SPEECH 
 
 
 ALBERT SMITH, OE HEW YORK, 
 
 THE TARIFF, 
 
 AND IN REPLY TO THE SPEECH OF MR. COLLIN, OF N. Y. 
 
 Delivered in the House of Representatives of the U. S.. July 1, 1846. 
 
 WASHINGTON: 
 
 PRINTED BY J. & G. S. GIDEON. 
 
 1846. 
 
SPEECH. 
 
 The bill reported by the Committee of Ways and Means, proposing to reduce the duties on 
 imports, being under consideration in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union— 
 
 Mr. ALBERT SMITH, of New York, said, that in 1842, the Congress 
 of the United States had passed a law to regulate duties on imports. That 
 law had been a subject of warm discussion from the time of its passage to 
 the present hour. Debate had been had on two points. First, whether the 
 duties then enacted were constitutional; and, secondly, whether they were 
 expedient. The Democrats elected to the last Congress, constituted a large 
 majority of the House, the Committee of Ways and Means then report¬ 
 ed a bill modifying the tariff of 1842. It was discussed for three or four 
 weeks with much earnestness, the Whigs opposing and the Democrats ad¬ 
 vocating it. In the end, however, it so happened, whether from some pe¬ 
 culiar features in the bill, or from some other cause, growing out of the ap¬ 
 proaching Presidential election, that enough Democrats hajl united with the 
 Whigs to vote it down. This was the posture of affairs when the two par¬ 
 ties went into the campaign of 1844. So far as Mr. S. knew, from his own 
 experience, and his observation elsewhere, the Whig party everywhere had 
 gone in favor of sustaining the tariff of 1842; while gentlemen on the oppo¬ 
 site side, with the exception of those from Pennsylvania, had as regularly 
 opposed it. The law was denounced from every democratic stump in the 
 Northern, Middle, and Southern States. The leaders of the two great par¬ 
 ties had been—Henry Clay on the part of the Whigs, and James K. Polk 
 on the part of the Democrats. These two prominent men were supposed to 
 be the representatives of the two great parties on the subject of the tariff. 
 The Democracy triumphed. They beat their opponents out of the field, 
 electing not only their chieftain President, but two to one of the members 
 ■of Congress, as well as a large majority in tire Senate. 
 
 Under these circumstances Mr. S. should not undertake to re-argue the 
 question. His constituents understood the nature and effect of a protective 
 tariff law quite as well as he did. They knew perfectly well what the De¬ 
 mocracy would do if it had the power, and what the Whigs would do in 
 like circumstances; and they knew another thing, viz: that nothing affected 
 their interests so injuriously as the eternal agitation of this question of pro¬ 
 tection. And now, he said to his Democratic opponents, in the name of 
 those constituents, if you have been honest in your doctrine, if you have 
 been sincere in professing it, if you v'ere not conscious of having imposed on 
 the too easy confidence and credulity of your country, go on and carry out 
 your measure. [Many voices, “we will;” “we mean to.”] But if, with 
 so vast a majority, and with the w’hole power of the Government in your 
 hands, you shall fail in your design, and the tariff of 1842 is not repealed, 
 in Heaven’s name will you not let us rest? Will you not, in mercy, grant 
 us a little repose? Why agitate the question any longer? What more do 
 you expect to get? Havejou not power enough here to pass your bill? 
 And, if it passes, have you not a very willing and consenting Executive, 
 
4 
 
 standing ready, with pen in hand, to sign the bill? And, as to Pennsyl¬ 
 vania, he, Mr. S., well understood how the contest was carried on there, 
 and by what means and men she had been induced to give her vote to Polk 
 and Dallas. With his Whig friends in that State, he deplored the passage 
 of this bill j tha/ at least were not responsible for the result. But, to the 
 “Polk, Dallas, 'and tariff of 1S42” locofocosof that State, and theii representa¬ 
 tives on this floor, he must say he had a very strong disposition “to laugh at 
 their calamities, and mock when their fear cometh.” For of no people on 
 the face of the earth might it be more appropriately said, “ye would be 
 dupes and victims, and ye are.” Never did men more zealously “'kiss 
 the rod that smote them.” And Mr. S. hoped, in common humanity, it 
 might, after all, turn out that it “was good for them to be afflicted.” At 
 least he hoped it might induce them hereafter to stand by their own and 
 their country’s interest, despite of party claims and dictation. 
 
 But, if this question is not settled at this time, is it again to be brought 
 up as a subject of discussion at the next session ? Are the people never to 
 know on what to calculate ? Are they never to arrive at any certainty as 
 to investing their capital? Are they to be kept still in supense at the next 
 session, and at the next, and thenext? One gentleman spokeof contesting 
 this matter time after time, from year to year, from Congress to Congress, 
 and all this in thq : .name of Democracy. Was that the species of democracy 
 which we were to expect? To have one part of the Union still fighting for 
 free-trade, and another portion contending with equal obstinacy for protec¬ 
 tion? And both Democratic? What sort of democracy must it be which 
 elected Mr. Polk as a free-trade man at the South and as a protection man 
 in Pennsylvania? Mr. S. repeated that he wasnotgoing to argue the ques¬ 
 tion whether it was constitutional or expedient to impose duties for protec¬ 
 tion, nor should he have spoken at all on the present occasion but for some 
 expressions in a speech made by a colleague of his, (Mr. Colux,) whom 
 he was sorry not to see in his seat. His colleague had taken occasion, when 
 the House had under its consideration the bill making improvements on. 
 rivers and harbors, to deliver a speech upon the tariff, not an off-hand 
 speech, delivered in the heat of debate, but a speech well and maturely con¬ 
 sidered, and read frond a manuscript previously prepared and brought with 
 him. In such a speech as this the gentleman had made certain statements, 
 which Mr. S. hardly knew how to characterize, and of which he felt it dif¬ 
 ficult to speak, especially in the gentleman’s absence. By way of illustra¬ 
 tion, he would quote one or two of these remarks: 
 
 “ We, too, by this policy, are driven into unnatural pursuits, and our agriculture languishes. 
 Within the last few years immense thousands of the agricultural population of the State of New 
 York have been made fugitives to other climes by the operation of these laws.” ’ 
 
 Now Mr. S. might not perhaps understand what his colleague meant by 
 other climes. If he meant that some of them had gone to Texas, because 
 they found in Texas men who were bone of their bone, and flesh of their 
 flesh, he could not say that it was entirely untrue; but it had been his own 
 impression, that some of these persons had gone there in consequence of 
 other laws than the tariff of 1842, [a laugh.] Mr. S. was led into this sus¬ 
 picion from his colleague’s use of the word “ fugitives,” though he made 
 no such charge. If, on the other hand, his colleague meant to say, that in 
 consequence of the passage of the tariff of 1842 thousands of the citizens of 
 
5 
 
 New York had become fugitives into any clime beyond the United 
 States, he demanded the authority on which such an assertion had been 
 made—it was not true—the fact was not so. Without doubt large numbers 
 of the people of New York had gone into the great West—some to 
 Michigan, some to Indiana, some to Illinois, some to Iowa, some to Missou¬ 
 ri, and some perhaps were beyond the Rocky Mountains; but did his 
 colleague mean to assert that these emigrants to the West had become fugi¬ 
 tives to foreign climes because of our tariff laws? M as it only since 1S42 
 that this western emigration had commenced? His colleague knew better. 
 He knew that these hardy pioneers had gone in long succession, for many 
 many years past, to seek out for themselves homes in the vast and fertile bo- 
 .som of the Mississippi valley. They had gone there, in the spirit of American 
 enterprise and independence, to become subduers of the wilderness and til¬ 
 lers of the soil, and by honest labor to obtain for themselves freeholds and 
 ■homes. He would leave it to the Representatives of Western States on that 
 floor to say, whether these hardy sons of New York, on coming into that 
 new country, had demeaned themselves like “ fugitives.” 
 
 His colleague had made another statement, which Mr. S. was equally at 
 a loss to account for. He regretted the gentleman was not here; it might 
 -not perhaps be the gentleman’s fault. Mr. S. was sure it was not his, for 
 he had expressly given his colleague notice of his intention to speak, and in 
 his speech to reply to the remarks his colleague had made. In one part of 
 his speech his colleague had said, as Mr. S. supposed by way of a flourish : 
 
 “ Have we not heard claimed for the credit of an American tariff all that the ingenuity of man 
 has devised - in Europe, Asia, Africa, and America? For its continuance, have we not seen put 
 in requisition all the sophistry that human intellect can devise, and all the misrepresentation that 
 human depravity can be induced to utter? Has not truth itself been perverted to have the weight 
 of falsehood ? Do we not now hear its advocates on this floor and elsewhere expiess themselves, 
 that, rather than the repeal of the tariff law of 1842, they would prefer that our cities should be 
 burned, our people overwhelmed with taxation, and our fields drenched in blood ?” 
 
 Now Mr. S. would ask of that gentleman, or any other of his colleagues, 
 who would answer for him, what Whig member of that House had ever 
 used language like this, or anything resembling it? Who had heard any 
 Whig member of that House say, sooner than see the tariff of 1S42 repealed, 
 he would see our cities burned, our people groaning under taxation, and 
 our fair fields covered with human blood? The assertion was false, un- 
 blushingly false. It was a libel on the Whig members of that House. Mr. 
 S. would be the first to denounce the man that would use such language, or 
 ■any language akin to it. The man who held such a sentiment was a trai¬ 
 tor, and deserved that his name should be delivered over to infamy. Yet, 
 his colleague had made that assertion in the open face of day, and had made 
 it with the intention that it should be circulated broadcast all over the South, 
 as a sentiment uttered by Whig gentlemen on that floor. Southern men 
 and enemies of the tariff would every where be told that the Whigs of this 
 Congress had boldly declared, that they would rather see our cities sacked, 
 and our fields drenched in blood, than see the tariff of 1S42 repealed. Had it 
 been a mere casual expression, elicited from the gentleman in the heat and 
 ardor of debate, there might be some apology for it; but it was an assertion 
 well considered, carefully written out, and published to the world for two 
 months past. Now, Mr. S. was not willing that the people of foreign coun¬ 
 tries should understand that Whig members of the American Congress could 
 
6 
 
 hold any such language. Certainly Mr. S. for himself was far from hold¬ 
 ing any such sentiment. He did believe that the tariff of 1842 had been a 
 good act, that it had operated for the benefit of the whole country, and so 
 believing, he had given it his cordial support; but God forbid that he should 
 say, or for a moment feel, that he had rather see his country pillaged, his 
 countrymen cut down, our cities sacked and burned, and our fields drench¬ 
 ed in the blood of their inhabitants, than give up the bill. His bosom 
 was an utter stranger to any such feeling. 
 
 Mr. S. was happy to say, that notwithstanding his colleague had seen fit. 
 to make the assertion he had just quoted, the question under discussion oc¬ 
 cupied, in other respects, the true ground on which the gentleman’s party 
 placed it. He did not hold a different doctrine here from what he did at 
 home, butmet the question of protection fairly. And what did he sayof it? 
 
 That was what Mr. S. understood to be the doctrine held by the gentle¬ 
 man’s party, and it was fairly stated. The opponents of the bill made no 
 distinction between commerce among the States and commerce between 
 the United States and foreign countries. They would have no distinct law 
 to protect our people, any more than foreigners. They would put the great 
 interest of American labor exactly on a par with the labor of foreigners; and 
 it was this doctrine against which Mr. S. made war,and it was on this point 
 that the argument had turned both here and at home for years past. But 
 were gentlemen aware of the principle involved in this argument'? It was 
 based upon the supposition that we were under no more obligation to pro¬ 
 mote the interest of the States of this Union than of foreign nations. Our 
 laws allowed a free exchange of commodities between Massachusetts and 
 Ohio, for example, because they were members of the same confederacy, 
 both States of this Union, and all the advantages of this trade were enjoyed 
 by our own people. This exemption from commercial restrictions was mu¬ 
 tual, and all the benefits of it accrued to the very people for whom we were 
 bound to legislate. But, would gentlemen maintain that we were to sit 
 here to legislate for foreign nations, and exercise the same watchful care for 
 the welfare of their labor as for our own? Mr. S. had supposed that, as 
 representatives of the American people, we owed special duties to our con¬ 
 stituents, and were the peculiar guardians of their interests; but, according 
 to the doctrine of his colleague, we owed to our constituents nothing more 
 than we owed to the people of England, Prance, or Russia. He regarded 
 himself as an American, representing on this floor Americans, and felt bound, 
 as well from duty as from choice, to promote the American interests. But 
 if his colleague owed no allegiance to this country more than to any other, 
 and would look to the welfare of the people of Great Britain as readily as 
 he would to the interests of his own constituents, Mr. S. would fain believe 
 there had been a mutual misunderstanding between that gentleman and his 
 constituents, or they had never sent him here. Now, Mr. S. was con¬ 
 tent that the argument should rest on one great, broad, and undeniable 
 
feet. Let any man look at the condition of the country before and since 
 this tariff had been passed. He need not remind any man what had 
 been our condition immediately and before its enactment, he appealed to 
 every man to say, whether the course of the country, at this moment, was 
 not onward and still onward, under all that a good Government could do for 
 a good people. He would put this fact against all theories, whether the 
 forty-bale theory, or that of Adam Smith, or Say, or Richards, or any or 
 all other theorists, from now to eternity. Let the whole question be put to 
 the test of experience. If gentlemen thought that Mr. S. was wrong, let 
 them pass their bill, and see what would be the result. He should not vote 
 for it, but if on a fair experiment the facts should sustain the theories of his 
 opponents, he would not deny it, or dodge it, or seek to explain it away, 
 but would fairly and frankly admit it. If he should find that, under a re¬ 
 duced tariff, the country was making progress in general prosperity, Mr. S. 
 would be the first man to confess it, and embrace the doctrine which now 
 he opposed; and he here appealed to gentlemen on the other side as fair and 
 honest men to do the same. 
 
 Mr. S. had been much amused and pleased with another speech made by 
 a colleague of his, (Mr. Jenkins,) last evening. He agreed with the 
 speaker in the main, and yet he could not content himself without finding 
 some little fault with what the gentleman had said, seemingly as a salvo 
 providedtagainst a future stump speech. His colleague had spoken of the 
 odious and flagrant system of minimums. If Mr. S. had not looked upon 
 it as somewhat impertinent, he would have asked his colleague to point him 
 to a single instance where the minimum system of duties had operated in¬ 
 juriously or oppressively on any one American citizen. If the gentleman 
 could point him to one case, he had now an opportunity of reply. 
 
 [A deep silence.] 
 
 But Mr. S. would not go into the details of the bill. It was possible there 
 might be some duties imposed by the tariff of ’42 which might be favorably 
 changed ; but that was not the question here—that was not what gentlemen 
 were after. The friends of the tariff of ’42 were in favor of retaining die 
 great and prominent features of that bill on their own merits, as going to 
 provide on the one hand an adequate revenue for the Government, and on 
 the other adequate protection for the industry of the people. B ut gentlemen 
 on the other side were for reducing duties at all events. Mr. S was not 
 certain whether it was with a view of getting more or less revenue, for it had 
 been prescribed as a panacea for both purposes. 
 
 But his colleague, when speaking on the River and Harbor bill, had said 
 another thing which affected the interests of Mr. S.’s constituents. They 
 were, to some extent, growers of wool; and Mr. S. must be pardoned for 
 dwelling a few moments upon a subject so interesting to them, and so vital¬ 
 ly assailed by the provisions of the bill on your table. The tariff of ’42 
 provided a duty of 5 per cent, on coarse wool, costing, where it was pro¬ 
 duced, not over 7 cents; and a specific duty of 3 cents a pound, and an ad 
 valorem duty of 30 per cent, on all other imported wool. Now, from this 
 his colleague drew one of the most singular conclusions ever arrived at by 
 the mind of man. He said; 
 
 “ The wool-growing interest is now tottering upon the precipice of destruction. With it the 
 beginning of the end 1ms commenced. Twenty-four millions of pounds of foreign wool have 
 been imported to this country during the past year—an amount within five millions, or, at far- 
 
8 
 
 thest, ten millions of pounds of all the wool used by the manufacturers of the country. Of the 
 balance of domestic wool, three millions of pounds have been exported, a portion has been used 
 in our families, and the residue is on the hands of the growers, or is in the storehouses of the 
 purchasers. With this surplus on hand—with an accumulated crop coming in of at least forty- 
 five millions of pounds—and with a probable importation for the year to come of some thirty 
 millions of pounds of foreign wool—nothing can save the wool-growing business from destruc¬ 
 tion, as a marketable business, but the repeal of the tariff of 1842.” 
 
 We had a surplus on hand from the old crop and 45 millions of pounds 
 from the new, and yet his colleague was for letting in all foreign wool with¬ 
 out any tax at all. Mr. S. rather thought that when the wool growers 
 came to hear of this they would be very apt to say, “save us from our 
 friends.” 
 
 It was true, the gentleman said, that by the repeal the opportunity would 
 be opened to us “of selling our surplus wool to the English market, which 
 required an annual supply of seventy millions of pounds of foreign wool,” 
 and that “that would enable us to sell to them our wool without being pro¬ 
 hibited by the high duties now imposed upon goods we must necessarily 
 take in exchange.” Mr. S. would like to know from his colleague, what 
 use we should make of the probable import of “thirty millions of pounds 
 of foreign wool,” if we exported our own and received foreign goods in ex¬ 
 change?” Were we to be importers and exporters of the same article at 
 the same time? And if we received foreign goods in exchange for our 
 wool, what would the foreigner receive in exchange from us for his wool 
 sent in/o our country ? 
 
 Had the gentleman estimated the cost in insurance and transportation in 
 sending our wool abroad, and of the return cargo? Did he not know that, 
 if we adopted such a policy as he recommends, our own manufacturing es¬ 
 tablishments must go down? And, when we have no longer these estab¬ 
 lishments among us, what assurance, what guaranty has he of the price our 
 wool shall bring in the foreign market? And when competition has ceased 
 at home, at what price shall we obtain our goods of the foreigner? Did 
 he not know that we should then be at the mercy—yes, the mercy, of 
 foreigners? 
 
 If Mr. S. had the control of the matter, he would not only retain the ex¬ 
 isting duty, but would add to it, so as to reach and secure this crop of 45 
 millions of pounds. But such was not the gentleman’s doctrine. The 
 gentleman admitted that we had a large surplus, and that we produced all 
 the wool we wanted, and thereupon he would proceed at once to repeal all 
 duties, and let more wool into the country. This duty of 5 per cent, on 
 wool costing not over 7 cents was no novelty in debate. It was an old cus¬ 
 tomer in that House. Mr. S. had heard it asserted that the very finest 
 wools of Cordova were imported under that duty, being previously mixed 
 with so much dirt and foreign matter as reduced their value to 7 cents. 
 All Mr. S. had to say was this, that, if that statement was true, it showed 
 that our revenue officers were'guilty of malversation in office, and ought to 
 be punished. It was not the fault of the law. The law was stringent in 
 its enactments. No matter what might be the value of the wool imported, 
 if the fine wool was mixed with coarse, for the purpose of bringing it under 
 the 5 per cent, duty, the law provided that the whole mass should be con¬ 
 sidered as fine wool, and should pay duty as such. 
 
 The people understood that the low duty on coarse wool was intended 
 for the benefit of the South. The coarse wool of South America was to 
 
be admitted for the purpose of making negro cloths and blankets, and as 
 such it was granted as a boon to the South; while the 3 cents and 30 per 
 cent, duty was intended as a protection to the wool grower; and yet his eol- 
 league, while complaining of the import of foreign wool, was in favor of 
 taking off the 3 cents and 30 per cent, duty, and putting all wool upon a 
 par. He had not believed the very coarsest shag-lock wool of South Ame¬ 
 rica was to be brought in competition with our own. That was a species 
 of wool we could not raise. If indeed our farmers should learn the secret of 
 keeping their sheep without any expense, they might possibly compete with 
 it. But there certainly was not a farmer in tire State of New York who 
 would consent to occupy his land and waste his time with the raising of 
 wool for 7 cents a pound. He could not do it. He could not make such 
 coarse wool; he could not raise wool that would not be worth more than 
 that, and he would not, if he could; because the business would be attend¬ 
 ed with no profit. 
 
 As to the ferocious assault on the tariff of ’42, which protected the wool 
 raised by our farmers, it was a matter those farmers—at least so far as his 
 ■constituents were concerned—well understood. His colleague professed to 
 desire to protect the wool grower, and to do this, instead of increasing the 
 duty, he would repeal the act of ’42, and adopt McKay’s bill, putting all 
 wool on a par under a duty of 25 per cent. Mr. S. admitted that there 
 would be an increase of the duty on coarse wool, but it would cut down 
 and destroy all protection on such as was grown by our own farmers. Even 
 as the law now stood, some 450,000 pounds of fine foreign wool was im¬ 
 ported. How much would there be if all protection was taken off, and 
 foreigners were allowed to have our market at their own disposal? 
 
 But Mr. S. would examine briefly this increase of duty on coarse wool. 
 By your bill you propose to make no distinction or discrimination between 
 fine and coarse wool. You put all kinds under a duty of 25 per cent, ad 
 valorem. You now complain of the import of 24 millions of pounds of 
 7 cent, per pound wool, and propose a duty of 25 per cent. The present 
 duty is equal to 3 mills, and the proposed duty would be equal to 15 
 mills, or one and a half cent per pound; making your foreign wool, thus 
 imported, cost 8J- cents per pound instead of 7 cents 3 mills; and this, too, 
 without any provision to prevent fine wool being imported as costing 7 cents 
 and under. Does not this utterly annihilate all protection to our wool ? If, 
 under the well-guarded enactments of the law of ’42, fine wool, worth say 
 from 25 to 40 cents per pound, was imported as coarse wool, and paid duty 
 accordingly, will not the same thing be done when the duty is only increas¬ 
 ed 12 mills, and no provision of law exists to prevent it? For himself, 
 Mr. S. said, he believed the proposed repeal of the specific duty of 3 cents 
 per pound and 30 per cent, ad valorem, with the foreign valuation, would 
 allow any kind of wool to be imported at a price or valuation, and paying 
 a duty against which the wool growers of this country would find it useless 
 to contend. The business, whether as principal or incidental, would soon 
 have to be abandoned, or your proposed law repealed, and even higher 
 specific duties with discriminations for protection restored again. 
 
 On this subject Mr. S. would content himself with saying to gentlemen, 
 that the American farmers would know how to answer them. But now 
 Mr. S. invited gentlemen to action; for himself he was ready to vote. He- 
 
10 
 
 did not feelhimself the least shaken in opinion by the multitude of speeches 
 he had heard. He thought we had had quite enough of it. It was now 
 time to act. Some of their fellow-citizens hoped for, and others as greatly 
 dreaded, the action of this Congress. He charged gentlemen to be consis¬ 
 tent, and to carry out here what they had told the people at home, or hence¬ 
 forth let the law of 1842 remain unrepealed. 
 
 And now, in.imitation of the example of the honorable member from 
 Georgia, (Mr. Jones,) he would proceed to say something about the Mexi¬ 
 can war. He did not mean to discuss that subject at much length, but he 
 must saysome little about it. Mr. S. had voted for gentlemen’s bill, which 
 assumed the existence of a state of war, and attributed that to the Mexicans 
 which had in fact been the act of our own Executive. He could not quite 
 go that assertion. Therefore, though he had voted the bill, he had voted 
 it under protest. Texas was now annexed, and he for one was not going 
 to reagitate the question of annexation. He had opposed it at the time; 
 but now the deed was done, and he was reluctantly compelled to yield to 
 it. It happened, however, that a part of the boundary of the new State 
 was left undefined, and a provision was inserted in the annexing resolution 
 that the Executive was to settle that question of boundary by negotiation. 
 This was provided in express terms. Well, we had sent a minister to Mex¬ 
 ico, and what for ? What was the object of sending a minister, if it was 
 not to settle this very question of boundary? There were, indeed, other 
 questions pending between the two nations, but no man here was so stupid 
 as not to know that the main question which took Mr. Slidell out had been 
 the settlement of the southern boundary of Texas. Mr. Slidell had failed, 
 and here came the point. After the Executive had failed in amicably set¬ 
 tling the question that had been reserved, what was his next duty? Was he 
 bound, either by law or the Constitution, to assume out of his own head 
 what the true boundary was, and to take military possession of the country 
 up to that line? Mr. S. believed there was no man who would be so fool¬ 
 hardy as to say so. At this point Mr. S. complained of the conduct of the 
 Executive, and he never should cease to condemn it. 
 
 Mr. S. could not but regard this conduct of the Executive as unparalleled 
 in the history of this country, and entirely indefensible. The Congress 
 alone possessed the power of declaring war, a power of transcendent import 
 for weal or wo, and to be exercised only upon the most urgent necessity 
 and clearest right. What, he would ask, became of this high constitutional 
 prerogative of Congress, if the Executive may, with impunity, and of his 
 own mere will as commander-in-chief of the army, send ourtroop3,far be¬ 
 yond our actual jurisdiction, into the country of a neighboring nation, un¬ 
 der any pretence whatever, and thus “bring on war?” It was idle to pre¬ 
 tend that the Rio Grande was ever agreed upon, by competent authority, as 
 the southern boundary of Texas. It was equally idle to say that Texas, as 
 a nation, ever had actual possession of the north bank of that river, or any 
 point nearer to it than the Nueces, some 150 miles. 
 
 The honorable member from Texas, (Mr. Kaufman,) in allusion to a 
 certain arranarement made by Santa Anna, while a prisoner in Texas , agree¬ 
 ing to the Rio Grande as the boundary of Texas, said that the “validity of 
 this treaty had been called in question.” And, instead of controverting the 
 objections by authority from the law of nations, was pleased to refer to some: 
 
11 
 
 case at law where a person under arrest gave a bond for his release, and was 
 held liable on his bond. Now, with all deference to the gentleman’s 
 legal abilities, Mr. S. must say that, though his text may be very good, it 
 was sought to be applied where it had ho applicability—none whatever. And, 
 while upon this point, Mr. S. would refer that honorable member, and all 
 others who claimed up to the Rio Grande, to an authority entitled to some 
 little consideration among nations that cherish a proper regard for the rights 
 of their neighbors, while maintaining their own. Vattel, in his Law of 
 Nations, page 435, says: 
 
 “ The captive sovereign may himself negotiate the peace, and promise what personally de' 
 pends on him; but the treaty does not become obligatory on the nation till ratified by herself, or 
 bv those who are investedwith the public authority during the prince’s captivity; or, finally, by 
 tile sovereign himself, after his release.” 
 
 It was unnecessary to remind the House that the Mexican nation refused 
 to amee to, or in any way ratify, this treaty arrangement entered into by 
 Santa Anna in regard to the boundary of Texas, nor was it ever ratified by 
 Santa Anna himself, after his release and restoration to power. No treaty 
 was obligatory upon a nation unless it had the free assent of the sovereign 
 power; how, then, could a captive sovereign, much less a commanding tren- 
 eial, cede away a portion of the State? 
 
 Mr. S. would put a case, by way of illustration. During the last war, he 
 asked pardon, during the war of 1812, the British army got possession of this 
 Capitol. Well, if they had at the same time taken President Madison pri¬ 
 soner, would any man seriously maintain that Mr. Madison could have 
 made a treaty ceding the State of New York, or any other portion of the 
 Union, to the British Crown, even if it were competent for our Executive 
 to make treaties without the advice and consent of the Senate ? And yet 
 the doctrine of the gentleman from Texas, as explained in his law case, 
 would go that length. 
 
 But Mr. S. went further on this question of ceding populated territory, as 
 applied to republics, and he maintained that the sovereign or treaty-making 
 power had no authority to cede away to a foreign power any portion of the 
 nation, inhabited at the time, without the assent of the inhabitants in some 
 form expressed. 
 
 The Executive, in his message communicating to us the “existing state 
 of war,” as if conscious of the unjustness of our claim to the Rio Grande, 
 and in apology for sending our army into the disputed territory, (to say the 
 least of it,) and planting our guns within range of a Mexican city, was 
 pleased to recapitulate the various differences existing between the two na¬ 
 tions, and which, if unadjusted, might be causes of war. Sir, said Mr. S.,- 
 to my mind these causes of war would have been in place in a message to 
 Congress recommending a declaration of war, but are sadly out of place 
 when offered as an apology for the Executive, in peacefully sending our 
 army to the Rio Grande to preserve peace. If the Executive knew of these 
 causes of war, he should have done no act in the least likely to bring on 
 war without the consent of Congress. Congress alone, and not the Presi¬ 
 dent, is the constitutional judge of the causes and necessity of war. 
 
 How strangely, said Mr. S., did the conduct of the Executive, in this 
 Mexican affair, contrast with his course towards England in the Oregon 
 matter. And more strangely still had he illustrated that national maxim, 
 
12 
 
 reaffirmed by him in his annual message, “Ask nothing that is not right, 
 and submit to nothing that is wrong 
 
 We were told of the peaceful acquisition of Texas, and much praise was 
 taken to the Administration for the peaceful, bloodless accomplishment of 
 ■the “ great measure of annexation.” And lo ! before one session of Con¬ 
 gress had passed, this same Executive has brought the nation into war, as 
 if intent, also, upon the peaceful acquisition of other Mexican States. And 
 he informed us, also, that our title to the whole of Oregon was “ clear and 
 unquestionable;” and that our title had been made out by “ irrefragable 
 fact6 and arguments;” that notice to terminate the joint occupancy must be 
 given; and, at the end of the year, “our rights must be firmly maintained.” 
 When distracted, down-trodden, feeble Mexico-showed symptoms of resis¬ 
 tance to dismemberment, our valiant and heroic Executive could not stop 
 to consult Congress, although in session, but forthwith adopting that other 
 maxim that “might makes right,” takes military possession of what never 
 did belong to us, and shoots down the miserable inhabitants for daring to 
 stand by the graves of their fathers, their firesides, and their homes. 
 
 And what, meantime, became of our irrefragable claim to the whole of 
 Oregon—“ all or none?” No sooner did the British lion show his teeth, 
 than our Executive, apparently trembling in his shoes, hies him to the Se¬ 
 nate for advice, snaps at the first offer; and what became of our claiming 
 nothing but what was right, and firmly maintaining our title now? Why, 
 your 
 
 “ Blustering bull-dog’s lordly growl 
 Has sunk to a puppy’s plaintive howl. ” 
 
 Fifty-four-forty had tumbled down to forty-nine, carrying with it the 
 Baltimore resolution, irrefragable facts, arguments, and all! 
 
 Now, sir,said Mr. S., reverse these cases; give Mexico the power of Eng¬ 
 land, and England that of Mexico, would any gentleman here, for one 
 moment, maintain that the Executive would have marched our army to the 
 Rio Grande without the authority of Congress? No, sir; he would have 
 done no such thing. But he (Mr. S.) was not quite sure but England, 
 with no more strength than Mexico, might still have brought this Adminis¬ 
 tration to settle upon 49°. 
 
 “ All Oregon ” as a political battle-cry, did exceedingly well—it served 
 its purpose; but when the victory had been won, “All Oregon” was so far 
 ■ West that'the Executive vision could scarcely reach it; and while dallying 
 with the “dark-haired maiden” of the South, our Executive seemed to 
 have but one care or feeling or sentiment, which, if it had found utterance, 
 would doubtless have been, “ A few more of the same sort!” 
 
 But there were gentlemen who said that this was not the time to com¬ 
 plain about a violation of the Constitution. The country was at war, she 
 needed all her resources, and it wasn’t proper now to go into questions about 
 violating the Constitution. Mr. S. told them now was the time, and most 
 emphatically the time, to go into such an inquiry. If we waited till we had 
 seen a repetition of such glorious national victories beyond the Rio Grande 
 as we had witnessed on this side of it, the man knew little of our coun¬ 
 trymen who did not know that those victories and the glory with which they 
 were surrounded, would beheld upbefore their eyeslike a bright star; and that 
 while all eyes were gazing upon this, and shouting paeans to the bravery of 
 
13 
 
 our arms, the wounded, and bleeding, and writhing Constitution would be 
 lost sight of and forgotten. If a man raised a constitutional objection then, 
 he would be immediately put down by the inquiry, “ why didn’t you think 
 of this sooner?” “Why bring up this objection now?” “ You should 
 have urged it at the time, but now it is wholly out of place.” Let,our 
 arms but be crowned with victory after victory, as Mr. S. doubted not they 
 would be, and no man would rejoice more at such a result than he, and in 
 the blaze of that glory all else would be forgotten. The man who preach¬ 
 ed about the Constitution would be looked upon as a croaker. His coun¬ 
 trymen would scarce have patience to hear him. The remonstrance would 
 meet him on every side, “ Oh ! what’s the use of that? Don’t you see we 
 have got California? Have you no heart for the glory of your country? 
 What nonsense to talk about the Constitution now!” 
 
 “ When golden fortune smiles propitiously on crime, 
 
 He would, therefore, say to gentlemen, if you mean to raise your voices 
 against the most flagitious, and most ignoble violation of the Constitution of 
 your country, the time is now —now. 
 
 But while Mr. S. would hold the Executive to a strict accountability for 
 his violation of the Constitution in bringing the country into war, he was 
 the last man who would offer any impediment to the successful and speedy 
 termination of the controversy. Congress had adopted the war, as well 
 from necessity as from choice, and he held it to be the duty of all good 
 citizens to aid in its prosecution. Of its successful termination, Mr. S. had 
 no doubts. No man doubted the ability of this country to contend success¬ 
 fully with Mexico; or, if he did, he paid but a sorry compliment to the 
 bravery and resources of his country. But let not the Executive lay the 
 “flattering unction to his soul,” that while we vote him men and money 
 to carry on this war, thus wantonly commenced, we are to be in the least 
 deterred from speaking of his acts in the spirit of freemen.