations in relation to the course he pursued, 286; 
 did the necessity exist? 236; inquiry into the facts, 286; 
 the propriety of the course pursued in the trial and ex- 
 ecution of Arbuthnot and Ambrister, examined, 236; 
 the subject presents two aspects one its foreign, the 
 other its domestic aspect, 238 ; four propositions before 
 the committee, 238; no censnre upon Gen. Jackson 
 proposed, except what may be merely consequential, 
 288 ; origin of the war in the treaty of Fort Jackson, 
 238 ; contrast between the scenes of Ghent and Fort 
 Jackson, 239; the execution of the Indian chiefs, 240; 
 you have no right to practise enormities on the Indians 
 tinder the color of retaliation, 240 ; why have we not 
 practised retaliation on the Indian tribes? 241; not ne- 
 cessary to insist on the innocence of either Arbnthnot 
 or Ambrister, in judging of the trial, &c,, 241 ; principle 
 assumed by Gen. Jackson in this case, 241 ; the ntmost 
 we could do was to apply to them the rules we had a 
 right to enforce against the Indians, 242; topics em- 
 ployed by the minions of legitimacy in Europe against 
 our Government, 242 ; the mode of trial and sentencing 
 these men was equally objectionable with the principles 
 on which it had been attempted to show a forfeiture of 
 their lives, 243 ; Ambrister was executed in defiance of 
 all law, 244; no power is more expressly and exclusively 
 granted in the constitution, than that is to Congress of 
 declaring war, 244 ; message of the President to Congress 
 in relation to the Seminole war, 045 ; actions of Gen. 
 Jackson, 245 : proceeding of the Governor of Florida 
 examined, 245 ; where are the free nations which have 
 gone before us ? 245 ; we are fighting a great moral bat- 
 tle for the ,beneflt not only of our country but of all 
 mankind, 246 ; how different the treatment of Gen. Jack- 
 Bon and of Commodore Perry, 246. 
 
 The conduct of Gen. Jackson has been a subject of 
 censure in regard to this trial and execution, from a 
 misconception of the law and the facts in the case, 247 ; 
 every ground taken by him will be found tenable on 
 principles which have prevailed from the commence- 
 ment of civilization to the present day, 247 ; examples 
 of military execution by the Commanding General, 248; 
 it is denied that the crimes for which these men' were 
 executed, were offences not recognized by the laws of 
 tho United States, 248 ; execution of the Indian war- 
 riors, 243; the treaty of Fort Jackson, 248; tho consti- 
 tutionality of the war, 249; power of the President to 
 prosecute this war, 249 ; it is said, these incendiaries 
 were put to death without necessity, 249 ; the case of 
 volunteers entering foreign service, 250; difference of 
 our situation in this House and that of the General in 
 the field, 250 ; the right of the President to make war 
 on the savages, considered, 251 ; hav the rights of the 
 United States been transcended by the proceedings of 
 the armed force in Florida ? 251 ; writers on the law of 
 nations quoted, 251, 252 ; have the constitutional powers 
 of the President been exceeded ? 253; has Gen. Jackson 
 
 transcended his orders, or violated the law of nations ? 
 254; his instructions, 254 ; objections made to his pro- 
 ceedings, 254 ; orders of Gen. Washington to Gen. Sul- 
 livan, 256 ; why Is nothing said by the committee re- 
 specting the execution of two Indian chiefs? 257 ; what 
 were the charges against Arbuthnot and Ambrister? 
 258 ; rules of the law of nations, 258 ; it is said, the exe- 
 cution was unnecessary, 259 ; that the court-martial has 
 no jurisdiction over the offence, 259; power of the 
 House to discuss and express its opinion on the present 
 subject, 260 ; an act of legislation should not be coupled 
 with resolutions of censure, .261 ; further debate, 261, 
 262. 
 
 Burst of indignation in this House at the trials of Ar- 
 bnthnot and Ambrister, 268; great as the services of 
 Gen. Jackson have been they afford no sanctuary against 
 our inquiry, or furnish any exculpation for the violation 
 of the constitution, 263 ; much to warn us, in the pasty 
 against receiving the services of public men as an apol- 
 ogy for their usurpations, 264 ; the immediate restora- 
 tion of Pensacola amounts to a disavowal of its seizure 
 on the part of our Government, 264; the defence at 
 these trials, 264; the capture of St Marks equally unau- 
 thorized, 265 ; proceedings attempted to be justified on 
 the ground of self-defence, arising out of extreme neces- 
 sity, 265 ; desirable to blot out this stain on our national 
 character, 265. 
 
 Had we a right to march our armies across the Flor- 
 ida line? 266; the propriety of the occupation of the 
 ^panish posts, 267; the trial and execution ,.f Arbuth- 
 "not and Ambrister, 268 ; it Is said, that whatever our 
 rights may have been, it was not competent to the Com- 
 manding General to execute them, 270 ; the jurisdiction 
 of the Court, 270; it Is a new principle that Congress 
 has no power to pass any resolution of condemnation or 
 removal, nor of censure, of any military oflicer, 270 ; 
 what is the true state of the case? 270; if the conduct 
 of the General was not strictly legal, what would gen- 
 tlemen have ? 271 ; the General's own words, 271 ; there 
 would have been no end to the war, if he had permitted 
 the enemy to retreat to the Spanish forts without pur- 
 suing them, 272. 
 
 Object of the resolutions neither censnre of Gen. Jack- 
 eon nor the Executive, 278; it is said, the Indians cannot 
 make war, 274; history of our transactions with them, 
 274; the necessity of seizing those fortresses, 275; the 
 character rather than the constitution of our Govern- 
 ment, 276; jrere the rules of judicial proceedings in tho 
 trial of military officers disregarded in these trials? 276; 
 the order for their execution is a stain on the judicial 
 proceedings of this nation, 277; who were the other 
 captives condemned ? 277 ; different view that would 
 have been taken of these proceedings if they had been 
 done by an ordinary man, 278 ; where is the sovereign 
 power lodged ? 273 ; did the acts in the progress of this 
 war proceed from the President, or were they acts of 
 Gen. Jackson ? 279. 
 
 The advocates of these resolutions claim to be the ex- 
 clusive guardians of the constitution, 279 ; Congress has 
 not power to proceed in this manner, 280; each party is 
 right when contending for the negative, 280 ; the people 
 have not constituted us their agents, to confer their 
 thanks, or to select objects of benevolence, 280; admit- 
 ting the House has the power to censure, the transac- 
 tions of this war do not justify its exercise, 281 ; the treaty 
 is said to have violated the religion of the Indians, 231 ; 
 this being a defensive war, resulting from the necessity 
 of repelling invasion, military movement was the bonn- 
 <U n duty of the Executive, 282; the right of the Ameri- 
 cans to pursue the enemy, 282 ; the provision of the con- 
 stitution violated by these executions has not been
 
 736 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 pointed out, 283; justification of the executions, 283; 
 the war was authorized by the constitution and laws of 
 the country, 284; commencement of the war, 284; the 
 course then pursued, 284; treaties with various tribes 
 referred to, 285 ; reason of the reference, 2S6 ; conspira- 
 cies against the United States during the war of 1812, 
 287, 288 ; orders to Gen. Jackson, 289. 
 
 Connection of the matters in controversy with the 
 character of the country, 290; dangers which the coun- 
 try may apprdiend from the encouragement of a mili- 
 tary spirit, 290; the crossing of the Spanish line, 291 ; 
 the fate of the Indians, 291 ; proceedings and orders of 
 the Government at the outset of the war, 292 ; grounds 
 upon which we defend crossing the Spanish line, and 
 reasons Spain may urge against it, 293 ; the occupation 
 of St. Marks, considered, 298 ; three grounds taken by 
 the General, 294; what is the principle of national law 
 that should govern it? 295; the case of Pcnsacola con- 
 sidered, 295; the true motive of the captur of Penaa- 
 cola, 296; further debate, 297 ; the treaty of Fort Jack- 
 eon, 298 ; points not embraced in the resolutions, 299 ; 
 deliberations relative to the seizure of Florida, 299 ; the 
 power of declaring war is given only 'to Congress, 299 ; 
 the President had no right to authorize the capture of 
 St. Marks and Pensacola, 299; the President's orders 
 fairly forbade their occupation, 800 ; the case of Ambris- 
 ter, 801 ; the case of Arbuthnot, 801 ; the services of 
 Gen. Jackson should not be weighed against the consti- 
 tution of the land, 301 ; what are the points of differ- 
 ence arising out of this case ? 802 ; the seizure of St. 
 Marks and Pensacola, 302 ; the executions indispe'nsa- 
 ble, 808. 
 
 Called upon by these resolutions to disrobe a veteran 
 soldier of his well-earned laurels, 803; they are calculated 
 to enfeeble the arm of the Government in its pending 
 negotiations with Spain, 808; the peculiar and delicate 
 posture of our relations with Spain, 804 ; the expression 
 of the opinions embraced in these resolutions must cast 
 a shade over the American name, 304 ; investigation of 
 the resolutions levelled at the fame and honor of Gen. 
 Jackson, and through him at the President, 805; has 
 the House of Eepresentatives constitutional power to 
 Institute an inquiry into the conduct of a military offi- 
 cer, and to sentence him to be cashiered, &c.? 305; 
 views of Madison, 806 ; look at the provisions of the 
 constitution, and forbear to adopt a measure in violation 
 of it, 806 ; are the officers of the army and navy ren- 
 dered subservient to us as a censorial, inquisitorial body ? 
 808 ; the unavoidable consequences which will flow from 
 this premature and unauthorized proceeding, 808; our 
 total inability to enforce the will of the majority de- 
 monstrates the absence of the right to express that will, 
 808 ; who among us would be willing to stake his pros- 
 pects and hopes on the issue of an investigation, which, 
 disregarding all respect for the purity of motive, should 
 only tend to discover an inadvertent error? 809; on all 
 occasions the United States have acted only on the defen- 
 sive in the commencement of every war with the In- 
 dians, 810; the finger of British intrigue and Spanish 
 deception and connivance are visible from the very in- 
 ception of these hostilities to their final termination, 
 810, 811 ; the murders and robberies that preceded of- 
 fensive operations, 812 ; Florida is a country " open to 
 all comers," 812 ; the prominent points in the evidence 
 showing that Gen. Jackson has not snatched from Con- 
 gress the power to declare war, 813, 814 ; sympathetic 
 effusions of honorable members on the trial and execu- 
 tion of the instigators of the Seminole war are mortify- 
 ing, 815; proceedings of the Court, 815; the participation 
 of Arbuthnot in providing means for the prosecution of 
 the Seminole war, 316 ; voice of the country on the 
 
 merits of Jackson, 817; points of the debate, 818; 
 sources of fear for our liberties, 819 ; to see us sacrifice 
 our General who shamefully defeated old England's 
 chosen glorious bands, would make the Prince Regent's 
 ministers rejoice, 820; a word to Virginia, 820; who 
 were Arbuthnot and Ambrister, and what was their 
 business and employment in Florida? 321 ; the runaway 
 negroes, 822; the guilt of those executed is established, 
 823; the report of the committee, 824; transactions of 
 the Government with the Indians referred to, 324 ; re- 
 lations between the United States and the Indian tribes, 
 825 ; have w-e not sanctioned this war to as great and 
 full extent as Congress ever sanctioned any Indian war ? 
 825 ; after these acts was a report of this nature to be 
 expected of this House, as a reward of fidelity ? 826 ; 
 If there Is censure anywhere, it is due to Congress for 
 not having performed its duty, 326 ; was it right to pase 
 the Florida line? 326; the executions, 827; further de- 
 bate, 828, 829, 880, 881; resolution lost, 882; the other 
 resolutions lost, 832 ; proceedings of committee reported 
 to the House, 882; question divided, 832; trial and exe- 
 cution of Arbuthnot and Ainbrister disapproved, 832 ; 
 resolution that the seizure of the Spanish forts was 
 contrary to the constitution, lost, 833. 
 
 Senate. Motion to suspend third rule of, 55; adjourns at 
 close of 1st session of 15th Congress, 57 ; commences 
 2d session of 15th Congress, 179 ; adjourns at close of 2d 
 session of 15th Congress, 199; convenes on 1st session 
 of 16th Congress, 874; adjourns at close of 1st session of 
 16th Congress, 462 ; meets at second session of 16th 
 Congress, 654; Committee of Conference relative to 
 Missouri, 711; adjourns at 2d session of 16th Congress, 
 712.. 
 
 SBBGEANT, JOHN, Representative from Pennsylvania, 60, 
 200, 464 ; on reference of the President's Message, 61 ; 
 on the case of John Anderson, 88 ; on fugitives from 
 justice and service, 107; on restriction of slavery in Mis- 
 souri, 515 ; on the Senate's amendments to the Maine 
 bill, 554. See Index, vol. 5. 
 
 SBTTLB, THOMAS, Representative from North Carolina, 59, 
 200,464 
 
 SHTBEKT, ADAM, Representative from Pennsylvania, 59, 
 200. See Index, vols. 4, 5. 
 
 SHAW, HENBY, Representative from Massachusetts 58, 200, 
 468. 
 
 SHEBWOOD, SAMUEL B., Representative from Connecticut, 
 68. See Index, vol. 5. 
 
 SILBBEE, NATHANIEL, Representative from Massachusetts, 
 58, 200, 463 ; on a revision of the Tariff, 622. 
 
 SMKINS, ELDKED, Representatives from South Carolina, 
 114, 202, 464 ; on the Senate's amendments to the Maine 
 bill, 554. 
 
 Slave Trade, African. In the Senate, a resolution to in- 
 struct the committee to whom was referred the petition 
 of the Society of Friends of Baltimore, considered, 11 ; 
 the last clause of the resolution contemplates a concert 
 with foreign nations, 11 ; a most extraordinary proposi- 
 tion, 11 ; no measure could be adopted more replete with 
 danger to the existence of the country, than a formal 
 coalition for any purpose with foreign nations, 11 ; can- 
 not separate from foreign alliances the idea of foreign 
 politics, 11 ; no diversity of opinion with regard to put- 
 ting a stop to the African slave trade, 12 ; it is only by 
 concert and co-operation that it can be abolished, 12; 
 the objection to foreign alliances does not apply to this 
 proposition, 12; the principle is no novelty, 12; a pro- 
 vision inserted in the treaty of Ghent, 12 ; this country 
 the first to set the example of suppressing the trade, 12; 
 all but two nations have come into the measure for its 
 abolition, 12; the traffic cannot be suppressed until all 
 unite, 12 ; impossible for such a measure to lead to an
 
 INDEX. 
 
 737 
 
 entangling alliance, 12; what is proposed is an honest 
 and moral concert to put an end to this trade, 12 ; It is a 
 measure demanded by a regard for the morals of the 
 country, 12. 
 
 No propriety in adopting a resolution from which no 
 good can result, 12; the Executive is the proper branch 
 to form such an arrangement, 12 ; if it was necessary 
 the Executive would have formed it, 12 ; propriety of 
 expressing an opinion, 12; how can we control the con- 
 duct of Spain and Portugal on this subject? 18; con- 
 struction given to the article of the treaty of Ghent, 18; 
 the question is merely whether it shall be referred to a 
 committee to inquire into the expediency of taking 
 measures in concert with other nations, for this great 
 and benevolent purpose, 13 ; if this inquiry is refused 
 we may be subject to the imputation of disregarding the 
 implied obligations of the treaty of Ghent, 14; sub- 
 stance of the tenth article, 14 ; this article as well as the 
 rest of the treaty met with uniTereal approbation, 14; 
 what danger or inconvenience can arise from referring 
 the subject for an investigation ? 14; no such danger to 
 be apprehended as some gentlemen imagined, 14 ; Vir- 
 ginia was the first to prohibit the traffic, 14; progress of 
 sentiment on the subject, 14; nothing to be feared from 
 an alliance with any nation whose only object was hu- 
 manity, 14 ; the proposed concert is of a moral charac- 
 ter, 14; the principal project is a good one, but it is ob- 
 jectionable in proposing that Congress should unite with 
 other nations to produce the object, 15; Congress can 
 act only in its legislative capacity, and can enter into no 
 concert with foreign nations, 15; this belongs to the 
 Executive, 15; leave the subject, therefore, where the 
 constitution has placed it, 15 ; this is not one of the cases 
 which would justify our advising the Executive, 15; ob- 
 ject of the article in the treaty of Ghent, 15; can the 
 President and Senate pledge the arms and resources of 
 the country, in a concert with foreign powers, for any 
 object whatever? 15; very different significations of the 
 term concert, entertained, 15 ; what is it but a term of 
 common councils and common efforts? 15; common ef- 
 forts between nations mean war, if war be necessary, 
 15; if negotiations fail with nations who assert the right 
 to carry on the slave trade, war must be resorted to, 15 ; 
 Spain and Portugal would care nothing about your ad- 
 vice, when you told them yon meant nothing more, 15 ; 
 this word concert means entangling alliance, 15. 
 
 This is a subject co-extensive with the world, 16; sen- 
 timent of New England, 16 ; impossible to conceive why 
 any objection is made to the resolution, 16 ; we express 
 thereby a willingness to instruct a committee to exam- 
 ine this subject, 16 ; the Senate may then approve or 
 disapprove, 16; the resolution is founded in part on the 
 treaty of Ghent, 16; the abolition of slavery was con- 
 templated by the framers of our constitution, 16; its 
 object comports with the dictates of reason and human- 
 ity, 16; carry the great design into effect, and yon place 
 those forlorn objects within the reach of political and 
 moral instruction, 16; the fate of Babylon, IT; the ad- 
 vantages and disadvantages of alliances, offensive and 
 defensive, are of weighty importance, and not involved 
 in the present question, 17; the concert intended by the 
 motion, IT; the bearings of the treaty of Ghent, IT; this 
 business is said to belong to the President, bnt this ob- 
 jection goes to restrain and limit what is deemed to be 
 the constitutional power of the Senate, IT; the Senate 
 are the constitutional and only responsible advisers of 
 the President in all foreign matters, except the recep- 
 tion of ambassadors, 18; the constitution is jealous of 
 the power which shall manage foreign affairs, 18; to 
 make a treaty Includes all the proceedings by which it 
 la made, IS; the power to make a treaty considered, 18 ; 
 
 You VH. 47 
 
 the resolution contains two separate and distinct propo- 
 sitionsthe first was the amendment of the laws that 
 prohibit the introduction of slaves the other proposes 
 to inquire into the best manner of executing an article 
 of the treaty of Ghent. 18 ; can the Senate act on this 
 subject? IS; unfair to presume the President has neg- 
 lected his duty, 18; motion to strike ont the latter 
 clause, carried, 19 ; original motion as amended, passed, 
 19. 
 
 Slavery. Pennsylvania resolutions against in new States, 
 882 ; resolutions of New Jersey relative to, in Missouri, 
 presented, 416 ; resolutions of Delaware relative to, in 
 new States, 421 ; resolutions of New York relative to. 
 in new States, 424; resolutions of Ohio relative to the 
 extension of, 484 ; notice of a bill relative to the further 
 extension of, 465; preamble and resolutions relative to, 
 in the House, 502 ; resolutions on the restriction of, by 
 New York, 658; by Vermont, 6T6. 
 
 Slavery in Territories. In the House, a resolution 
 to inquire into the expediency of prohibiting, offered. 
 468; if a compromise was effected this subject should 
 be inquired into and reported upon, 469; resolution 
 agreed to, 469 ; motion that the committee be dis- 
 charged as nnable to agree, 470; agreed to, 470; reso- 
 lution to appoint a committee to report a bill, &c., 470 : 
 House cannot reach the question except by a bill, 470 ; 
 none doubt the constitutionality, the only question is one 
 of expediency, 470 ; note, 470 ; not a fair way of coming 
 at the question, 470; further debate, 470; postponed, 
 471; offered, 515; laid on the table, 515, See Index, 
 vol. 2, Territories, and Index, voL 8. 
 
 Slavery in a Territory, Prohibition of. See Territories. 
 
 Slaves Deported, article relative to in the Ghent Treaty, 11 ; 
 
 Slates, fugitive. In the Senate, bill in relation to, 
 considered, 34 ; amendment moved and carried, 85; it 
 is said the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus secured 
 by the ninth section of the first article of the constitu- 
 tion will be infringed by this bill, 85 ; the habeas corpus 
 was never intended to give a right of trial, 85; it would 
 give the judge the sole power of deciding the right of 
 property of the ' master, instead of trying that right as 
 prescribed by the constitution, 85; kidnappers, man- 
 stealers, soul-drivers, is this the language we are to meet 
 when suing for our constitutional rights? 85; the prac- 
 tice of discrediting lawyers, 86; our northern brethren 
 obtain the labor of free blacks upon better terms than 
 masters do, 86; with all this boast about freedom only 
 four States have no slaves, 86 ; whilst it was the interest 
 of the northern States to hold slaves they kept them, 
 86; none remonstrate against the sin of slavery loader 
 than those who have sold off their stock of negroes, and 
 vested the price in bank stock, 86 ; the States that 
 have taken measures to abolish slavery have become 
 bank-mad, 86; the article in the treaty of Ghent worthy 
 of notice, 87 ; the colonizing scheme will pave the way, 
 it is said, to general emancipation, 3T; a general eman- 
 cipation intended by the northern and eastern States, 
 87; the misrepresentation by catchpenny prints and 
 pamphlets, 87 ; the " Horrors of Slavery In two Parts," 
 8T; its character, 88; bat It is said, slavery is a viola- 
 tion of Divine Law, 83; opinions on the subject, 88; ex- 
 tracts from the Old Testament, 89. 
 
 There are provisions in the constitution which recog- 
 nize shivery, 89 ; the law now in force, 89 ; every pro- 
 vision is here made for the speedy recovery of fugitive 
 slaves, 40 ; the provisions and details of the present bill 
 are very imperfect, deficient, and improper, 40; the 
 character of the oflicors to be employed to take cogni- 
 zance of a crime and aid in carrying into effect the pro- 
 visions oft he bill, 40 ; validity given to the certificate of
 
 738 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 a justice of the peace, 40; duty required of a constable, 
 41 ; further facts as they arise under the bill examined, 
 41 ; the laws of the United States are to be explained 
 and enforced only by officers created by the constituted 
 authorities of the United States, 41 ; the extent of the 
 several powers and duties of respective branches of the 
 Government are distinctly prescribed by the constitu- 
 tion, 41 ; from what source does the county justice re- 
 ceive authority to arrest B person under a law of the 
 United States ; 42 ; Congress has no constitutional pow- 
 . er to authorize an officer under a State Government to 
 perform a judicial act, 42; the certificate under this bill 
 has the nature of a warrant, 42 ; judicial power is also 
 exercised in determining on the competency of the tes- 
 timony, and the legality of the duty performed, 42 ; it is 
 not expedient for the United States to call upon any of- 
 ficers under State Governments to perform any duty 
 under the criminal laws of Congress, 42; motion to 
 postpone lost, 48 ; motion to strike out the sixth section 
 lost, 43; other amendments offered and lost, 48; bill 
 passed, 48. 
 
 In tfte House. A. bill relative to, considered, 107 ; 
 amendment proposed, 10T ; substitute offered and adopt- 
 ed, imposing penalties for procuring certificate or war- 
 rant against a person not held to labor or service, 107 ; 
 no reason for the passage of the bill, 107 ; provisions 
 of the present law, 107; this bill if passed will vir- 
 tually suspend the privileges of the writ of habeas cor- 
 pus, 108 ; the right of Congress to impose duties on 
 State officers, 108 ; the duty of delivering up the slave 
 is imposed on the State to which he escapes, 103 ; the 
 bill transcends the constitutional provisions on the sub- 
 ject, 109 ; the present act goes far enough, 109 ; freemen 
 may be apprehended under this bill without redress, 
 109 ; the bill can be moulded so as to be unobjection- 
 able, 109 ; motion to strike out first section lost, and the 
 bill reported to the House, 109 ; moved to recommit the 
 bill to Committee on the Baltimore memorial, 109 ; fur- 
 ther debate, 109; motion lost, 109; various amendments 
 offered and lost, 110; question on engrossing the bill 
 carried, 110; the constitution in guaranteeing slave 
 property to those States holding it, did not authorize or 
 require the General Government to go as far as this bill 
 proposed, 110 ; the bill contains no sufficient guard to 
 the safety of those colored people who resided in States 
 where slavery is unknown, 110 ; the constitution guar- 
 antees this kind of property to the Southern States, and 
 the proposed bill is necessary to secure this right, 110 ; 
 so long as this property is authorized there can be no 
 doubt of the right of the holder to pursue it and take it 
 back, 111; objected that the bill makes it penal in a 
 State officer to refuse his assistance, 111 ; objections fur- 
 ther urged, 111 ; bill passed, 111 ; call for information 
 relative to the act of Pennsylvania, 574. See Index, 
 vol. 5. 
 
 Slaves, Importation of. In the House, petition for 
 remission of forfeiture incurred by importation of cer- 
 tain slaves, 578 ; opposed, 573 ; bill reported, 573; passed, 
 674. 
 
 Slaves, Indemnity for. Report on, 70 ; letter from 
 Secretary of State relative to, 70. 
 
 Slaves, Migration of. In the House, a resolution to 
 inquire into the expediency of prohibiting in certain 
 cases, considered, 213 ; the right of any man to remove 
 from one State to another with his property, 213; Unit- 
 ed States have no right to interfere with State laws on 
 the subject, 218 ; States can better execute their own 
 laws, 213 ; resolution lost, 213. See Missouri. 
 Slaves. Action of Indiana, see Index, vol. 4. Do., im- 
 portation of, see Index, vols. 1, 8. Duties on Imports. 
 Do., Petitions, see Index, vols. 1, 8, 4, 5. Do., Trade, to 
 
 prohibit, see Index, vol. 2. Do., Traffic In Vt,e District 
 of Columbia, see Index, vol. ?>. 
 
 SLOAN, Jons, Representative from Ohio, 464. 
 
 SLOCUMB, JESSE, Representative from North Carolina, 59, 
 200, 464. 
 
 Small Armed Vessels. See Index, vol. 5. 
 
 SMITH, BALLABD, Representative from Virginia, 61, 201, 464. 
 See Index, vol. 5. 
 
 SMITH, BEBNABD, Representative from New Jersey, 464. 
 
 SMITH, JAMES S., Representative from North Carolina, 59, 
 200, 464 ; on printing the journal of the Old Congress, 
 498; Senate's amendments to the Maine bill, 555. 
 
 SMITH, SAMUEL, Representative from Maryland, 59, 200, 464 ; 
 on appointing a committee to report a bill to restrict 
 slavery, 470; on the Missouri Compromise, 478; on the 
 Senate's amendment to the Maine bill, 555 ; on fugitives 
 from justice and service, 109 ; relative to foreign mer- 
 ' chant seamen, 216; on the admission of cadets at West 
 Point, 221. See Index, vols. 2, 3, 4, 5. 
 
 SMITH, WILLIAM, Senator from South Carolina, 3, 179, 374, 
 654 ; on providing for the officers and soldiers of the 
 Revolution, 20; on the fugitive slave bill, 85; on its pas- 
 sage, 85; on the petition of Matthew Lyon, 186 ; on the 
 pension to Gen. Stark, 189 ; presents the memorial of 
 the Missouri Legislative Council, 381 ; on the admission 
 of Maine separately from Missouri, 883 ; on the restric- 
 tion of slavery in Missouri, 419; on the admission of 
 Missouri, 659; on the constitution of Missouri, 665; on 
 the bill for the relief of Com. Tucker, 703 ; makes a re- 
 port relative to the punishment of piracy, 704 ; on a 
 Committee of Conference relative to Missouri, 710. See 
 Index, vol. 5. 
 
 SMITH, JOHN, the case of. See Index, vol. 3. 
 
 SMYTH, ALEXANDER, Representative from Virginia, 59, 200, 
 464 ; on the Spanish American Provinces, 162 ; on the 
 report relative to the Seminole war, 226 ; on the Semi- 
 nole war, 251 ; on restricting slavery in Missouri, 484. 
 
 Soldiers of the devolution. In the Senate, a bill to pro- 
 vide for certain officers and soldiers of the Revolutionary 
 army, considered, 20; moved to commit the bill, to 
 amend it and confine its provisions to officers and sol- 
 diers who served for three years, &c., 20; moved to 
 postpone indefinitely, 20; contention between Massa- 
 chusetts and Virginia for the first honors of the Revo- 
 lution, 20; first honors due to the men who threw the 
 tea overboard, 20; the amendment inadmissible, 20; bill 
 from the House provides for the soldiers as well as the 
 officers, 20 ; it is said, the seamen and marines of the 
 Revolution are provided for, 20 ; it is said, we cannot 
 provide for all, 20; what is the object of this provision ? 
 20; if the principle is correct, and the claim just, why 
 not provide for both officers and soldiers? 21 ; it is said, 
 this is a just debt, 21; proceeding of the Old Congress, 
 21; action pf the Government on this subject after the 
 adoption of the constitution, 21 ; the bill and amend- 
 ment are both objectionable, because no particular merit 
 can be ascribed to any particular portion of the people 
 for services during the war, 21 ; the peculiar character 
 of the war, 21; efforts of the people equal to those of 
 the army, 22 ; it is said that we are indebted exclusively 
 to the Continental army, 22 ; they have done no more 
 than fell to the lot of every American devoted to his 
 country, 22 ; impossible to know the character of that 
 war in the South, unless one had been there to witness 
 it, 22; all the Continental troops sent southward were 
 defeated previous to 1781, 22 ; state of things there dur- 
 ing the war, 23; the origin of the force that gave the 
 first check to British arms in the southern States, 23 ; 
 do those men owe their independence to the Continental 
 army, for whom it is now proposed to provide? 28 ; im- 
 portance of the militia service during the war, 28; who 

 
 INDEX. 
 
 739 
 
 defended Charleston in 1775? 28: the men who fought 
 the battles of Guilford and Eutaw Springs, 24; the prin- 
 ciple of gratitude has been strongly pressed, 24 ; pay 
 given to the officer and soldier at the close of the war, 
 24 ; all the despotisms of Europe have had their foun- 
 dation in a claim to military merit, 24. 
 
 The object of the bill is to afford relief, by pecuniary 
 assistance, to surviving officers and soldiers of the Rev- 
 olution, who are now in indigent circumstances, 25; 
 what was our situation antecedent to the bold assertion 
 of our independence ? 25; what were the sacrifices of 
 those who fought our battles, and achieved the numer- 
 ous blessings we enjoy? 25; are you willing to see these 
 war-worn soldiers hovering around the Capitol asking 
 for a pittance ! 26 ; hardly proper to legislate on feeling 
 alone, however honorable that feeling may be, 26 ; it is 
 not manifest that any discrimination can with propriety 
 or justice bo made, 26; every whig in the country had 
 as much as he conld do to maintain the independence 
 that Congress had declared, 26; now no matter what 
 services may have been rendered, unless they were ren- 
 dered in the regular army, the person is not to receive 
 any pay, 26; the bill does not provide for one-half who 
 may have equal merit, 26 ; the men of Sumter, Marion, 
 Jackson, 26; the case of Gen. Clark, 26; the character 
 of the war, 2T; many gallant acts will never be record- 
 ed, and the names of the actors are almost forgotten, 
 27 ; it is said, some of the officers and soldiers of the 
 Continental army were poor, 27 ; this will be the case 
 with every class of men, 27 ; to undertake to provide 
 for those who will not provide for themselves will be an 
 endless task, 27 ; it has been said, the officers of the Re v- 
 olutionary army would have been severely punished if 
 the United States had been conquered, 28; doubtful if 
 they would have been punished more severely than 
 others, 23 ; pensions at first in all countries began on a 
 small scale, and for proper considerations, and finally 
 are granted as often for whim and caprica as proper 
 considerations, 28 ; the bill is an entire departure from 
 any principle heretofore established in this country, 28 ; 
 the decision of the Old Congress should have great 
 weight, 29 ; what was done by the Old Congress ? 29 ; if 
 justice requires the bill to pass, neither the condition of 
 the treasury nor the number to be provided for should 
 have any weight, 29. 
 
 A high and solemn duty to make some remuneration to 
 these worthy and indigent men, 80 ; if any class of men 
 are meritorious it is these officers and soldiers, 80 ; it is 
 said, they have no claim against the Government, 80 ; 
 origin of the commutation, 80 ; the certificates were sold 
 to remorseless speculators from necessity, 30 ; profits of 
 the Government, 81 ; state of finances at that time, 31 ; 
 objections to the bill arising from the various classes of 
 men who served and suffered in the Revolution, 81 ; the 
 supposed exorbitancy of the sum is the great objection, 
 82 ; motion to postpone lost, 82 ; amendments ordered to 
 be engrossed, and the bill to be read a third time, 84. 
 
 In the llouae. Bill concerning the surviving officers 
 and soldiers of the Revolution, considered, 68 ; proba- 
 ble number of applicants if the bill should pass, 68 ; es- 
 timate for the Jersey brigade, 68; battalions of the ar- 
 my how diminished, 68 ; amount necessary for a month- 
 ly pension, 68; qualification of indigence required by 
 the bill is objectionable, 63; its incorporation in the bill 
 is degrading to the House, 68; the amendment pro- 
 posed would embrace every one who shouldered a mus- 
 ket even for an hour, 63; is it just, or politic, to discrim- 
 inate between the Continental line, and tho State 
 troops, and the militia? 69; object of the bill to provide 
 for the indigent soldiers of the Revolution, 69 ; is grati- 
 tude the feeling that prompts the bill ? 69 ; comparison 
 
 of the services of the militia, 69 ; noble feelings require 
 the rejection of the amendment, 69 ; amendment re- 
 jected, 72 ; other amendments proposed, 72 ; officers and 
 mariners of the navy included in the bill before com- 
 mittee, 72 ; other amendments proposed, 72 ; bill passed, 
 72. See /<**, voL 8. 
 
 Smith Carolina, vote for President in 1320, 706. See In- 
 dex, vols. 1, 2, 8, 4, 5. 
 
 SOCTUARD, HEX BY, Representative from New Jersey, 59, 
 200, 464 ; reports on Indian affairs, 106. See Indent, vola. 
 2, 8, 4, 5. 
 
 Spain, message on relations with, 122 ; message on our re- 
 lations with, 453 ; interposition of European Powers, 
 458. 
 
 Spanish American Colonies. In the House, message at 
 1st session of 15th Congress, 60. 
 
 Its reference moved, 60; this early attention caused 
 by cases that have arisen in courts, 60 ; cases stated, 
 60 ; what is the neutral obligation owed by one nation 
 to another ? 60 ; if the present law justifies the pro- 
 ceedings which have taken place under it, it should 
 be altered, 60; other cases of vessels, 61; the Spanish 
 revolted colonies, 61. 
 
 Communication relative to the independence of the 
 Spanish American Provinces called for, 61 ; attention 
 of the House and the nation directed in a general 
 way, by the message, to this subject, 62 ; the in- 
 terest and sympathy felt in the affairs of our Southern 
 neighbors, 62 ; a subject of regret that our acquaintance 
 with them is not more particularly intimate, 62 ; reso- 
 lution modified so as to call for such information only as 
 was proper to be communicated, 62. 
 
 On the appropriation bill, the clause appropriating 
 $30,000 for compensation to the commissioners sent to 
 South America, considered in committee, 134 ; manner 
 of appointment of the commissioners, 134 ; their com- 
 missions, 134 ; protest against this kind of appropriation 
 by Congress, 134 ; the object of the commission of very 
 little use, 184; the constitutional point involved makes 
 the commission obnoxious, 185; these commissioner* 
 should have been nominated to the Senate, 185; those 
 appointments have been made without the authority of 
 the constitution, or of any law recognizing them, but in 
 derogation from a positive act of Congress, 185 ; the 
 President has authority to appoint in the recess of the 
 Senate, 185 ; was it not necessary and proper for the 
 Government to have information of the state of the 
 South American Provinces ? 185 ; only two ways to ac- 
 quire it by newspapers and by agents, 185 ; no impro- 
 priety in voting this appropriation, 185 ; the nature of 
 the appointment and the object of the mission, 186; tho 
 appointment of the commissioners was of a kind to re- 
 quire the approbation and assent of the Senate, 186. 
 
 Moved to appropriate a year's salary and outfit to the 
 Provinces of Rio Plata, 186 ; report of the Secretary of 
 State, with certain documents, 186 ; no cause of war 
 should be given to any power, not even to Spain herself, 
 188; Spain had undoubtedly given us abundant and just 
 cause of war, 189; contemplating the South American 
 struggle, attention is first fixed upon the immensity of 
 the country Spain seeks to subjugate, 139 ; three hun- 
 dred years ago, upon the ruins of the thrones of the 
 Montczumas and Incas of Pern, Spain erected the most 
 stupendous system of colonial despotism the world has 
 ever seen, 189 ; occurrence of the famous transactions 
 of Bayonne, 140; if an oppressed people establishes 
 their freedom, we had a right, as a sovereign power to 
 notice the fact, and act as our interest might require, 
 140 ; if Spanish America was entitled to success from 
 the justness of her cause, we had no less reason to wish 
 that success from the horrible character which the royal
 
 740 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 arms had given to the war, 140; particulars stated, 141 ; 
 the United States have a deep interest in tho establish- 
 ment of the independence of Spanish America, 1 12; it 
 is said, they are too ignorant and too superstitious to 
 admit ol a free government, 142; with regard to their 
 superstition they worship tKb same God as wo do, 143; 
 what course of policy does it hecome us to adopt? 143; 
 the case of the United Provinces, 148; of our own Rev- 
 olution, 143 ; our uniform practice, 143 ; the case of the 
 French Republic, 144; If then there be an established 
 Government in Spanish America, deserving to rank 
 among the nations, we are morally and politically bound 
 to acknowledge it, unless we renounce^all the principles 
 which ought to, and which had hitherto guided our 
 councils, 144; are we not bound upon our own 'princi- 
 ples to acknowledge this new Republic of the United 
 Provinces? 144; the part of neutrality requires us to re- 
 ceive their Minister, 145 ; we might safely acknowledge 
 their independence without danger of a war with Spain, 
 145. 
 
 If the importance of the amendment was to be esti- 
 mated by the interest in it, and the extraordinary man- 
 ner in which it had been presented, few subjects of 
 equal magnitude had ever been submitted to the Na- 
 tional Legislature, 146; its character examined, 146; the 
 amendment is advocated as a recognition of the inde- 
 pendence of La Plata, 147 ; the most powerful recom- 
 mendations of the amendment are that it is unmeaning 
 and harmless, 143; the present state of the contest will 
 discover how far the people of Spanish America had 
 improved in the knowledge of their personal rights, and 
 their determination to maintain them, 149 ; sympathy 
 for the people of the South was universally felt, but 
 when it was made the foundation of an attempt to pre- 
 cipitate the adoption of a favorite measure, it was ne- 
 cessary to examine how far it was justly inspired, 150; 
 splendid political consequences were anticipated from 
 the expected change, 150 ; men do not change their na- 
 ture with their government, 151 ; it was desirable by 
 bringing other objects into view, to save the committee 
 from the enthusiasm of the Speaker, 151 ; we have pro- 
 claimed a strict neutrality; regulated our conduct by 
 the rule of the national law, 152; this recognition will 
 be made at the hazard of a war with Spain, 152; was 
 there a free Government in La Plata, for whose exist- 
 ence we ought to encounter any hazard? 152- fate of the 
 first constitution, 153; what unanimity, energy, and vir- 
 tue shall we find in La Plata ? 153 ; in the armies of La 
 Plata, English and French officers are employed with- 
 out scruple, Americans seldom, if ever, 154 
 
 This proposition involves in its decision, the views of 
 the House, in respect to the [independence of La Plata, 
 154 ; it is contended that it is the exclusive right of the 
 Executive to manage our foreign relations, 155 ; it is the 
 duty of Congress to express its opinion freely upon all 
 questions which concern our domestic or foreign affairs, 
 155 ; the fact of the independence of the Government 
 of, La Plata, 155; it is contended that we have no inter- 
 est, commercial or political, in their independence, 157 ; 
 an appropriation of this kind would comport with the 
 dignity and true policy of the United States, 158; the 
 spectacle presented to our view is sublime and wonder- 
 ful, 158 ; the civil dissensions of the Spanish monarchy 
 have become the efforts of contending Governments, 
 158 ; the recognition, it is said, will interfere with our 
 dispute with Spain, 158 ; in this fear of giving offence, 
 and zeal to convince tho nations of Europe of the recti- 
 tude of our intentions, are we not bound to take care 
 of the interests of America? 159; it is said, the sympa- 
 thy is all on our side, 160; state of the people, 160; the 
 noble spirits who direct the revolution cannot be im- 
 
 plicated in the many bloody and revengeful acta com- 
 mitted, 161; when a contest becomes doubtful, the 
 world at large has a right to consider the parties equal, 
 and decide between them, 161 ; it !s said, it would be 
 no benefit to the trade of this country, 161 ; -the grand 
 advantage would be in systematizing a policy for Amer- 
 ica that wo might bo disenthralled from that political 
 " plexus which has so entangled the nations of Europe. 
 162. 
 
 The measure proposed is an act of usurpation, an in- 
 vasion of Executive authority, 162; the President is 
 responsible for the proper execution of his constitu- 
 tional powers, 162 ; by adopting the proposition, you 
 pronounce to the world that the President would not 
 do his duty, 163 ; the President has his agents in those 
 countries to learn their situation, and it is proposed that 
 we should prematurely interfere, 163; the conduct of 
 the Executive, as relates to Spain and her Provinces, 
 has been impartial, honorable, and such as comports 
 with our true interests, 163 ; his acts examined, 164; the 
 measure proposed is pregnant with evil, and jeopardize* 
 the safety of this country, 165. 
 
 The nation should not be involved in war unless a 
 great and important occasion requires it, 165 ; this meas- 
 ure can be adopted under a course of strict neutrality, 
 166 ; sufficient allowance is not made for the situation 
 of these unhappy people for many centuries, 166 ; it is 
 said, this proposition implies a censure on the Execu- 
 tive, 167 ; what is the character of the proposition ? 167 ; 
 it is thought to be an interference with the constitution- 
 al powers of the Executive, 168; the necessity of an in- 
 terference at this time, by expressing our opinion, con- 
 sidered, 168; further debate, 169; proposition decided 
 in the negative, 169; proposition renewed, 170; lost, 
 170. 
 
 SPANGLES, JACOB, Representative from Pennsylvania, 59. 
 
 Specie Payments See Index, vol. 5. 
 
 SPEED, THOMAS, Representative from Kentucky, 59, 200. 
 
 SPENCEB, JOHN C., Representative from New York, 59, 201 ; 
 on the case of John Anderson, 90, 99 ; on the admission 
 of Illinois, 202 ; on the Bank of the United States, 207, 
 209 ; makes a report on the United States Bank, 227. 
 
 STABK, GENERAL JOHN. In the Senate, a bill for the relief 
 of, considered, 188 ; objection to a system of pensions, 
 when not justified by disability incurred in the public 
 service, 189 ; the same argument as in this case would 
 justify pensions in numerous cases, 189 ; the silence of 
 General Stark was his most eloquent appeal, 189 ; ex- 
 traordinary services of General Stark, 189 ; if General 
 Stark is so near his end, there is less necessity for the 
 bill, 189; letters of Jefferson and Madison compliment- 
 ary of Stark, 189; bill ordered to a third reading, 189; 
 reason of the pension explained, 213 ; bill passed, 214. 
 
 State Balances. See Index, yoL 2. 
 
 Statistics of the United States, report relative to purchiis- 
 ing certain works on, 56. 
 
 ST. CLAIE, GENBEAL. In the House, a bill for the relief of, 
 considered, 112; tho integrity of the petitioner has been 
 questioned, and his account denounced as inaccurate, 
 112; the claim of General St. Clair, 112; the acts of 
 limitation considered, 113 ; action of former Congress- 
 es, 118 ; committee rose, 114 
 
 St. Domingo. See Index, vol. a 
 
 STEVENS, JAMES, Representative from Connecticut, 463. 
 
 STEVENSON, AECHEE, Representative from Maryland, 464 
 
 STEWART, JAMES, Representative from North Carolina, 107. 
 200. 
 
 STOCKTON, R., votes for, as Vice President in 1820, 706. 
 
 STOKES, MONTFOET, Senator from North Carolina, 7, 184, 379, 
 696. See Index, voL 5, 
 
 STOKEB, CLEMENT, Senator from New Hampshire, 8, 188.
 
 INDEX. 
 
 741 
 
 STORKS, HENRY K., Representative from New York, 69, 300, 
 464; on fugitives from justice and service, 111; on the 
 Seminole war, 262 ; on the admission of Maine, 478, 
 475 ; moves amendments to the bill for the admission of 
 Maine, 475; moves the Missouri Compromise, 477 ; on 
 printing the Secret Journal of the Old Congress, 495 ; on 
 the Senate's amendments to the Maine bill, 554 ; moves 
 an amendment to the Missouri bill, 560, 562. 
 
 STREET, RANDALL A., Representative from Now York, 4Ci. 
 
 STRONG, JAMES, Representative from New York, 464 
 
 STRONG, SOLOMON, Representative from Massachusetts, 58, 
 228; on fugitives from justice and service, 109. 
 
 STRONG, WILLIAM, Representative from Vermont, 464. 
 
 STROTHER, GEORGE F., Representative from Virginia, 69, 
 207, 464; on providing for Revolutionary soldiers, 69; 
 on the admission of cadets at West Point, 221 ; on the 
 resolutions relative to the slave trade, 225 ; on the re- 
 port relative to the Seminole war, 226 ; on the Govern- 
 ment of Florida, 228 ; on the Seminole war, 279 ; on a 
 compromise line on slavery, 867 ; moves to publish the 
 Journal of the Old Congress, 492 ; remarks, 493 ; on the 
 Senate's amendments to the Maine bill, 553 ; on publish- 
 ing the Secret Jonmal of the Old Congress, 571. 
 
 STUART, PHILIP, Representative from Maryland, 59, 200. 
 See Index, vols. 4, 5. 
 
 Suability of States. See Index, vol. 2. 
 
 Sufferers in War. In the House, motion relative to con- 
 tinuing the pensions to the widows and orphans of offi- 
 cers and soldiers of the late war, considered, 66 ; many 
 of them about to expire, 66; case of the widow of Brig- 
 adier-General Pike, 66 ; cases of others, 67 ; motion to 
 inquire, carried, 67. 
 
 Sugar. See Index., vol. 5, Duties on Import*. 
 
 Sunday Mail*. See Index, voL 5. 
 
 TAIT, CHARLES, Senator from Georgia, 3, 188. See Indent, 
 vols. 4, 5. 
 
 TALBOT, ISHAM, Senator from Kentucky, 7, 184, 658 ; against 
 incorporating a National Vaccine Institution, 697. See 
 Index, vol. 5. 
 
 TALLMADGE, JAMES, Jr., Representative from New York, 59, 
 200; on slavery in Illinois, 204, 206; on the claim of 
 Beaumarchais, 214 ; on the Seminole war, 259 ; moves 
 to limit the existence of slavery in Missouri, 888 ; on 
 the prohibition of slavery in Missouri, 850. 
 
 Tariff, revision of. See Duties on Imports, 
 
 TABR, CHRISTIAN, Representative from Pennsylvania, 59, 
 200, 464 
 
 Taxes, direct. In the House, a bill to repeal, considered, 
 64 ; expectation of total repeal, such as to render any 
 modification impossible, 64 ; matter of rejoicing that the 
 taxes were to bo repealed, 64 ; no necessity for internal 
 duties has existed for more than a year past, 65 ; bill or- 
 dered to bo engrossed, 65. See Index, vola. 2, 5; do. 
 War, See Index, vol. 4. 
 
 TAYLOR, JOHN W., Representative from Now York, 59, 200, 
 464 See Index, vol. 6, 
 
 TAYLOR, WALLER, Senator from Indiana, 8, 179, 874,654; 
 reports on the Ohio contested election, 78 ; reports on 
 the case of George Mumford, 114 ; on the admission of 
 cadets at West Point, 221 ; on the Missouri State Gov- 
 ernment, 834 ; on the prohibition of slavery In Arkan- 
 sas Territory, 857 ; moves to fix a line for the limitation 
 of slavery, 866; on appointing a committee relative to 
 the prohibition of slavery in the Territories, 468 ; on the 
 bill for the Missouri Convention, 469; moves to dis- 
 charge the committee on the prohibition of slavery, 469 ; 
 moves to appoint, a committee to report a bill prohibit- 
 
 ing slavery, 470 ; moves to postpone the bill to authorize 
 a State Constitution to be formed for Missouri, 476 ; 
 moves to restrict slavery in Missouri, 479 ; moves that 
 the House insist on its disagreement to the Senate's 
 amendments to the Maine bill, 560 ; offers an amend- 
 ment to the Missouri bill, 561 ; opposes wearing crape in 
 respect for Commodore Decatur, 672. See Index, 
 vol. 6. 
 
 Tennessee, vote for President in 1820, 708. See Index, vola. 
 1, 2, 8, 4, 0. 
 
 Tennessee, admission of. See Index, vol. 1. 
 
 Territorial Governments. See Index, voL 4. 
 
 Territories. In the House, a resolution to inquire into the 
 expediency of organizing the Territory of Arkansas, 
 considered, 222 ; object of the resolution, 222 ; necessity 
 of the organization, 222. 
 
 Bill considered, 856 ; note, 856 ; moved to amend by 
 inserting a clause to prohibit slavery in the Territory, 
 356 ; should not one small portion of our country be 
 left open to the free labor of the North ? 857 ; it is asked 
 why the people of the South are to be proscribed, 857 ; 
 amendment both reasonable and necessary, 857 ; we arc 
 charged with being under the influence of negrophobia, 
 857 ; it ia asked if we wish to coop up our brethren in 
 the slaveholding States, 353 ; we are charged with fight- 
 ing behind a masked battery, 858 ; author of the ordi- 
 nance of 1787, 358. 
 
 This amendment completely shuts out the people of 
 the Southern States from the Territory west of the Mis- 
 sissippi, 859 ; we-have no legitimate power to legislate on 
 the property of the citizens only to levy taxes, 859 ; it 
 takes away from the people of the Territory the natural 
 and constitutional right of legislating for themselves, 
 859; the discussion of this subject regretted, 359; tha 
 question has been treated as one of liberty and slavery, 
 859 ; the fixing a line a favorite policy, 859 ; note, 359 ; 
 the question now before the committee, 860 ; the restric- 
 tions now proposed, 860; proceed from humane and 
 philanthropic motives, 860; no more right to provide 
 for the liberation of slaves than to invade any other 
 species of property, 360 ; could it be pretended that tho 
 Legislature of Delaware had a right to declare all slaves 
 free within their limits ? 860 ; Congress has no power to 
 impose any condition upon the admission of a State im- 
 pairing its sovereignty, 861 ; not at liberty, as respects 
 this Territory, to consult our power if we possessed it, 
 862; we cannot attach too much importance to tho 
 treaty, and the rights secured by it, 362 ; the principles 
 and our own solemn compact prevent ns from impos- 
 ing this restriction, 862 ; condition of the slaves im- 
 proved by dispersion over a wider field, 863; if we had 
 the right, the restriction would be useless and unavail- 
 ing, 863; amendment lost, 363; amendment that all 
 children born of slaves shall be free, carried, 864; bill 
 laid on the table, 865 ; motion to recommit the bill to 
 btriko ont tho last amendment, 865 ; carried, 365 ; amend- 
 ment struck out, 865 ; moved to prohibit the introduc- 
 tion of slaves into tho Territory, 866 ; lost, 866 ; moved 
 that slavery shall not be introduced north of 86 SO', 
 866; note, 866; debated, 867; amendment withdrawn, 
 867 ; bill ordered to the third reading, 867 ; note, 867 ; 
 See Index, vols. 1, 2, 8, 4 
 
 Territory north and icest of Missouri, bill to prohibit sla 
 
 very in, reported, 405. 
 TERRELL, WILLIAM, Representative from Georgia, 69, 200, 
 
 464 
 
 TERRY, NATHANIEL, Representative from Connecticut, 58, 
 200; on the arrest of John Anderson, 84, 89 ; on the bill 
 for tho benefit of tho Connecticut Asylum, 869. 
 THOMAS, JESSE B., Senator from Illinois, 184, 874, 654; re- 
 ports a bill to prohibit slavery in Territories north and
 
 742 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 west of Missouri, 397; proposes a compromise of the 
 slavery question, 485. 
 
 TICHENOR, ISAAC, Senator from Vermont, 8, 179, 874, 654. 
 See Index, vol. 5. 
 
 Title of President. See Index, rol. 1. 
 
 TOMLIKSON, GIDEON, Representative from Connecticut, 463. 
 ' TOMPKINS, CALEB, Representative from New York, 59, 202, 
 464. 
 
 TOMPKISS, DAXIEL D., presides as Vice President in the 
 Senate, 84; do. 190; do. 880; votes for as Vice Presi- 
 dent in 18JO, 106. See Indeas, voL 6. 
 
 Torpedo Experiments. See Index, voL 4. 
 
 TOWNSEND, GEOBGE, Representative from New York, 59, 
 200. See Indent, vol. 5. 
 
 TBACY, ALBERT H., Representative from New York, 464. 
 
 Treason, punishment of. See Index, vol. 5. 
 
 Treason and Sedition defined. See Index, voL 2. ' 
 
 Treasury Notes. See Index, vol. 5. 
 
 Treasury, report and estimates for 1819, 203 ; report of Sec- 
 retary of, 465; Department, bill for the better organi- 
 zation of, 652. See Index, vol. 1. 
 
 Treaty with Spain. In the House, message from the 
 President, 573 ; resolution relative to the alienation of 
 territory of the United States, considered, 574 ; in re- 
 spect to the foreign action of the Government there 
 should be a perfect coincidence of opinion in the co- 
 ordinate branches, 575; two systems of policy, of which 
 our Government has had the choice, 575 ; the first has 
 BO far failed, 575 ; reasons assigned by the President for 
 postponement of the bill of the Committee on Foreign 
 Relations, 575 ; our course of policy recommended to be 
 abandoned upon the avowed ground of the interposition 
 of foreign powers, 575; what is the nature of this inter- 
 position ? 575 ; the allowance of interference by foreign 
 powers in the affairs of our Government, not pertain- 
 ing to themselves, is against the counsels of our -wisest 
 politicians, 576; the present distressed condition of 
 Spain is recommended as another ground for forbear- 
 ance, 576 ; what is the actual posture of our relations 
 with Spain ? 577 ; object of the first resolution, 577 ; the 
 treaty-making power, 577; the House has uniformly 
 maintained its right to deliberate upon those treaties in 
 which their co-operation was asked by the Executive, 
 578 ; supposing that no treaty which undertakes to dis- 
 pose of the territory of the United States is valid with- 
 out the concurrence of Congress, it may be contended 
 that such treaty may constitutionally fix the limits of 
 the territories of the United States where they are dis- 
 puted, without the co-operation of Congress, 578 ; the 
 equivalent granted by Spain to the United States for 
 the province of Texas, was inadequate, 578; our claim 
 to Texas, 578 ; Texas is represented to be extremely 
 valuable, 579 ; we do not want any one else to possess 
 Florida, 579 ; the consideration given for Florida, 580 ; 
 it is inexpedient to cede Texas to any foreign power, 
 580 ; it is inexpedient to renew the treaty, 580. 
 
 The cause of the message, 581 ; the only ground on 
 which a delay of coercive measures was recommended, 
 was, that there was reason to believe that the object of 
 the United States might be attained without resorting 
 to them, 581 ; no possible benefit can arise from a dis- 
 cussion of the resolutions of the treaty-making power, 
 582 ; a resulting power which does not belong to the 
 treaty-making power, 582 ; the discussion of 1795, 682 ; 
 not sufficient time to discuss the first resolution, 682 ; no 
 discussion of the second resolution can take place with- 
 out endangering the important interests of the country, 
 583 ; inconvenience of a public discussion here of what 
 in amicable negotiation we mean to insist on, and what 
 we mean to give up, 588 ; second resolve contrary to the 
 spirit of the constitution, 584 ; unnecessary to enter 
 
 upon the general questions of policy growing out of the 
 resolution, 584; what motive can Spain have for de- 
 siring Texas, if her connections with Mexien are tiiv 
 uolved? 584; the place which the subject of the 
 relations had occupied in public attention, and the uni- 
 versal expectation that some measure expressive of the 
 sense of Congress would, before tkis period. ],a\<- IP. -en 
 adopted, 585; the question relates to the propriety of 
 the transfer of the common territorial property of the 
 Union to the exclusive benefit of the population of one 
 portion of it, 685; in contemplating this question, the 
 attention could not fail to be attracted to the extrav- 
 agance of the pretensions of the treaty-making power, 
 585 ; further evidence to be found in the discrepancy 
 which the power in the extension claimed for it pre- 
 sented to the character of the general grant of power 
 contained in the constitution, 586 ; the power of the 
 President and Senate to alienate territory might per- 
 haps be inferred, as a consequence of their power to ac- 
 quire it, 586 ; where is the ground of distinction to be 
 found between the subjects over which the treaty -mak- 
 ing power has exclusive control ? 587 ; the 
 propositions asserted in the resolutions, 588 ; importance 
 of Florida in a military and political point of view not 
 sufficient to render its acquisition for a disproportionate 
 equivalent a matter of solicitude on our part, 588 ; was 
 Texas of no consideration in this view ? 589 ; the friends 
 of the treaty have sought occasion to proclaim its 
 merits, 589 ; our relations with Spain require the dis- 
 play of some energy, 589 ; the ratification was pressed 
 upon Spain with more zeal than judgment, 589 ; the 
 Louisiana treaty amalgamated the inhabitants of that 
 country with the people of the United States, 590 ; where 
 does the treaty-making power find authority to expunge 
 the claims of our citizens ? 590 ; ought this nation to ac- 
 cept the limits created by the treaty, and surrender 
 Texas, 591 ; the boundary is the main question,^! ; this 
 is a treaty of Limits, 591 ; what ought to be the con- 
 fines of our Union ? 591 ;' points of inquiry of first mag- 
 nitude, 591 ; further debate, 592, 593 ; the acquisition of 
 Florida, it was thought, was eminntly desirable, 594 ; 
 during the long and tedious negotiations preceding the 
 treaty of 1819, this general belief had been cherished 
 and augmented, 594 ; unfortunate that gentlemen should 
 depreciate what we had gotten, 594 ; no difliculty on th 
 subject of our power to interfere in the way proposed, 
 595 ; the course of this negotiation has gained us honor 
 in the eyes of the world, 595 ; if we pass these resolu- 
 tions, we suddenly relinquish this high ground, and as- 
 sume the station of our adversary, 595; nothing which 
 calls on us for interference, 596 ; the resolution contains 
 a denial of the right of the treaty-making power to de- 
 clare the Sabine as the western limit of Louisiana, 596 ; 
 questions involved, 596 ; further debate, 597 ; message 
 announcing the ratification of the treaty, 710; bill to 
 authorize the President to take possession, 711; note, 
 711. 
 
 Treaty-making Power See Index, vols. 1, 5. 
 
 TBIMBLE, DAVID, Representative from- Kentucky, 59, 200, 
 464 ; on the case of R. W. Meade, 174 ; on the Spanish 
 Treaty, 589. 
 
 TBIMBLE, WILLIAM A., Senator from Ohio, 374, 654; oflfcrs 
 amendments to the Missouri Compromise, 451, 453 ; on 
 the admission of Missouri, 696. 
 
 TBOTJP, GEORGE M., Senator from Georgia, 7 ; on the African 
 slave trade, 11-15. See Index, vols. 4, 5. 
 
 TUCKEB, COMMODOBE. In the Senate, a bill to grant a pen- 
 sion to, considered, 703 ; already provision made for the 
 case, 703 ; on the footing of the case of General Stark, 
 703; further debate, 703; bill passed, 704, 
 
 TUCKER, HENBY ST. GEOBGB, Representative from Virginia,
 
 INDEX. 
 
 743 
 
 59, 200, 464; on the case of John Anderson, 85, 95 ; on 
 the Spanish American Provinces, 165; on the restriction 
 of slavery in Mi.souri, 559. See Index, vol. 5. 
 
 TCCKER, STEIILISG, Representative from South Carolina, 59, 
 200, 464. 
 
 Two-thirds rote. See Index, vol. 8. 
 
 TYLER, JOHN, Representative from Virginia, 59, 207, 464; on 
 the Seminole war, 801 ; on restricting slavery in Mis- 
 souri, 549; on a revision of the Tariff, 616. 
 
 Union, dissolution ofSee Index, vol. 4. 
 Unsettled. Balance*. See Index, vol. 5. 
 UPHAM, NATHANIEL. Representative from New Hampshire, 
 58, 200, 468. 
 
 VAN DYKE, NICHOLAS, Senator from Delaware, 11, 188, 874, 
 654 ; on the restriction of slavery In Missouri, 421 ; on 
 the admission of Missouri, 706 ; on the Missouri Consti- 
 tution, 708. 
 
 VAX RENSSELAER, SOLOMON, Representative from New 
 York, 464. 
 
 VAN SWEARINGEN, THOMAS, Representative from Virginia, 
 464. . 
 
 Vermont, resolutions relative to the restriction of, 676 ; vote 
 for President in 1820, 706. See Index, vols. 1, 2, 8, 4, 5. 
 
 Vessels Registering and Clearing. See Index, voL 1. 
 
 Vice and Rear Admirals. See Index, voL 5. 
 
 VIENNE, MARQUIS DR, petition of, 218. 
 
 Virginia, Military Lands, debate on, 702. 
 
 Virginia Military Land Claim. See Index, vols. 4, 5. 
 
 Virginia, vote for President in 1820, 706. See Index, vols. 
 1. 2, 8, 4, 5. 
 
 VoU of Approbation. See Index, voL 4 
 
 WALKEE, DAVID, Representative from Kentucky, 59, 200, 
 464; on the Seminole war, 818. 
 
 WALKER, FELIX, Representative from North Carolina, 59, 
 200, 464 ; on the Seminole war, 283 ; on the prohibition 
 of slavery in Arkansas Territory, 858. 
 
 WALKER, FREEMAN, Senator from Georgia, 879, 658 ; on the 
 restriction of slavery in Missouri, 897 ; offers amend- 
 ment to the bill for the sale of the public lands, 454; on 
 the Missouri Constitution, 707. 
 
 WALKJSR, JOHN W., Senator from Alabama, 879, 654 ; on the 
 Missouri Constitution, 708. 
 
 WALLACE, JAMES M., Representative from Pennsylvania, 
 59,200,464. See Index, voL 5. 
 
 War, declaration of, against Great Britain. See Index, 
 voL4 
 
 Far, conduct of the. See Index, vol. 5. 
 
 WABFIKLD, HENRY R., Representative from Maryland, 464; 
 on printing the Secret Journal oi the Old Congress, 497 ; 
 moves a vote of thanks to the Speaker, 652. 
 
 Washington Monument, bill to erect, considered, 190 ; de- 
 bate in the Senate, 194. 
 
 In the Home. Resolutions relative to obtaining the 
 1" ty of Washington, and erecting over it a mausoleum, 
 597; general remarks, 598; enlightened nations of an- 
 tiquity considered it a duty not only to commemorate 
 the virtuous deeds, but to perpetuate to their posterity 
 the very form and appearance of their dead, 598 ; do we 
 fear the amount of the expenditure ? 598 ; then authorize 
 a national subscription, 599 ; was not the liberty of this 
 country acquired as much by his skill as by the force of 
 
 numbers? 599; further remarks, 600; House refuse to 
 consider, 601. See Index, vols. 5, 
 Washington City, capture of. See Index, vol. 5. 
 
 WENDOVER, PETER II., Representative from New York, 59, 
 .202, 464; on, an alteration of the national flag, 67; re- 
 ports on the alteration of the flag of the United States, 
 81, 182. See Index, vol. 5. 
 
 WESTERLO, RENSSELAER, Representative from New York, 
 
 59,200. 
 
 West Point Cadets. In the House, a bill to regulate the ad- 
 mission of, considered, 221 ; moved to strike out the 
 provision to select "those least able to educate them- 
 selves," 221; no reason for its insertion, 221; In con- 
 formity with the object of the institution, 221 ; effect is 
 certainly to create a privileged order in the country, 
 221 ; bill reported to the House laid on the table, 221. 
 
 WHITE, WILLIAM, message relative to, 468. 
 
 WHITJSSIDE, JOHN, Representative from Pennsylvania, 200. 
 See Index, vol. 5. 
 
 WHITMAN, EZEKIEL, Representative from Massachusetts, 58, 
 200, 4C3; on fugitives from justice and service, 111 ; rel- 
 ative to foreign merchant seamen, 218; on the admis- 
 sion of Maine, 478 ; on the Senate's amendments to the 
 Maine bill, 554; on a revision of the Tariff, 62C. 
 
 Whitney's Patent RigM.See Index, vol. 4 
 
 Widows and Orphans, pensions to. In the House, a bill to 
 allow half-pay for five years to widows and orphans in 
 certain cases, considered, 218; humanity and justice to 
 the objects to be relieved require it, 218 ; Government 
 has already gone far enough, 218 ; two kinds of suffering 
 in the public service are recognized by our laws giving a 
 claim to the public bounty, 219 ; the case illustrated, 
 219 ; pass this law, and you take from the citizen in the 
 field, in the service of his country, every motive that 
 might prevent him from doing his duty, 220 ; injustice 
 and inequality of existing laws relative to pensions, 220 ; 
 practice of the Athenians, 220; bill ordered to a third 
 reading, 221. 
 
 WILKIN, JAMES W., Representative from New York, 59, 
 200. See Index, voL 5. 
 
 WILKINSON, GENERAL, conduct of. See Index, vol. 8. 
 
 WILLIAMS, ISAAC, Representative from New York, 59, 200. 
 See Index, voL 5. 
 
 WILLIAMS, JARED, Representative from Virginia, 464. 
 
 WILLIAMS, JOHN, Senator from Tennessee, 8, 179, 874, 654 
 See Index, vol. 5. 
 
 WILLIAMS, Louis, Representative, from North Carolina, 59, 
 200, 464 ; on the repeal of internal duties, 64 ; presents 
 a case of contempt, 82 ; his statement, 88. See Index, 
 vol.5. 
 
 WILLIAMS, THOMAS II., Senator from Mississippi, 7, 179, 874, 
 654 
 
 WILLIAMS, THOMAS S., Representative from Connecticut, 58, 
 200. 
 
 WILSON, JAMES J., Senator from New Jersey, 8, 179, 874, 
 654 ; on the illegal transportation of slaves, 189 ; offers 
 an amendment to the proviso relative to the constitution 
 of Missouri, 662. See Index, vol. 5. 
 
 WILSON, JOHN, Representative from Massachusetts, 107,201. 
 See Index, vol. 5. 
 
 WILSON, WILLIAM, Representative from Pennsylvania, 59, 
 200. See Index, voL 5. 
 
 Witnesses, payment of, In impeachment cases. See Index, 
 
 voLa 
 
 WOOD, SILAS, Representative from New York, 464 
 WOODBBIDOE, WILLIAM W., Delegate from Michigan, 465. 
 
 Yaeoo Claim f. See Index, vol. 5.
 
 744 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Yeas and Nays. In the Senate, on the resolution relative 
 to the African slave trade, 19 ; an act to provide for the 
 officers and soldiers of the Revolution, 84 ; on motion to 
 postpone indefinitely the act to provide for officers and 
 soldiers of the Revolution, 84 ; on amendments to the 
 bill relative to fugitive slaves, 85 ; to postpone the bill, 
 43 ; on the bill relative to the West India trade, 65; on 
 petition of Matthew Lyon, 188 ; on the pension to Gen- 
 eral Stark, 189; relative to recommitting the bill re- 
 ^IH-cting the erection of a monument to Washington, 
 190 ; on the erection of a statue to Washington, 195 ; 
 relative to the committee on the Seminole War, 195 ; on 
 the Missouri State bill, 19S; on the Arkansas Territory 
 bill, 199 ; on the separation of Maine and Missouri on 
 admission into the Union, 8S8 ; on the restriction of sla- 
 very in Missouri, 484 ; on receding from amendments to 
 the bill for the admission of Missouri, 452 ; do. on the 
 bill for the admission of Maine, 452 ; on the motion to 
 strike out the restriction in the Missouri bill, 453 ; on an 
 amendment to the bill for the sale of the Public Lands, 
 455, 457, 458 ; on postponement of the bill to authorize a 
 State Constitution to be formed for Missouri, 477 ; on 
 uniting the bills for the admission of Maine and Missou- 
 ri, 450 ; on the Compromise and amendments, 451 ; on 
 the proviso relative to the constitution of Missouri, 662 ; 
 relative to the resolution for the admission of Missouri, 
 895; on postponing the resolutions relative to the Sedi- 
 tion Law, and the case of Matthew Lyon, 702; relative 
 
 to amendment of the Missouri Constitution respecting 
 citizenship of free colored persons, 709, 710 ; on a Com- 
 mittee of Conference relative to Missouri, 710; on the 
 admission of Missouri, 711. 
 
 In the, HovM.On third reading of bill relating to fu- 
 gitives from justice and service, 110, 111 ; on striking out 
 first section of the expatriation bill, 119 ; on resolutions 
 relative to Internal Improvements, 121, 122 ; on the Ohio 
 contested election, 181 ; on the outfit for a Minister to 
 the Spanish American Provinces, 170 ; on the bill respect- 
 Ing fugitives from service, 177; on the admission of 
 Illinois, 207; on the seizure of the Spanish post in 
 Florida, 833 ; on the prohibition of slavery in Missouri, 
 856; relative to the prohibition of slavery in Arkansas, 
 864, 865 ; on the issue of a sdrejaeia against the Bank 
 of the United States, 368; on the indefinite postpone- 
 ment of the Missouri State Government bill, 870 ; on 
 concurrence with the Senate in striking out the restric- 
 tion of slavery in the Missouri State Government bill, 
 870 ; on the adherence of the House, 872 ; on a new land 
 office in Illinois, 872; on disagreeing to the Senate's 
 amendments to the Maine bill, 557 ; on insisting on dis- 
 agreement to Senate's amendments to the Maine bill, 560, 
 561 ; on the restrictive amendment to the Missouri bill, 
 564 ; on ordering the bill to be engrossed, 565 ; on con- 
 curring in the Senate's amendments to the Missouri bill, 
 570 ; on a reduced price and cash sale of the Public 
 land., 601 ; on the Tariff bill, 651. 
 
 END OF VOL. YI. 
 
 ft? 
 
 ' 
 
 V*
 
 
 5 3 
 
 
 I * 
 
 \a 
 
 S i 
 
 1 s 
 
 
 QQ 
 
 i 3 
 
 5? ^ 
 
 *VIE-UNIVER% 
 
 rK t^ 
 
 5 
 
 ^E-UBRARYQf -^ 
 
 I 
 
 ^\\\E-UNIVER% ^-IOS ANGELA 
 
 S 3 
 
 ^OJi 
 
 t s 
 
 I 
 
 ^* 
 
 I 
 
 i I 
 
 1 1 
 
 ^HONYSOV^ ^ 
 
 II 
 
 a I 
 
 S i 
 
 JJtfUNIVfBftj. 
 
 s 
 
 l! 
 
 S g 
 
 ^ 15. 
 
 ^ * 
 
 s 
 S 
 
 i i 
 
 t # 
 
 s I 
 a i 
 
 - 3 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 i ?r= 
 
 I v 
 
 ? \u 
 
 9 ! 
 
 c""> 
 
 i i,_~ 
 
 I I 
 
 * 
 
 
 . 
 
 g * 
 ^ v 
 
 fc 
 
 s 
 
 g > 
 
 A\^E-UNIVER% ^-105 
 
 ^ is 
 
 i iG 
 
 so ^3 
 
 s 
 
 i 3 
 
 IK 
 
 %ojnv3jo^ ^oj 
 
 
 ^ ^ 
 
 I 6 
 
 <*?* sir 1 
 
 ^ = 
 
 
 I 
 
 *" ii 
 
 ^ I 
 
 I 1 
 
 5 
 
 i > 
 
 
 i i 
 
 i 1 
 
 s < 
 
 ^ 22 
 
 I S^siS I 
 
 <^ 5^^ ? 
 
 W^JAINil W>