~ci^' 1^0

' f:./ic-i/f^'r/ rf/ Ya/:

^/fc/ifYrf/^ ///^rY//)'irY//r'/.u./r/f/'/fj'.
/S9d.

SELECT SPEECHES

ot'

JOHN SERGEANT.

SELECT SPEECHES

JOHN SERGEANT,

PENNSYLVANIA.

E. L. CAREY & A. HART— CHESNUT STREET.

.:^1832.

Entered according to the act of Congress, the 12th day of Octoher, 1832, by
E. L. Caket & A. Hart,
in the Clerk's office of the District Court ofthe Eastern District of Pennsyl-

PREFACE.

Tna^publishers of this volume present it to the public,
not merely as a testimonial of their sincere respect for a
dislinguished fellow citizen, 1)Tit as an offcringjsihijib they
know will be most acceptable to the community at large.
It is an exalted duty to rescue from the precarious tenure
of ephemeral publications the reputation of an eminent
man, and with this view they have been induced to cause
a volume of the public speeches of Mr. Sergeant to be pre-
pared; in order to give them the permanence they deserve
to have, and of which, while scattered' in detached pam
phlets and periodicals, they could not be secure. The
responsibility of the attempt is altogether with them. It
.•was determined on, and has been made without consulta
tion with Mr. Sergeant. The materials to which the pub
lishers have h^d ?iccess, were scattered through congres
sional reports and newspapers, and it has been with some
difficulty they have been collected. They are believed
however to be in every respect accurate.
It was their hope to be able to publish a number of the
forensic e^rguments of Mr. Sergeant, as well as his congres
sional speeches. In this, they haye been, in great measure
disappointed..' The fame of an advocate is too often tra
ditionary, and while during his aictive career his influence
2

VI
is most sehsibly felt and readily acknowledged, as soon as
the personal ascendancy is withdrawn, the charm lingers
only in memory, and with the life of the last contemporary
is forgotten. The physical labours of preparing forensic
arguments for the press is altogether incompatibly with
the unceasing occupation of a professional man in active
business, and until the science of reporting " speeches" shall
extend to the judicial as well as the legislative halls, the
advocate, in a vast majority of instances, must be satisfied
with' the proud distinction of a life of honour and usefjul-
ness, and be coatent, as- soon as it terminates, to he forgot
ten. The history of the English bar strongly illustrates
the truth of this, assertion. Of all the master-pieces of
eloquence that have been produced by the great Eng
lish lavvyers during the last century and an half, but
one elaborate collection survives ; and no one, especially if
he be a lawyer, can peruse the volumes of Lord Erskine's
Speeches without regret, deep regret, that a similar memo
rial of some ofhis predecessors, of Dunning, of Wedderburne,
of Yorke, of 'Pratt and of Murray, has not been rescued
from the grasp of oblivion. It was a remark of Mr. Pitt,
that were he allowed to redeem from forgetfulness any one
of those works of genius of which in ancient or modern
times the fame only has survived, he would select a single
speech of Lord Bolingbroke, accurately and faithfully re
ported, in preference to all the rest. A lawyer might, in
the same spirit prefer an argument fresh from the lips, or
corrected by the pen of Lord Mansfield; to any of the obli
terated records of departed genius.
To the American bar, the same remark will as justly
apply. A recent publication has, in a single instance,

vu
supplied the deficieney, and in a measure done justice to
one distinguished lawyer of our country; but with this
exception, and a few reports of cases selected on account of
some special public interest, the fame of the American
lawyer has had no substantial memorial. Detached argu
ments of Mr. Sergeant, might have been obtained from
the volumes of the Federal and State Reports, but on
examination they were found to be mere sketches, as noted
by the reporter, and without the least revision. The only
forensic argument inserted in this volume, is the one de
livered by Mr., Sergeant before the Supreme Court of the
United States in the case of the Cherokee nation, and
those who heard him on that occasion, or who have ever
heard him when arguing with his peculiar eloquence a
cause in which his feelings were deeply interested, need
not be told how inadequate the report is to his merits, nor
how strongly it illustrates what has been said of the tran
sitory nature of an advocate's fame. It has been inserted,
however, as the only one which has had, even a partial
revision. Abridged as it is, and divested of all the . orna
ments of rhetoric, it will be read and admired as a fine spe
cimen of argumentative eloquence, having for its object to
i jpnforce by reason the results of honest and deliberate re
flection. It is to be regretted that one other argument .of
Mr- Sergeant, (we refer to the one delivered in the Circuit
Court of the United States, at Philadelphia, in the Nichol
son land case,) should not be given to the public in an ela
borate* form. It was an effort worthy of the orator and the
occasion. He was there in the proud attitude of the repre
sentative of a great Commonwealth of whose reputation he
was jealous, qnd whose legislation he was called on to

VHI
vindicate; He was placed too in the position of an adyo-
cate required to enf^ce personal rights, and to protect
private interests,, which had been created and had flour
ished under the legislation which was assailed. Questions
were involved that were matters of appropriate considera
tion for a statesman, and points of judicial casuistry, on
which the professional logician might employ all his sub
tlety. There were disputed points of municipal regulation,
and grave questions of constitutional law. They were all
met ; and in an argument which occupied three days in
delivery, Mr. Sergeant satisfied the expectation of all, who
either as friends or clients, watched the progress of the
cause, and added one more to the many triumphs of a long,
aud honourable professional career. This is not an inap
propriate place to express the hope that this argument
may one day be given lo the public in a complete form.
It has been referred to here, not merely on account of its
peculiar merit, but as being distinctly within the recollec
tion of the profession and the public.
Nothing would be more unjust than to estimate the pro
fessional fame or public services of Mr. Sergeant, by the
select speeches contained in this volume. The varied
occupations of his profession, of a practice that for a long
series of years has been most extensive and laborious, must
be taken into view, and with tbem, a constant and active
participation in almost every scheme of public enterprise
and beneficfence that has been designed within the sphere
ofhis influence. His life has been one of constant and
unremitting labour, in the course of which the least of his
cares seems to have been the acquisition of mere reputa
tion- — the greatest, the conscientious performance of duty,

IX
and the honest discharge of the obligation which binds
every man to the community. Those who have watdhed
with solicitude the career of a public man thus regardless
of personal elevation, and insensible to^ merely selfish im
pulses, will understand the mingled feelings of regret and
veneration which this disinterested and self-disparaging
conduct inspires. The reputation of a great man, earned
by a life of usefulness, is, however, the .property of the
nation, and from the press, as the natural guardian of that
part of the nation's property, much will be expected and
required. This is neither the place nor the occasion, for an elabo
rate tribute to Mr. Sergeant?s character and services. It
is as a public man especially that he is now looked to by
the community with deep and increasing interest, and it is
with a view to do justice to him in this respect, that this
volume has been prepared. It is as little suited to the
occasion, and to the ability of the publishers, to attempt to
characterise his eloquence, as it has been developed in the
legislature of the union. The same masculine intelligence
and comprehensive grasp of mind, which originally gained
for him professional distinction, enabled him at once on his
entrance on a new sphere of action, to reach a high and
proud eminence, which, in the course of a public life che-'
quered by alternate triumphs and reverses, he has never
abandoned, and which he will occupy so long as rich intel
lectual endowment, and consistent patriotism can be appre
ciated. The American bar has always had, and always deserved,
an exalted character ; and it is to the public services of
such men as John Sergeant and his illustrious predecessors.

and contemporaries, mingling from nececessity as well as
inclination, political with professional pursuits, that this
reputation is to be attributed. The bar has supplied the
most efficient defenders of our. free institutions, and should
the hour ever arrive when civil liberty, as we enjoy it, shall
be threatened or endangered, it is to the American lawyer,
conversant by habitual reflection with the eternal princi-
ciples of liberty as applied to the rights of social man, that
the patriot must look for efi'ectual aid, and by his hand can
alone be applied What Sir Edward Coke has called " the
golden metwand" by which the right of the citizen is mea
sured, and the auihority of the government maintained.
The active energies of humanity can never sink into " the
easy trance of servitude," while the beacons of the law
burn brightly, and the restless eye of juridical vigilance is
unclouded.

CONTENTS.

Oration delivered in the City of Philadelphia, on the tvyenty-fonrth
of July, 1826, in Commemoration of Thomas Jefferson and John
Adams  17
Discourse delivered at Rutgers College, on the fourteenth of July,
1829  . 38
Argument inthe Case ofthe Cherokee nation vs. the State of Georgia,
before the Supreme Court of the United States, March fifth,
1831  71
Speech on the Bankrupt BiU, delivered in the House of Representa- •
, tivesoftheUnitedStates,Tuesday, February 17, 1818. . . 105
Speech on the Bank of the United States, dehvered in the House of
* Representatives, February 22, 1819  120
Speech on the Missouri Question, delivered in the House of Represen
tatives ofthe United States, on the eighth and ninth of February,
1820. .  185
Speech delivered in the House of Representatives, March seventh, 1822,
on the Bill to estabhsh an Uniform System of Bankruptcy through
out the United States. . . _  ' . 257
Speech on Retrenchment and Reform, delivered ia the House of Re
presentatives of the United States, February second, 1828. . . 324

ORATION,
DELIVERED IN THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, ON THE
TWENTY-FOURTH OF JULY, 1826, IN COMMEMORATION '
OF THOMAS JEFFERSON AND JOHN ADAMS.
FRIENDS AND FELLOW CITIZENS,
Time, in its course, has produced a striking epoch in
the history of our favoured country ; and, .as if to mark
with peculiar emphasis this interesting stage of our national
existence, it comes to us accompanied with incidents cal
culated to make a powerful and lasting impression. The
dawn of the fiftieth anniversary of independence beamed
upon two venerable and illustrious citizens, to whom, under
Providence, a nation acknowledged itself greatly indebted
for the event which the day was set apart to commemo
rate. The qne was the author, the other "the ablest ad
vocate," of that solemn assertion of right, that heroic defi
ance of unjust power, which, in the midst of difficulty and
danger, proclaimed the determination to assume a separate
and equal station among the powers of the earth, and
declared to the world the causes which impelled to this
decision. Both had stood by their country, with unabated
ardour and unwavering fortitude, through every vicissitude
of her fortune, until " the glorious day" of her final triumph
crowned their labours and their sacrifices with complete
success. With equal solicittide, and with equal warmth of
patriotic affection, they devoted their great faculties, which
had been employed in vindicating the rights of their coun
try; to.constfuct for her, upon deep and strong foundations,
the solid edifice of social order and of civil and religious
freedom. They had both held the highest public employ-
3 *' '

18
ments, and were distinguished by the highest honours the
nation could confer. Arrived at an age when nature seems
to demand repose, each had retired to the spot from which
the public exigencies had first called him — his public
labours ended, his work accomplished, his beloved country
prosperous and happy — there to indulge in the blessed re
trospect of a well-spent life, and await that period which
comes to all. But not to await it in idleness or indifier-
ence. The same spirit of active benevolence, which, made
the meridian of their lives resplendent with glory, con
tinued to shed its lustre upon their evening path. Slill
intent upon doing good, still devoted io the great cause of
human happiness' and-impcovement, neither of these illus
trious men relaxed in his exertions. They seemed only to
concentrate their energy, as age and increasing infirmity
contracted the circle of action, bestowing, without ostenta
tion, their latest efforts upon the state and neighbourhood
in which they resided. There, with patriarchal simplicity,
they lived, -the objects of a nation's grateful remembrance
and affection ; the living records of a nation's history ; the
charm of an age which they delighted, adorned and in
structed by their vivid sketches of times that are past ; and,
as it were, the embodied spirit of the revolution itself, in
all its purity and force, diffusing its wholesorae influence
through the generations that have succeeded, rebuking
every sinister 'design, and invigorating every manly and
virtuous resolution.
The Jubilee came. The great national commemoration
of a nation's birth. The fiftieth year of deliverance from
foreign rule, wrought out by the exertions and sufferings
and sacrifices of the patriots of the revolution. It found
these illustrious and venerable men, full of honours and
full of years, animated with the proud recollection of the
times in which they had borne so distinguished a part, and
cheered by the beneficent and expanding influence of their
patriotic labours. The eyes of a nation were turned to-

19
wards them with affection and reverence. They heard the
first song of triiimph on that memorable day. As the
voice of millions of freemen rose in sounds of gratitude and
joy, they both sunk gently to rest, and their spirits departed
in the midst of the swelling chorus of national enthusiasm.
Death has thus placed his seal upon the lives of these
twro eminent men with impressive solemnity. A gracious
Providence, whose favours have been so often manifested
in mercy to our country, has been pleased lo allow them an
unusual length of life, and an uncommon continuance of
their extraordinary faculties. They have been, as it were,
united in death, and they have both, in a most signal man
ner, been associated with the great event which they so
largely contributed to produce. Henceforward the names
of Jefierson and Adams can never be separated from tVe
Declaration of Independence. Whilst that venerate<" in
strument shall, continue to exist, as long as its sacref' spirit
shaU dwell with the people of this nation, or the .^^^ insti
tutions that have grown out of it be preserved a^^ respect
ed, so long will our children, and our childre/° '^'liWren to
the latest generation, b]ess the names of the^ ^^i' illustrious
benefactors, and cherish their memor^^™ reverential
respect. The jubilee, at each retu;^'' will bring back,
with renovated force, the lives and f^^ deaths of these dis
tinguished men ; and history, wj^ the simple pencil of
truth, sketching the wonderful r/ncidence, will, for once
at least, set at defiance all 0^ -powers of poetry and ro
mance. ' ;
The dispensation whic> ^as thus connected itself with
the first jubilee of our independence, mingling with our fes
tivities the parting b^'^^'^i'^ti"'*' ^^^ ^^^ ^^^^ farewell of
our two illustrious /Ountrymen, cannot fail to bring with it
the most serious /eflections. Marked, as it is, by such an
extraordinary ^incidence, methinks it seems to announce,
with solemn emphasis, that henceforward the care of theii'
great work is committed to our hands ; that we are to guard,

20
to protect, and to jareserve the principles and the institutions
which they, at such an expense, have established for our
benefit, and for that of our posterity; and, may I not add,
for the common benefit of mankind. Of the signers of the
Declaration of Independence, but one now remains. Health
aud peace to the evening of his days ! The single repre
sentative on earth of the Congress of 1776, he seems to stand
between two generations, and to be the visible link that
still connects the living with the mighty dead. Of all, in
deed, who had a part in the achievement of independence,
¦" whose counsels aided, or whose arms defended," few and
feeble are they who survive. Day by day their numbers
are reduced ; yet a Httle while, and they will have followed
ft^eir illustrious compatriots. Not a footstep will be heard
thrknghout this land, of all who rushed to danger in their
countsy's cause, — not an eye will beam, that borrowed
propheV light from afar to illumine the hour of darkness, —
not a heatf vvill beat, whose pulsation was quickened by
the animatiixr hope of a glorious triumph.
To this effe^ ¦v\'e are admonished by the event we are
met to commemWe. Here then let us pause ! The point
of time at which v\%ave arrived, marked by a concurrence
of circumstances so iKoressive, demands our earnest atten
tion. It stands forth, IVpeat, with commanding dignity,
and seems to say, Behold\fifty years have gone by. The
altar of freedom raised b^your fathers— the sacred fire
they lighted upon it— are no\ at the appointed time, de-
Ivered to you. To you belong the great trust of their
preservation, until another gener^^n shall in turn succeed
,to occupy your places, from you .to -eceive the invaluable
deposite, and with it to receive its gua^jan spirit, the spirit
of. the revolution. Shall we, my friends t^jd fellow citizens,
be able to acquit ourselves of this high tr^t 1 Shall the
next jubilee find the altar pure and undefilel, the fire still
burning with a steady flame 1 And shall ever) succeeding
jubilee, like that which has passed, be at once an evidence

21
and an acknojvledgment of the continuing efficacy of the
great truths promulgated in the Declaration of Indepen
dence ? These are indeed affecting questions.
To commemorate the event which has here brought us
together, aud at the same time to invigorate our virtuous
resolutions, let us, for a moment, look back upon the lives
of our two illustrious fellow citizens, who walked hand in
hand through the struggle of the revolution, and hand in
hand have descended to the tomb, as if, with one voice, to
deliver their parting blessing to their beloved country..
Mine is not the task of the biographer or the historiart.
I am not to enter into a detail of their lives, nor to attempt
to spread before you a history of the great events in which
they acted. These are for abler hands, for ampler, opportu
nity, and more extended labour. Nor is it at all consistent
with the duty I owe to the occasion, or to you, if it were in
accordance with my own inclination, or within the scope of
my humble capacity, to disturb the harmony of feeling that
prevails, by attempting a cpmparative estimate of their
uncommon merits. It is not my office, nor is it your desire,
to weigh them against each other — to bring them into con
flict, when death has sealed for ever the friendship which,
in their latter years, they so delighted to cherish. A rapid,
and it necessarily must be a hasty and imperfect sketch
of some of the principal points in their public career, will
l^e sufficient to show how strong is the claim of both to our
warmest admiration, smd to our most afiectionate gratitude.
Extend to me your indulgence, of which I stand so much in
need, while, in obedience to your commands, I endeavour,
however feebly, to present such a sketch.
' The attempt of Great Britain to visit these colonies with
an exercise of power inconsistent with their just rights,
found our two eminent fellow citizens, each in his native
state. Mr. Jefierson, a young man, already a distinguished
member of a legislature, which has never been without the
distinction of patriotism and talents. Mr. Adams, a few

22
years older, successfully engaged in the practice of the law,
with established reputation and extensive influence. They
were among the first to discern the character of this arro
gant attempt ; to rouse their countrymen to a sense of the
danger of submission ; to animate them to the assertion of
their rights ; and to embark, fearlessly, in resistance to the
first approaches of arbitrary power. They did not hesitate.
They never paused to count the cost of personal sacrifice,
but, with a resolution as determined as it was virtuous,
placed at once their lives, their fortunes, and all their hopes
upon the issue of theiir country's cause.
When these colonies, for mutual support and counsel,
resolved to convene a general Congress, Mr. Adams was
appointed one of the deputies from Massachusetts. He
took his seaton the 5th of September, 1774, the memorable
day of the first meeting of that august assembly, whose acts
then were, and since have been the theme of universal ad
miration. Indeed it may be truly averred, that as long as
wisdom, constancy, unconquerable resolution, — as long as
patriotism, and contempt of every danger, but that which
threatens one's country — as long, to sum it all up at once,
as generous and disinterested devotion, guided by talents of
the highest order, shall be esteemed among men, so long
will the old Congress continue to retain the first place
among human assembUes, and spread its lustre over the age
in which it acted.
, In this same body, Mr. Jefierson took, his seat on the Slst
June, 1775, elected a deputy from Virginia, in the place of
Peyton Randolph. Of the estimation in which Mr. Jefier
son was held, in that more than Roman Senate, though still
a young man, probahly the youngest in Congress, sufficient
evidence will presently appear. But in the mean time let
me mention to you a fact which preceded, a few days, the
coming in of Mr. Jefierson, and deserves to be remembered
with gratitude to his illustrious associate, it was John
Adams, who, on the 15th June, 1775, nominated George

23
Washington, " to command all thccontinental forces raised,
and to be raised, for the defence of American liberty." It
was upon that, nominatipn the father of his country was
unanimously elected. How many reflections are here ex
cited ! But we must not now indulge in them.
This interesting circumstance does not appear on the
printed Journals of Coagress. It would seem to have been
the practice not to give the names of those who made either
nominations or motions. But it is stated upon the most re
spectable authority, whence also are derived some particu
lars which it may not be uninteresting to mention. The
person who had heen previously thought of for this high
station, was General Ward of Massachusetts. As he was
of the same colony with Mr. Adams, it must have been a
sacrifice of feeling thus to pass him. by. He generously and
readily made it to advance the great, good cause. A stri
king example of disinterestedness ! — Washington, not aware
of the intention of Mr. Adams, was in his seat in Congress
at the time of the nomination. The instant it was made,
he rose and left the hall. A beautiful instance of unaflect-
ed modesty !
But we must not dwell too long on these particulars,
however delightful and refreshing. The mareh of events
was rapidly disclosing the important truth, that submis
sion, unconditional submission, or victory, were the only al
ternatives. Already had blood been shed at Lexington, at
Concord, and at Bunker's hill. Already had the freemen.of
America, as if guided by a. common impulse, met the vete
ran troops of Great Britain in the field, and encountered
theni with a deterinined courage which nothing but a deep
conviction of their rights could have inspired. Already too,
as we. have seen, had the Congress appointed the immortal
Washington to command the troops raised, or to be raised,
for the defence of American liberty. Already had they de
clared with the utmost solemnity, " We have counted the
cost of this contest, and find nothing so dreadful as volunta-

24
ry slavery." Our cause was arnaed with the triple armour
of justice ; but as yet it wanted, perhaps, a more definite
purpose, a visible standard and a character that should
give us a station among the nations of the earth.
On the 7th June, 1776, resolutions were moved respect
ing independence.* On the 10th June, a coinmittee of the
whole reported a resolution ; " That ' these united colonies
are, and of right ought to be, free and. independent states ;
that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British
crown ; and that all connection between them and the state
of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved." On
the same day the consideration of this resolution was post
poned to Monday, the first of July ; and it was resolved,
" that in the mean while, that no time be lost, in case the
' Congress agree thereto, a committee be appointed to pre
pare a declaration to the effect of this resolution." On the
following day a committee was appointed, of which Mr.
Jefierson was the first named, and Mr. Adams the second.
The remainder of the committee were Dr. Franklin, Mr.
Sherman, and R. R. Livingston. The duty of preparing
the draught was by them committed to Mr. Jefferson and
Mr. Adams. Thus were they associated in that immortal
labour. On the 2d July, the resolution of independence
was adopted, and on. the ever memorable 4th July, 1776,
the declaration reported by the committee, with some
slight alterations, was agreed to and promulgated. It is
now a nation's creed.
There is a point of resemblance, in the lives and charac
ters of these illustrious men, which must not be overlooked
in its bearing upon the present subject. To the natural
gift of great talents, they had both added the advantages of
constant laborious culture. They came forward, disci
plined and prepared by previous study, for the service and
* The motion was made hy Richard Henry Lee, in pursuance of instruc
tions froiji the Convention ofVirginia, and is understood to have been in the
terms reported by the committee ofthe whole.

25
the ornament of their country. The deep and extensive
learning of Mr. Adams is familial:, to a;ll, and none of us are
ignorant of the varied and uncommon acquirements of Mr.
Jefferson. The late venerable Charles Thompson, a chron
icle of the times of the revolution, has told me^ that he well
remembered the first appearance of Mr-. Jefferson in Con
gress; that he brought with him the reputation of great
at,tainme!nts, particularly in politi(;al ^cienc^, whiqh he
always well sustained. They had both diligently studied
the history of man and of government. The examples of
generous devotion in ancient times, inspired their hearts
with lofty patriotism. The records of ages since, showed
them how accident, and fraud, and force, had sunk- the
great body of mankind under grinding oppression, justified
a I length by inaxims essentially false, but vvhich the solita
ry speculations of writers, however undeniably true,, were
unable to cofrect. Here then, with prophetic wisdom they
perceived, and blessed be God who put it jhto their hearts
to perceive — ^herg; they perceived was the great . occasion
which the patriot and philanthropist had rather wished
than hoped for, at once to fix the end and aim of the revo
lution by raising the standard of the rights of man.
It vyas no longer a mere contest for separation. National
independence was indissolubly connected with civil and
religious liberty. The same venerated instrument that
declared our separation from Great Britian, contained also
the memorable assertion, that " all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain un-
alif nable rigJits, and that to secure these rights governments
are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from
the consent of the governed." This was the text of the
revolution — the ruling vital principle — the hope that ani
mated the patriot's heS.rt, and nerved the patriot's arm,
when he looked forward tht-ough succeeding generations,
and saw stamped upon all their institutions, the great prin
ciples set forth in the Declaration of Independence. It is
,4

26
not a charter — we hold by no charter. Freedom is coeval
with our national existence, derived to us from no man's
grant or concession, but ^eceived from the Author of our
being, and secured by the valour, and toil, and blood of
our ancestors.
These sacred principles, thus solemnly inscribed upon
the banner of the revolution, are still bome aloft by the
strength of increasing milKons. They have not been defac
ed nor obliterated, nor even their lustre dimmed, by lapse
of time or cliange of circumstances. When the war of the
revolution was ended, and the god of battles had crowned
our country's cause with victory, the gallant soldier .who
had endured every privation, and exposed himself to every
hazard in the field, laid down his arms in submission to their
acknowledged authority. An armed nation which had
conquered peace in a seven years war, was changed in an
instant into a nation of citizens; and the men who had
fought and bled in the cause of their country, were seen in
the walks of private life, confessing by their conduct, their
voluntary allegiance to the truths which had been pro-
clairfied onthe great day of independence.
When, from the experience cf a few years, the inefficacy
of tbe articles of confederation had been demonstrated,
these sacred principles were solemnly reiterated in the
introduction of the Constitution of the United Slates. They
are the basis of every state constitution : and, like the air
that we breathe, they belong to our very existence. He
would be justly deemed an apostate, and a traitor, who
should seek to destroy or weaken them. He would be held
up to opprobrium and scorn, as the enemy of his country,
and the enemy of mankind.
Nor has their kindly influence been confined to our own
country. Throughout the world, the friends and advocates
of human freedom and of human rights, have found conso
lation and encouragement in the example thus set before
them. The standard was raised for ourselves — but itwas

27
raised on high, and it has floated in triumph, visible to the
nations of the civilized world, for their assurance that man
is competent to self government. Long established error
has been rebtiked by their practical ^excellence. Systems
apparently consolidated by ages, have been modified by
their influericci A knowledge of the rights of man has
been universally disseminated. Whenever and wherever,
by any crisis in affairs, the pepple for a moment recover a
portion of their lost power, their' eager demand is for the
acknowledgment of first principles in written constitutions.
Whenever a sovereign, alarmed by foreign menace or pres
sure, weuld rouse his people to uncommon exertion, he
appeals, not to the obsolete errors which he loves too well
to renounce whilst . their preservation is possible ; but,
in such an exigency, he is obliged , to speak to their own
sense of their own rights, arid to promise to secure them by
wfittenconstitiitions. This We have witnessed in our day.
Monarcjis and their subjects have marched forth together
under this assurance, animated with unwonted eiiergy.
The last, the greatest; the most powerful incentive to vigor
ous exertion, has been found in that knowledge which the .
principles of the Declaration of Independence have diffused
so. extensively. Such promises, it is true, have often
proved delusive. " Ease would.retract vows made in pain."
But the knowledge exists — the feehng is there — it cannot
again be smothered or subdued. It will go on, conquering
and to conquer. At this moment, such has been its mighty
progress, that no man will dare to assejr t, even though a
princely diadem surround his brow,, what, fifty years ago it
would have been thought . impious to, dispute. That "go
vernments are instituted for the benefit pf the people," is
already established^-" that they, derive their just powers
from the consent of the governed," cannot fail soon to fol
low, to the utter extirpation oi. the, absurd heresy of the
divine right of kipgs. In this hemisphere, a " fraternity of
freedom" has been founded. The colonies of Spain, afflict-

28
ed by ages of oppression, have looked upon the standard of
our revolution, and been healed. They have achieved
their independence ; and have taken their station among
the powers of the earth, as members of a fiimily of free
republics. Such has already been the spread of the light
which issued from yonder hall, on the fourth July, 1776.
In contemplating the part which these illustrious men
performed in the great work of that day, it is delightful to
recur to the generous and conclusive testimony they have
borne to each other's merits. Of Mr. Jefierson, Mr. Adams
says " he . came into Congress in June, 1775, and brought
with him a reputation for literature, science, and a happy
talent for composition. Writings of his were handed about,
remarkable for their peculiar felicity of expression. Though
a silent member in Congress, he was so prompt, frank, ex
plicit, and decisive on committees, (not even Samuel Adams
was more so,) that he seized upon my heart" Of Mr.
Adams, Mr. Jefferson says, ina letter, written in 1813, to an
artist, who was about to engrave the picture of the Decla
ration of Independence, " N^o man better merited, than Mr.
John Adams, a most conspicuous place in the design. He
was the pillar of its support on the floor of Congress — ^its
ablest advocate and defender against the multifarious at
tacks it encountered." Assaults it did encounter — resist
ance it did sufler — ^not from the enemies only of our coun
try, but from her most sincere friends. The timid were
alarmed; the minds of men of ordinary constancy were
po^essed with doubts and hesitation, at this final and
irretrievable step. Heroic courage and patriotism were
what the occasion demanded, and what — let us be thankful
for it ! — the occasion found. We have seen that the reso
lution engaged the attention of Congress, from the 7th June,
when it was moved, to the 2d Jaly, when it was adopted,
,'The arguments in Congress," says the late venerable
Governor M'Kean, a man of jrevolutionary stature and
strength, himself one of the signers of the deelaration, "The

29
arguments, for and against the Declaration of Independence,
were exhausted, and the measure fully considered." And
so they, doubtless, were, with all the deliberate grav^ity and
solemn earnestness which the momentous occasion required.
It was, indeed, a fearful question. At the last moment,
when the'question was about to be put, a celebrated mem
ber of the Congress, of undoubted patriotism, a maif whose
memory is still cherished with grateful afiection for his
c6ntributions to the service and the honour of his country,
rose and spoke against it. " He stated the consequences
in alarming colours." Silence and doubt ensued. • John
Adams, "the pillar of its support," as Mr. Jefferson has
styled him, rose in reply. His fervid eloquence silenced
every doubt. The question was settled, and the vote of
the states was unanimous. In what language he made this
last and powerful appeal, we may judge from- the trium
phant burst of patriotic exultation and pious emotion with
which he wrote to a friend on the following day.* " Yes
terday the greatest question was decided that was ever
debated in America ; and greater, perhaps, never was or
will be decided among men. A resolution was passed,
vvithout one dissenting colony, ' that these United States
are, and of right ought to be, free and independent states.'
The day is passed. The 4th July, 1776, willbe a memor
able epocha in the history of America. I am apt to believe
it will he celebrated, by succeeding generations, as the
great anniversary festival. It ought to be commemorated
as the day of deHVefance, by solemn acts of devotion to Al
mighty God. It ought to be solemnized with pomp, shows,
* There can be no doubt that the date ofthe letter was the 3d July, 1776, *
though, in recent pubUcations, it has appeared with the date ofthe 5th. The
resolution of Independence was adopted ou the 2d July — tlie declaration Was
not agreed to till the, 4th. The former is the " resolution" referred to by Mr.
Adams. Inattention to this distinction has probahly led to the change of date
in tlie printed copies. The error is pointed out, and correcled in a very sa
tisfactory manner, in the Democratic Press ofthe I2th instant

30
games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations, from
one end of the continent to the other, from this time forward
for ever. You will think me transported with enthusiasm,
hut I am not. I am well aware of the toil, and blood, and
treasure, that it will cost to maintain this declaration, and
support and defend these states; yet, through all the gloom
I can sie the' rays of light and glory. I can see that the
end is worth more than all the means ; and that posterity
will triumph, although ydu and I may rue, which I hope
we shall not." '
Tbe authorship of the splendid record we have been con
sidering belongs to Mr. Jefferson. To him is justly due the
merit of preparing a paper, which has elevated the national
character, and furnished a perpetual source of instruction
and delight. That Mr. Adaras^ his colleague, entered
deeply into his sentiments, is equally certain. To the last
he retained his attachment to the original dra-ught prepar
ed by Mr. Jefferson, arid thought it had not been improved
by the slight alteration it underwent, in expunging a few
passages or parts of passages.
Placed T3y their talents and virtues in this elevated and
commanding position, these two distinguished champions of
the rights of their country and the rights of mankind, were
thence-forward looked to for every ardrious service. In
December, 1777, Mr. Adams was appoinled a comniissioner
to France, an appointment, as all who are acquainted with
our history well know, of great hazard, but of the highest
importanCei Struggling for existence, with comparitively
feeble means, against a powerful enemy, who assumed the
tone of. an insolent and vindictive master, but struggling
with a constancy of resolution, which already conciliated
the regard of nations, our country looked abroad for counte
nance and aid. But the fleets of England covered the
ocean; and the tower, where Laurens was so long confined,
with no prospect beyond it but the scafibld, was the almost
certain reward of the daring rebel (for so they would have

31
styled him) who should fall into their power. This hazard
ous employment he instantly and fearlessly accepted. He"
embarked soon after, and, through many imminent perils,
arrived in safety. Of tjie signal advantages derived from
that commission you are well aware. A treaty was made
with France; and, in the year 1778, our great countryman
Franklin was received by ihat nation as the acknowdledged
minister of a sovereign and independent power.*
Mr. Adands , was afterwards sent to Holland, where he
successfrilly negotiated a loan.
Whilst Mr. Adams was serving his country abroad, Mr.
Jefierson was rendering equal service athome. Being elect
ed governor of Virginiar, he gave the most effectual aid to
the cause of the revolution. This rests upon no doubtful or
, questionable anthority. Twice, in ;the course of tbe year
1780, were resolijtioris adopted by Copgress, approving his
conduct, in aiding their military measures in the south. In
the same year Congress instructed a. committee " to inform
Mr. Adams of the satisfaction they received from his indus
trious attention to the interests and honour of these United
States abroad." Thus did they both deserve, and thus did
they both receive, the highest rewards that could be bestow
ed uppn them; ¦ '
Not to fatigue you by too much detail, let me simply men
tion, that Mr. Adams Was appointed s6le commissioner to
negotiate peace with Great Britain in 1779,^that he Was
one of those who negotiated the provisional articles of peace
with'Great Britain in, November, 1782, — ^who made the
arriai^tice fdr the cessation of hostilities in Januaty, iTSSj-^—
* The treaty was signed at Paris, the 6th February, 1778, by B. Franklin,
Silas Deane, apd Arthur Lee. The. Congress of the United States, desired
the suppression ofthe llth .article, consenting in return that the 12th should
likewise be considered of no effect. The acts rescinding these two articles
were signied atParis, the 1st September, 1778, on the part ofthe United States,
by B. Franldin, Arthur Lee, and John Adams. iJoctor Franklin was appoint
ed Minister Plenipotentiary to France, on the, 14th September, 1778.

32 . "^
and who finally n^otiated the definite treaty of peace in
September, 1783.
The thirteen United States, sovereign and independent by
their own exertions and the favour of Providence, frOm the
fourth July, 1776, vvere now nniversally acknowledged as
such, and admitted by all to their place in the family of na
tions. They chose, for their two principal representatives
abroad, the illustrious raen whose death weare here met to
commemorate. Mr. Jefierson succeeded Dr. Franklin in
France ; Mr. Adams was sent to England. They were
joined also with>Dr. Franklin, in a plenipotentiary commis
sion to negotiate treaties of amity, commerce, and naviga
tion, with the principal powers of Europe.'
The first treaty with Prussia, the only fruit at, that time
of the commission, bears the names of Franklin, of Jefferson,
andof Adams. What a splendid constellation 6f talent!
Sufficient, of itself, to shed unfading lustre on a nation — more
than sufficient to' refute the exploded European doctrine df
the degeneracy pf man in America.
Our history frpm this period is familiar to you aH. When
the present constitution was framed, Mr. Jefferson was still
in France. Evef alive to the welfare of his beloved couri-i
try ; ever watchful of those sacred principles of human right,
which it bad been the labour of his life to vindicatle and
maintain, he looked with intense anxiety upon this inter
esting movement. To his suggestion,' it is understood, we
are indebted for the ten priginal amendments to the consti
tution, embodying such restrictions on the authority of Con
gress, and such assertions of the fundamental rights of the
citizen, as were thought necessary to the preservation of
the just power of the states, and the security of civil iand
religious freedom.
Upon the organization of our present government, the
voice ofthe nation assigned the highest place to Washing
ton. He was elected President of the United States. The
illt(strio)is men whom we now commemorate, were second

33
only to him, whp had ,np equal. The one was elevated by
the choice of the people ; the other by the choice of Wash
ington. Mr. Adams was elected Vice-President of the United
States; or rather,, let me sa.y, he was the second choice
for President. As the constitution then stood, two were
voted for as President, and he who had the smallest number
of votes was the Vice-President.
Mr. Jeflferson was called home by the father of his coun
try, to fill the high and arduous station of Secretary of
State. With what ability he performed its duties, at a
period of more than ordinary difficulty, I need not state ;
for it is stiff fresh in the recollection of most of those who
hear me.
A second time was Mr. Adams elected to the second
office in the country, Washington still filling the first.
Before.a third election came, the great father of his country
announced his determination to retire, bequeathing to his
countrymen, in a farewell address, his solemn injunctions
and advice, which ought for ever to remain engraven upon
their hearts. He thus set the example, now ripened into
an established limitation, that the highest office in the
government is not to continue in the same hands for a
longer period than two constitutional terms.
- In this great trust, in dignity and importance the greatest
in the world — the first magistrate of a nation of freemen,
the first citizen of a republic, 'selected, frorp millions by
their spontaneous choice-— in this great trust, Mr. Adams
succeeded Washington ; Mr. Jefierson having the almost
equal honour of being his chosen competitor. Mr. Jefferson
was elected Vice-President.
At the expiration of four years they were again competi
tors. After a contest, still, remembered for the eagerness
and warmth, I will not say the violence bf the parties
which then divided the United States, Mr. Jefferson was
elected President. Mr. Adams retired from public life.
5

31
Mr. Jefferson was a second time chosen to the same high
office. As the expiration of this term drew nigh, imitating
the dignified example of Washingtion, and, if possible,
strengthening its influence by his deliberate opinion, Mr.
Jefferson announced his intention to retire. He retired in
March, 1809.
Thus terminated the public employment, of these eminent
men. Thus did they take leave, as il were, of that coun
try, whose, welfare had so long engrossed their attention
and engaged their anxious labours. Is there a man who
would desire now to revive the recollection of the angry
feelings, and the warm contention, which prevailed among
their fellow citizens during a portion ofthe latter period of
their service? Is there a man among us, who, upon this
occasion, consecrated to the indulgence bf virtuous emotion,
would consent to disturb the harmony that breathes in the
common acknowledgment -to the illustrious dead ? To
obscure the glorious light of the revolution, by seeking to
render permanent every cloud that is raised in the gusts of
momentary excitenient? Let the truth be told. It is
replete with salutary counsel, and it exalts the character
of the departed sages. Be it, that they appeaMgd. to be
rivals. Be it, that they were, for a time, separated and
placed in opposition, the leaders of the two great parties in
the nation. Did they, therefore, love their country less 1
Where they less influenced by the sacred ardour, that ani
mated, their hearts in the darkest hour ofthe revolutionary
contest? Were, they not patriots stiff, the same lofty and
incorruptible patriots, who, on the 4th July, 1776, had
¦pledged " their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred hon
our V Did either of them admit a thought, or would either
of them, for all the honours the world could bestow, have
countenanced a design unfriendly to his country's interests ?
Let them answer for themselves, or rather let each answer
for the other. . The healing influence of time soon allayed
the little irritation which conflict had produced. They

35
looked upon their country, and they saw that she was
prosperous and happy. They saw, perhaps, that everi the
contests of party, angry as they seemed at times to be, yet
governed by the spirit of patriotism, were over-rijled for
her permanent advantage ; that eager discussion had
elicited truth, and the solid good sense of a reflecting peo
ple had seized and secured whatever was valuable and
worthy to be preserved. Both had triumphed in the triumph
of their country's welfare. The aged patriots felt that they
stiff were brothers. Their ancient friendship revived. No
thing remained but the remembrance of the scenes in which
they had acted so mighty a part. Nothing was heard from
either but heartfelt acknowledgements ofthe other's worth
and services. If it had been in the order of Providence to
permit -one of these illustrious citizens to v/itness the de-.
parture of his associate, the survivor would have been the
first whose honoured voice would have been heard to
pronounce the eulogy of the departed patriot".
To form an estimate of the merits and services of these
distinguished men, far more would be necessary than has
been now attempted, or the occasion will allow. I have
only selected for reflection some of the principal incidents
of their public lives. But let me remind you, that they are
characteristic incidents. Ifyou follow them into their re
spective states, if you follow them into their retirement,
whatever may be their employments or pursuits, they are
all stamped with the same ardent love of country, the same
unaffected reverence for the rights of mankind, the same
invincible attachment to the cause of civil and religious
freedom. Great are their names ! ' Honoured and revered be their
memory ! Associated with Washington and Franklin, their
glory is- a precious possession, enriching our annals, and
exalting the character of our country.
Greater is the bright example they have left us ! More
precious the lesson furnished by their lives for our instruc-

30
tion ! At this affecting moment, then, when we are as
sembled to pay the last tribute Of respect, let us seriously
meditate upon our duties, let us consider, earnestly and
anxiously consider, how we i^haH best preserve those signal
blessings which have been transmitted to us — how we shall
transmit them unimpaired to our posterity. This is the
honour which would have been most acceptable to these
iUustrious men. This is an appropriate mode of commem
orating the event we this day mourn. Let the truths of the
Declaration of Independence, the principles of the revolu
tion, the principles of free government, sink deep into our
hearts,, and govern aH our conduct.
National independence has been achieved, once and for
ever. It can never be endangered. Time has accumulat
ed strength with a rapidity unexampled. The thirteen
colonies, almost without an union, few in numbers, feeble
in means, are become in a lapse of fifty years, a nation of
twenty-four states, . boiind together by a common govern
ment of their own choice, with a territory doribled by
peaceful acquisition, with ten millions of free inhabitants,
with a commerce extending to every quarter of the world,
and resources equal to every emergency of war or peace.
Institutions of humanity, of science, ajid of literature, have
been established throughout the land. Temples haVe risen
to Him who created all things, and by whom all things are
sustained, not by the commands of princes or rulers, nor by
legal coercion, but from the spontaneous offerings of the
human heart. Conscience is absolutely free in the broad
est and most unqualified sense. Industry is free ; and
human action knows no greater control, than is indispen
sable to the preservation of rational liberty.
What is our duty ? To understand, and to appreciate
the value of these signal blessings, and with all our might
and strength, to endeavour to perpetuate them. To take
care that the great sources from which tl^ey flow, be not
obstructed by selfish passion, nor polluted by lawless ambi-

37
tion, nor destroyed by intemperate violence. To rise to the
fuH perception of the great truth, " that governments are
instituted among men to' secure human rights, deriving their
authority from the consent of the governed," and that with
a knowledge of our own rights, must be united the same
just regard for the rights of others, and pure affection for
our country, which dwell in the hearts of the fathers of
the revolution.
In conclusion, allow me to remind you, that with all
their doings was mingled a spirit- of unaffected piety. In
adversity they humbled themselves before Him, whose
power is almighty, and whose goodness is infinite. In
prosperity they gave Him the thanks. In His aid, invoked
upon their arms and counsels with sincerity of heart, was
their reliance and their hope. Let us also be, thankful for
the mercies, which as a. nation, we have so largely expe
rienced, and as often as we gratefully remember those illus
trious men to whom we are indebted, let us not forget
that their efforts must have been unavailing, and that our
hopes are vain, unless approved by Him ; and in humble
reliance upon His favour, let us implore His continued
blessing upon our beloved country.

DISCOURSE,
DELIVERED AT RUTGERS COLLEGE, ON THE FOURTEENTH
OF JULY, 1829.
GENTLEMEN OP THE PHILOCLEAW AND PEITHESSOPHIAN SOCIE
TIES, The occasion which has brought us together is cal
culated to awaken earnest .and anxious reflection. Youth
is the season of preparation for manhood. In a short time
those who are in a course of training for the duties of life,
will, in the order of Providence, succeed tp the charge
which is now borne by their seniors ; and distributed among
the varied employments of social and civilized existence,
be called by their own strength, each in his allotted sphere,
to sustain, preserve, and improve the advantages which are
derived t-o them from their predecessors. To fit them for
the task which is thus to devolve upon them, is the design
of all education.
In what manrier, and by what means this great design
may be most effectually accomplished — what are the me
thods most likely to aid in forming a wise and virtuous man,
an honest and useful citizen, is a question of great interesi,
which cannot be too deeply pondered. An eminent man
of antiquity has remarked, with equal beauty and force,
that " a state without youth, would be like a year without
the Spring." But what avails the Spring,' if its blossoms
perish withput producing fruit or seed ? If sporting for a
while in the gaiety of the season, and charming the senses
with their bloom and fragrance, they disappoint the hope
which forms their greatest value, and dwindle, fade and die,
as if they had never been ?

39
The insect obeys the law of its ephemeral existence ; it
spreads its wings in the sunshine, rejoices in a moment of
life, and then flutters and disappears. The brute animal
is governed by its appetites, and. guided by its instinct. It
is neither acquainted with its faculties, nor capable of im
proving them. The individual and the species, for suc
cessive generations, move on in their appointed course,
withput undergoing any sensible change, as little subject to
degeneracy from any neglect or folly of their own, as they
are able, by their , own efforts, to exalt or improve their
nature. They live, and they die — they sink into inanimate
matter, and are lost in. the uninformed mass.
But man is endowed by his Maker with moral and intel
lectual powers, which not only distinguish hJm from all the
visible creation, but absolutely separate him from any affin
ity with, it. His bodily frame is dust, fearfully and wonder
fully made ; but still a portion of inanimate matter, which
cleaves to the ground ! His bodily powers, his sensual pas
sions and appetites have their dwelling upon the earth, in
common with the animal creation. His intellect — his power
of" large discourse, looking before and after," — aspires to
communion with intelligence, and seeks its kindred beyond
the limits of this life. His animal nature may truly say to
the worm, " Thou art my brother, and to corruption. Thou
art my sister and my mother I" His intellectual and moral
faculties have no fellowship upon earth.
These faculties are the talent which his Maker has given
to man. By means of them, he is enabled to exercise do
minion over the parth, and to subdue it to his own enjoy
ment' and happiness. By their means too, it is intended
that he shall exercise dominion over the earthly parts of
himself — that he shall regulate the exercise of his corporeal
powers, subdue his passions and appetites, and live upon
the earth, as if he were not of the earth, enjoying the
bounties of Providence with cheerful gratitude ; doing good
to his fellow men, and exalting, by rational discipline, his

40 ' •
own character, and the character of his race. — This is his
greatest glory — this is his highest happiness — this is his
obvious duty.
The faculties which thus constitute the high and distin
guishing privilege of man, exalting, him above all that sur
rounds him, and placing him but " a little lower than the
angels," are progressive and iniproveable. It is true, also,
that the bodily powers are capable of some improvement.
But the measure of their growth is limited ; and, compara
tively, it is soon attained. — Their highest perfection seems
to continue but for a moment. The intellectual and moral
capacity, onthe contrary, flourishes more and more with
culture — becomes continually enlarged and invigorated,
and yields a daily and increasing harvest, even when th6
bodily powers are visibly declining.
When the bloom has forsaken the cheek — when the
beautiful smoothness of youth has yielded to the furrows of
age, and the step has begun to lose something of its elasticity
and biriskness^the cultivated and discipHned mind, nour
ished by wholesome food, and enlivened by exercise, is still
advancing in its career, extending the sphere of its benefi
cent influence, and, as it.were, supplying, by its own graces,
the ravages which time has made in the external form.
The light within, if duly trimmed and fed, continues to
spread its lustre with unabated, and everi increasing splen
dour, when the frame that encloses it has lost its freshness,
and begun tp grow dim from age.
But we must also remember, that these faculties are lia
ble to debasement and degenieracy. They wHl rust from
sloth and indolence — they will decay from want of exercise
and nourishment — and they will be smothered and destroy
ed, if subjected to the dominion of our passions and appetites.
Tkaf is an empire they cannot endure. They were in
tended to be masters — and they will not submit to exist as
slaves. The sluggard suffers the light of his intellect to go
out. The drunkard drowns and extinguishes it. The one

41
sinks into a state of calm brutality— the other, with frenzy
in his brain, resembles more a savage and maddened animal
rushing upon his own destruction, but dangerous to ctll who
are in his way. Both are guilty in the same kind, though
not in the same degree.. They destroy the chief talent
committed toman, and they degrade and dishonour "his
nature. . '
Ithas already been remarked, that the higher and nobler
faculties of man will not exist in subjection lo his sensual
nat.ure. They decline, decay and perish, unless they are
allowed to exercise the authority allotted to them by a wise
Providence. The' moment their just empire is successfully
invaded, ^they begin to languish' — resistance becomes gra
dually more feeble, until at length they are overpowered
and destroyed. , And Mihat then is the condition of the in
dividual? • Wisdom and virtue are synonymous, and happi
ness in their attendant revvard. Folly and vice, on the
contrary, not only lead to misery, but are sijre to be ac
companied by it at every step. In their first efforts to shake
off the wholesonie restif'aints of reason and conscience, they
have to maintain a painful conflict with Jhe accuser* within,
which constantly mars and disappoints their expected en
joyment. The poison is manifest in the cup, and they feel'
that it is there. They may throw off the rein of ireasoip and
conscience, but they will still suffer from the lash ! When
they have gained the victory, (as it mu§t be admitted they
may,) they haVe, subverted the natural empire which provi
dence had intended should be established,- and m the wild
misrule which foHows, the conquerors arp sure to be the
victims of the disorder and confusion they have created.
Vicious indulgence destroys the body as well as the soul.
It brings to an untimely end the very capacity for enjoyment.
Its food is its -deadly poison. Does the sluggard enjoy his
sloth 1 It is impossible. There is no rest wittf-out labour.
Unbroken idleness is more irksome than severe exertion ;
6

42
and it has no rehef . The diHgent man has delight in his
honest occupation, even though it be wearisome ; and he
rejoices in the repose which he earns by it. He, and he
alone, can duly estimate the force of the truth, that the
sab.bath is made for man ! He is thankful for the refresh
ment and rest it afiTords him ; whUe the habitual idler finds
that it only increases his weariness. Has the drunkard or
the debauchee any enjoyment ? He has scarcely taken one
"step in the delirious path, before he begins to totter, and
finds that by associating with vice, he has made a compan
ion also of disease. They fasten upon him together ; and
however he may for a while be deluded, he soon becomes
their conscious and degraded slave, the contempt of mtin-
kind gradually settling upon him,, and his own reason ap
proving the justness of their sentence. The base chains he
wears are of his own forging. His own are the pain and
the disgrace 'they inflict.
Self-denial and discipline are the foundation of all good
character — the source of all true enjoyment — the means of
all just distinction. This is the invariable law of our nature.
Excellence of every sort is a prize, and a reward for vir
tuous, patient, and well directed exertion, and abstinence
from vvhatever may encumber, enfeeble or delay us in our
course. The approach to its lofty abode is rightly repre
sented as steep and rugged. — He who would teach it must
task his powers — But it is a noble task! for besides the
eminence it leads to, it nourishes a just ambition, subdues
and casts off vicious propensities, and strengthens tlie pow
ers employed in its service, so as to render them continually
capable of higher arid higher attainments.
What mean the cheers which greet the ingenuous youth,
when he arrives at the high honours of a seminary of learn-
sng ? Why do the hearts of his parents swell with unu
sual gladness, and tears burst forth to telieve their almost
sufifocating joy? ^ Why is this epoch in Hfe marked, as it

43
every where is, with such intense and unabating interest ?
The race is not . ended — it is only begun. One stage is
reached, but another not less critical succeeds — and even
when that is passed in safety, the whole way of life is
beset with temptations and dingers, which reqUire all our
exertion, with the constant aid of a gracious Providence, to
resist and avoid. Why, then I repeat, this heartfelt rejoic
ing? It is not merely that he has acquired the portion of
learning which is taught in a college ; though that is of
inestimable value. It is. that the youth, whose powers have
thus been put forth and tried, has giyen a new earnest of
character, and a new , assurance of hope. His habits iare
measurably formed — his nobler faculties expanded — and his
future elevation, in some degree indicated, by the strength
of pinion displayed in his first flight.
As the mother's eye marks wiih inexpressible delight the
first steps of her child, and her ear catches, with thrilling
rapture, the music of his earliest effbtts tp utter articulate
sounds, imparting her joy to -the whole liousehold, and ma-
kingr as it were a family jubilee — so is the attainment of
the honours of a coHege naturally and justly regarded with
deep emotion. It fixes an important period in what may
be termed the infancy of manhood, demonstrating the exis
tence of a capacity for usefulness, and for further and high
er honours. Happy are the youth who enjoy the opportu
nity' of a Hberal education — happier still, are they who dili
gently and successfully improve it !
It is not the design of this discourse to speak of education
in general — but only to make a few remarks upon what is
denominated a liberal education — that system of instruction
which is adopted in the higher seats of learning, and leads ,
to learned honours. Institutions of this description are ra
pidly increasing in every quarter of our country. If the
establishment' of numerous seminaries of learning is to be
regarded as an evidence of a corresponding increase ofde-

44
mand for Hberal education, founded upon a proper know-^
ledge of its nature, a just appreciation of its advantages,
and a fixed determination to uphold and e.ven to elevate its
standard, this circumstance must affprd the highest satis
faction to the scholejr, the patriot, and the philanthropist.
It will promote the cause of sound learning — it will advance
the honour of our country, and it will increase the happi
ness of mankind. That sUch may he its effect, every one
must ardently desire.
But it nrast be obvious at the same time, that these ad
vantages are only to be gained by maintaining unimpaired,
and in all its integrity, the true character of the higher sem
inaries of learning. It is not their object to teach the sim
pler elements of knowledge. These must be first acquired
elsewhere, as an indispensable ^preliminary to admission,
Nor dp they profess, as a part Of the collegiate coUrse, to
qualify individuals for particular employments in life. This
is a matter of subsequent acquisition, frequently not decid
ed upon till after the college studies are ended.
The design of a coHege, as it has been well said, is, " tolay
the foundation of a superior education ;" not to teach fully
any particular art or science, but to discipline, the intellec
tual powers, and to store the mind with such knowledge as
may lead to further attainments^ and be useful in any ofthe
occupations or pursuits which are likely to be the lot of
those who have the advantage of a collegiate education.
In a word, lo place distinctly before the student the high
objects to be aimed at — to teach hini how they are to be
attained^to stimulate him by worthy motives — and, after
unfolding to him his own powers, and the mode of employ
ing them, to serid him forth with a gerierous and well direct
ed ambition, and an instructed and discipHned mind, to
follow out the course in which he has thus 'been trained.
Such a system, it must be evident, admits of no conces
sion to individual views or inclinations. It works by gene-

45
ral means, and ./or a general end. It proposes the same
instruction for aH ; the same discipline ; the same rewards ;
proceeding upon the assumed basis, that the plan thus adopt
ed is in itself the best calculated to produce the desired
general result. .
In Sparta, the education of youth was a public concern.
At an early age, children were taken from their parents,
and placed ynder the care of masters appointed by the state,
to prepafe^them, according to their notions, to become good
citizens. , The ancient Persians and the Cretans adopted a
similar plari. With them too, education was a matter of
public ' regulation. Among the Athenians and Romans,
youth were not thus detached by law from the authority
and care of their- parents. But their' education was justly
deemed -tp be a matter of the highest importance, and con
ducted, no doubt, upon a general .system, adapted to their
manners and circumstances. Whatever opinion we may
entertain of the methods they adopted, and the erid they
proposed— however different rriay have been the character
intended to be formed, by the institutions of the Spartans
and the Persians, from that which modern education pro
poses to cultivate-^^yet there is one point which has the
sanction of their authority as well as the authority of suc
ceeding times-^that the educationof youth having reference
to a determined end, ought to be conducted upon 4 general
plan, and that plan the best that is attainable. fPr the end
proposed, and carried to the highest perfection of which it
is susceptible, It is not meant to be cpntended, that in mo
dern times, and in large communities, when there is so great
an' inequality in the condition of men, the highest education
is, or ever eari be within the reiach of aH, of- even of a very
considerable number. In our own country, favoured as it
is hy the' bounty of Providence, with advantages such as no
nation has ever beforeerijoyed, how many are there to whom
the benefits even of the humblest education are not extend-

46
ed ! Enlightened benevolence is happily exerting itself with
unwearied diHgence, to remedy this reproachful evil; and
it is fo be hoped, that the time will soon come,- when not a
chffd will be left destitute of the means of acquiring at least
the simpler elements of knowledge. This, however, is a
subject of vast extent and interest, upon which it is not in
tended now tp touch.
When, therefore, we speak of a " superior education,"
or a " liberal education," or, which ought to be equivalent,
a "collegiate education,'' we speak of that which has one
common purpose or object, and which of course is necessa
rily itself but one. That ,it is applicable ,to all the youth
of a country, whatever may bcf their condition or prepara-
tipn, or whatever maybe their future views in life, is what,
as already intimated, it is not intended to affirm., The
greater number cannot enjoy its advantages. ,' At the age
when the course of instruction in a college usually begins,
some are obHged to labour for their subsistence ; some are
condemried to lasting ignorance by the neglect, of parents"
or friends, or by the imperious force of , circumstances ; and
some are already fixed to' the occupations which are to
employ their maturer years. We would not be understood
by this reiriark to suggest, that superiority consists in the
advantages we possess — it is only in the use we make -of
them, foF which we are responsible, exactly in the propor
tion of their extent. All honest industry is honourable, as
well as useful. Nothing is disgraceful but idleness and vice ;
and: the disgrace they bring with them is greater or less, as
our opportunities have been more or less fayourable. In
the judgment bf mankind, as well as in the awful judgment
of Him from whom we have received. aH that we possess,
the improvement required of us is according to the talent
committed to our care. Much is therefore expected of him ,
who has the means of attaining the highest intellectual and
moral advancement. He is not to look down with a feeling

47
of pride, upon other employments or conditions of life, as if
they vvere inferior ; but coriiparing himself with the most
diHgent in each^ — to examine whether he has equally
with them improve'd the talents and opportunities vouch
safed to him — whether, in the race of honest exertion—-
the only generous competition that all can engage in — he
has equalled, or excelled them — whether he has better or
worse fulfilled the duty he pvves to his day and'generation.
The humblest labourer, vvho strenuously performs his
daily task, and honestly provides an independentsubsistence
for himself and his family, is inconceivably superior to the
sluggard and idler, though the latter may have had. the
opportunity of education in a seminary of learning.
There are some, who suppose that the business of in
.struction rnight be better adapted to the incliriati'ons and
views. of individuals — that each student ih a college might
be taught only that which hfe desires to learn, and be at
liberty to dispense with such branches of learning as ap
peared to him unnecessary or inapplicable, and yet receive
collegiate honours !, This is ari opinion which is perhaps
gairiing ground, and which, it cannot be denied, has been
adopted by several distinguished tnen,' and supported by
plausible arguments.
Education, in all its parts, is a concerri of so much conse
quence, so deeply and vitally interesting, that it ought not
to be exposed, without great caution, to hazardous experi
ments and innovations. Is it, then, susceptible of no
improvement? ; Ts the human mind, progressive upon all
other subjects, to be stationary upon this ? Shall not edu-
catipn be allowed to advance with the march of intellect,
and its path be illuniinated with- the increased' and increas
ing light of the age ? Or shall it be condemried to grope in
the imperfect twilight, whUe every thing, else enjoys the
lustre of a meridian sun ? These are imposing questions
which are not to be answered by ^ single word. Admit-

¦ .. • " 48
ting the general truth of that which they seem to assert,
namely, that education, in -all its departments, ought to be
carried to the highest attainable perfection, and that the
methods of reaching that point deserve our most anxious
and continued attention — it niust at the same time be appa
rent, that as long as the arguipent is merely speculative,
implying objections to existing methods of instruction, and
raising doubts about their value, without ofifering a distinct
and approved substitute, great danger is to be apprehended
from its circulation.
There is no doubt that improvement may be.made in the
seminaries of our country — there is no doubt that it ought
to be made — and it is quite certain that it requires nothing
but the support of enlightened public sentiment to bring it
intp operation. The improvement adverted to is improve
ment in degree — a better preparation for admission into
college — a somewhat later age, and of course more maltUre
powers— and, as a consequence, higher and more thorough
teaching. The result can not be secured, unless the means
are employed; and their employm.ent does not depend upon
those who are immediately entrusted with the care of the
instruction of youth. Professors and teachers would -un-
feignedly rejoice, in raising the standard of education — in
advancing their pupils further and further in the path of
learning — if parents, duly estimating its importance, could
be prevailed upon to afibrd them the opportunity — for they^
(unless totally unfit for their trust,) must be justly and con
scientiously convinced of the value of such improvement.
But their voice is scarcely listened to. By a prejudice,.as
absurd and unreasonable as il is unjust, they are supposed
to be seeking only to advance their own interest; and
^AeiV ¦ testimony is, on that account, disregarded; when,
upon every principle by which human evidence ought to be
tried, it is entitled to the highest respect. Their means of
knowledge are greater than those of other men. They learn

- 49 . .
from daily experience^they learn from constant and anxious
meditation — they learn from habitual occupation. It is theirs
to watch with parental attention, and with more than paren
tal intelligence, the expanding powers of the pupils commit
ted totheir charge. It is theirs to observe the influence of
discipline and instruction in numerous instances, as it ope-
1-ates upon our nature — and it is theirs, too, with parental
feeling to note the issues of their labours, in the lives of
those who have been under their charge — to rejoice with
becoming pride, when following an alumnus of the college
with the eye of affectionate tenderness, they see him steadily
pursuing a straight forward and elevated path, and becdm-
ing a gpod and an eminent man — and tp mourn, with un
affected sorrow, over those who have fallen by the way,
disappointing the hopes of their parents and friends, turning
to n?iught the cpunsels and cares that have been bestpwed
upon themi and inflicting pain and misery upon all who felt
an interest in their welfare. Experto cr'ede, is the maxim
ofthe law; and it is. no less the maxim of comnion sense.
Why is it; not to be appHed to the ease under consideration,
as it is to aH others, which are to be determined by evi
dence ? The sneering and vulgar insinuation sometimes
hazarded by those who find it easier to sneer and insinuate,
than to reason, that teachers, as a body, have a peculiar
• interest of their own, sufficient, upon questions which con
cern their vocation, to bring into doubt the integrity of
their judgment, and thus to make them incompetent to be
witnesses, if rightly considered, is not so much an insult to
this useful and honourable, and I may add, in general, faith
ful class of men, as it is to the parents who entrust them
With their thildren. What judgment shall we form of
fAefrintelHgence— what shall we say of their regard for
their offspring, if, at the most critical peripd bf life, they
place the forming intellect in the hands of men of more
than questionable integrity, to be fashioned by them into
7

50
fantastic shapes to suit their own purposes, or gratify their
own whims ? The truth is, that it is an appeal to ignorance^
which can succeed only with those who are imable or
unwiUing to think, and is employed chiefly for want of
solid argument.
The circumstances of our country, it must be admitted,
have encouraged and have favoured an early entrance into
life, and so far have been averse to extended education.
This cause has naturally, and to a certain extent, justifi
ably, induced parents to yield to the restless eageriiess of
youth, always anxious to escape from the trammels of disci
pline, and confide in the strength of their untried powers.
Pride, too, a false and injurious pride is apt to lend its as
sistance. Instead of measuring the child's progress by his
advancement in learning and in years, the parent is too
much inclined to dwell only upon the advance he has made
in his classes, and to note, with peculiar gratification, the
fact, that he is the youngest of the graduates. Often, when
it is evident to the teacher, that the pupil's lasting interest
woidd be promoted by reviewing a part of his course, the
very suggestion of being put back, is received as an affront,
and indignantly rejected, though offered from the kindest
and best considered motives. It is a mistake, a great mis
take. To hurry a youth into college, and hurry him out
of it, that he may have the barren triumph of extraordinary
forwardness, is to forget the very end and object of education,
which is to give him the fuH benefit of all that he can ac
quire in the period, which precedes his choice of a pursuit
for hfe. What is gained by it? If, as frequently happens,
he be too young to enter upon the study of a profession,
there is an awkward interval when he is left to himself; he
is almost sure to misapply and waste his precious time, and
is in great danger of contracting permanent habits of idle
ness and dissipation. But even should this not be the case,
of what consequence is it to him, that he shoald enter upon

51 i^^oi^
a profession a year sooner or later, compared witSdfi^fo^ "'* !
of the opportunity of deepening, and widening and strajjdh-^'l,.^"*X
ening the foundations of character, which are then to d&
laid in a seminary of learning. This opinion is not with
out decided support. Many intelligent parents have been
observed to adopt it 'in practice, voluntarily lengthening
out the education of their children beyond the ordinary-
limits. Such an improvement as has now been aiHuded to,
ought unquestionably to be aimed at. The progress of
liberal education ought to bear some proportion to the ra
pid advances our country is making in other respects, and
to, the character and standing which her wealth, her
strength, and her resources require her to maintain. It is
especially due to the nature of our republican institutions,
in .order to win for them stiff higher esteem with mankind,
that their capacity should be demonstrated, to encourage
and produce whatever is calculated to adorn and to improve
our nature, and to contribute our full proportion to the
great society of learning and letters in the world. It would
be much to be regretted, if the multiplication of colleges
were to have the contrary effect, of lowering the standard
of education, or of preventing its progressive elevation.
Let the competition among them be, not who shall have the
most pupils within their walls, but who shall make the best
scholars! But may there not be improvement in kind, as well as in
degree ? May riot the course of studies itself be benefi
cially altered, excluding some, which are now in use, and
adopting others which have riot hitherto been introduced
— changing the relative importance of different objects of
study — making those secondary^ which at present are prin
cipal, and those principal which are now, in spme degtee,
secondary— or, adopting a fiexible and yielding system, may
not the studies be accommodated to the views and wishes
of individuals, permitting each pupil to pursue those, and

52
those only, which be or his parents or friends may think
proper to select as best adapted to his expected plan of
life? It would be rash and presumptuous to answer that
such improvemeint is impossible ; and it Would be unwise,
if it were practicable, to'check or discourage the investiga
tion of matters so important to the vvelfare of man. The
subject is one which at all times deserves tbe most careful
consideration ; and the highest intellect cannot be better
employed than in examining it in all its bearings. But its
unspeakable importance inculcates also the necessity of
great caution. It is dangerous to unsettle foundations.
Doubts and objections to existing systems, without a plain
and adequate substitute, are calculated only to do mischief.
By bringing into question the value of present methods of
instruction,, they tend to weaken public confidence, to para
lyze the efforts of the teacher, and to destroy or enfeeble
the exertions of the student. A strong conviction of the
excellence of the end, is the indispensable incitement to the
toil of attaining it. Without this stimulus, in all its vigour,
nothing rational wiH be achieved. The love of ease, which
is natural to us all, will lend a ready ear to the suggestion,
that labour would be wasted ; and the inisguided youth,
doubting the usefulness of the task that is before him, and
expecting something (he knows not what) more worthy of
his zeal and energy, wHI be like the foolish man, who stood
upon the bank of a river, waiting for the water to run out,
and leave the channel dry for him to pass over.
Experimentum in corpore viii, is the cautious maxim of
physics. A generation of youth is of too great value to be
experimented upon ; and education is of too much conse
quence to hazard its loss, by waiting for the possible dis
covery of better methods. It is a great pubHc concern,
and should be dealt with accordingly ; untff a specific change
shaH be proposed, which, upon a deliberate and careful ex
amination, shall meet the acceptance of the greater part

53
of those who are best able to judge, so that they can con
scientiously, and with full conviction, • recommend it to
general adoption, as entirely worthy of public confidence,
let us cling to that which has been proved to be good.
Quackery is odious in all things, but in none more than in
this. Stare super vias antiquas, is a safe precept for all,
at least until a way be pointed out that is clearly and
demonstrably better,
Specula.tiop, however ingenious, is not knowledge-; nor
are doubts and objections to be entertained, where decision
is of such vital importance. Time is rushing on — Youth is
passing away. The nioments, that are gliding by us, will
never return. The seed time neglected, there wiH be no
good harvest. Poisonous and hateful weeds may occupy
the soil, which, under good, culture, would have yielded
excellent fruit. The craving appetite of youth must be
satisfied. If not supplied with sound and wholesome food,
it will languish for want of sustenance, or perhaps drink
in poison and destruction.* The brute animal, without
reason, is guided by an unerring direction, to the provision
made for its support, each individual obeying his own in
stinct, without aid or counsel or restraint from the others.
But man, excepting the direction he receives lo the beau
tiful fountain of nourishment, provided for the short period
of helpless and unconscious infancy, has no such determined
instinct. He has a large range, and a free choice. " The
world is aU before him, where to choose ;" and reason is
given, lo select for him that which is for his advantage.
Nor is the rational individual left'dependent upon his own
unassisted intelligence for his guidance. Until his faculties,
which are progressive, have arrived at a certain maturity,
it is iu the order of Providence, "that he should have the
benefit of the enlightened reason of his species impai;ted
to him, for his own s.ake, by parents, by teachers, by
friends, and by the counsels of the wise and ihe virtuous.

54
which he cannot enjoy but upon the terms of being sub
jected to their authority. It is theirs to lead him on his
way-^it is his to folbw , the path they point to. But if
the guide stand doubting and perplexed, .what will become
ofthe foHower?
That a collegiate education can be so modified as that
edch student may be permitted to choose his own studies
generally, or even to a limited extent, and yet receive the
honours of a college, is a proposition, which, to say the least
of it, must be deemed to he very questionable.
Without intending to occupy your time with any thing like
a discussion of this question, it may, nevertheless, be allow
able to remar,k, that the suggestion, however plausible in
itself, seems to be founded in an erroneous conception of the
nature of such an education. However it may be styled a
collegiate education — a superior education — a liberal edu-.
cation — it is stiH only a portion of preliminary education. It
is not designed, as has already been stated, to qualify the
student in a special manner for any particular profession br
pursuit — to make him a Divine, or a Lawyer, or a Physi
cian — but to aid in the development of all his faculties in
their just proportions ; and by discipline and instruction, to
furnish him with those general quahfications, which are
useful and ornamental in every profession, which are es
sential to the successful pursuit of letters in any of their va
rious forms, and, if possible, even more indispensible to the
security and honour of a life of leisure. Nor does it set up
the extravagant pretention of supplying tirn with a stock of
knowledge sufficient for all purposes, and sufficient for its
own preservation, without further exertion. It gives him
the keys of knowledge, and instructs him how to use them
for drawing from the mass, and adding to his stores. It
teaches him the first and greatest of lessons — it teache?
him how to learn, and inspires him at the same time, if it
succeed at aH, with that lovt of learning, which will invi-

55
gorate his resolution in the continual improvement of this
lesson. The momentum, if rightly communicated, and
rightly received, wiH continue to be felt throughout his life.
But it is unnecessary to dwell longer on. this part of the sub-
, ject, as it has lately received an ample and able exposition,
in a report made by the faculty of a neighbouring institu
tion,* whichj (if I may be permitted lo venture a judgment
upon the work of so learned a body,) does them the highest
honour. The suggestion under consideration would perhaps be en-,
titled to more respect, if in fact the destination of youth for
life always, or even generally, preceded their entrance into
college. But that, it is believed, is not the case. The fond
partiality of a parent may sometimes discern, or fancy it
discerns in a child, the promise of eminence in' some pecu
liar walk. But it would be unwise to decide finally, before
a decision is necessary, and before the subject is ripe for
decisiorJi. It is in the collegethat the youth has the last
trial with his equals. There his~ growing powers are more
fully exhibited, and placed in a clearer light. And there,
too, it often happens, that an inclination is disclosed, which
not being Unreasonable in itself, a prudent and affectionate
parent may think fit to indulge: The time of leaving
college would, therefore, seeni to be a much more suitable
occasion for decision than the time of entering it. But
even such a decision is not always unchangeable. How
many instances have occurred, of youth, who, after receiv
ing the benefits of a liberal education, have engaged in One
pursuit, and subsequently, with the approbation of their
parents and friends, have betaken themselves to another,
with distinguished success ! Several present themselves to
my recollection, and some of them of men who have attain
ed, and are now enjoying .the' highest eminence.
* Yale CoUege.

56
How often does it happen, much later in life, that men
are compeUed by circumstances, or constrained by a sense
of duty, to .change their occupatioris? It is precisely in
such instances that the advantages of. a liberal education
are most sensibly felt — of that early training, and general
preparation, which, not being exclusively intended for any
one pursuit, are adapted to many, if not to aH, and confer
lipon the individual a sort of universality of application and
power. In a moment like this, the m^ns which education
has supplied, come to our aid, like the neglected and almost
forgotten gift of an old, friend, hallowed and endeared by
the associations they bring with them. And in such a mo
ment, the individual who has not had the same opportunity,
most keenly feels the loss.
Nor must we forget that in this our country, every, indi
vidual may be called upon to' take a part in public affairs,
and' there to maintain his own character, and the charac
ter of the state or nation. And even should not this occur,
still he is to mingle in the intercourse of polished society,
.where his station in the esteem and respect of others, will
be assigned to him, according to the measure of his im-.
provement and worth, estimated by the scale of his oppor
tunities. Being, as it wete, a part of the Corinthian capital
of so(a.ety, he, will be unworthy pf his place, if he is desti
tute of the ornaments and graces that belong to his station.
But upon -the plan that is now in question, who is to
choose for the youth the studies he will pursue ? Surely it
cannot be gravely asserted, that, at the usual age of enter
ing into college, the choice ought to be left to himself. Why-
has Providence committed the care of cbildren to the af
fectionate intelligence of parents ? Why have human laws
provided for them tutors and guardians? Why. have
schools, and seminaries of learning been established, and
courses of education and discipline prescribed, but to give
them the benefit of that experience and knowledge which
they do not themselves possess ?

5T'
V To suppose that a youth, at such an age, is competent
to decide for hiniself what he wUl learn, and how much he
wHl learn, is lo suppose that he 'has. already had thfe expe
rience of manhood, under the most favpurable circum-
starices^:-— that he is competent to educate himself---nay,
that he is already educated — and instead of needing in
struction, is qualified to impart it to others. Is the choice
theri to*- be made- by parents ? To them it undoubtedly
belongs, as a right, to determine for their children, 'iyhether
they will, send them to college, or not — ;but there their
auihority terminates; It cannot be pretended that every
parent; or that any parent has, or ought to have, or can
have a right to decide upon the discipline and instruction
to be adopted in a. college, though he has the power of
withdrawing his child, if he think fit to dp so,
Admitting parents to be fully competent to resolve a
question of so much depth and difficulty^as many unques
tionably are — and adnjjtting, too, that their views are more
wisoiand accurate, and entitled to greater deference than.
.,,,« the collected and continued wisdom which has devised, and
which preserves the system in being, still it would be ob
viously impracticable to indulge them. There could not,
in such a case, be statutes or laws, or discipline, or system.
In short, thefe could be no government. To some, jt may
seem harsh, but it is beheved to be perfectly true, that
when a youth is once placed in a CoUege, selected after
due deliberation, the less interference there is on the part
of the parent, except in cases of manifest wrong done to
him, (which rarely or ever occur in our principal institu
tions,) and the more unreservedly the pupil is committed to
the authorities of the institution, the better it wiU be both
for parent and chjld.
Above aU things, a parent should sedulously guard
against ithiC. introduction of a doubt into the mind of a stu
dent, of the justice and necessity of the authority exercised
8

58
over him, or of the exceUence of the studies he is required
to pursue. Such doubts must inevitably produce insubor
dination and indolence, and will end in the disappointment
of his hopes. Enthusiastic and ardent zeal, an estimate
even exaggerated, of the excellence of a given pursuit,
amounting almost to folly in the judgment of by-standers,
are the needful stimulants to successful enterprize; No
thing great is achieved without them. The heart must go
along with the understanding. A strong passion must take
possession of the soul, inspiring it with warmth, and with
enduring energy, and uncoriquerable resolution ; so that all
its faculties may be fully and steadily exerted, and over
coming the vis inertiae of our nature, and deaf and blind to
the temptations that would seduce it, from its course, it may
press forward continuaUy towards the prize which is to be
the reward of its toils. Such ought to be the ffeelings of
the youth who is favoured with the opportunity of a liberal
education. Devotion to his studies, as excellent in them
selves, affectionate respect ,for his teachers, as faithful
guides and impartial judges, an honourable competition '
with his equals, in virtuous exfertiOn, and a cori^cientious
observance of the laws of the institu tion— these are the
habits which will lay a deep foundation for the structure of
future usefulness and eminence. The honours of the col
lege, their first fruits, and their just reward, aire the gra
tifying proofs of a capacity for further triumphs, and
constitute the richest, and most acceptable offering which
filial duty can present as an acknowledgment and requital
of parental care.
That part of a course of HberaL education, however,
which has been most frequently assailed, is the study of the
Greek and Rornan Classics'— what is emphatically called
Classical learning. Some have insisted that it ought to be
altogether excluded ; and others, that it does not deserve
to occupy so much of the time and attention of youth.

59
Mr. Locke, who himself enjoyed the full benefit of the trea.'
sures of ancient learning, seems to make a compromise of
the matter ; for whUe he admits that the languages may be
useful to those who are designed for the learned professions,
or for the life of a gentleman without a profession, he seems
to consider that they, as weH as philosojphy, are calculated
rather to have an injurious effect upon thfe general charac
ter, than otherwise. The broader ground of entire exclu
sion, however, as has already been said, has had its advo
cates. Many years ago, a distinguished citizen of the
United States, whose memory, let it be said, is entitled to
great veneration, ampng other- things fdr the example he-
gave of untiring industry and youthful vigour in his varied
pursuits, continued to almost the last day of a long hfe,
pubHshed an essay, in which, with his- usual ingenuity and
force, he contested the value of classical learning as • a
branch of education. Il appears from a subsequent pub
lication, by the same author, that this essay produced many
replies, and that, it also prodnced a complimentary letter
(now published with the essdy,) from a gentleman who is
stated to have been at that time the principal of an aca
demy. In this letter, after complimenting the author, the
writer proceeds as follows — ',' There is little taste for them
(the learned languages,) in this place. In our academy,
where there are near- ninety students, not above nineteen
are poring over Latin and Greek. One of these nineteen
was lately addressed by a student of arith|metic in the fol-
lovving language — ' Pray, sir, can you resolve me, by your
Latin, this question ? If one bushel of corn cost four shil
lings, what cost fifty bushels? A demand of this kind,
from a youth, is to me a proof of the taste of Americans in
the present day, who prefer the useful to the ornamental!"
This was surely an extraordinary triumph over the poor
Latanist, and a Very singular evidence of what the good
principal was pleased to call " American taste 1" Who

60
ever imagined that the study of the Greek arid Latin would
teach a boy the first rules of Arithmetic ? Or who was
ever absurd enough to contend that Greek and Latin were
to be taught tothe exclusion of th6 simplest elements of
pure mathematics ? They have their appropriate uses and
advantages; but they do not profess to be themselves the
whole of education, nor to accomplish every thing that is
desirable. They do not give sight to the blind, nor hearing
to the deaf, nor speech to the dumb ; but when these facul
ties exist in their usual perfection — as is happily t&e case
¦with the far greater part of mankind — and there is the
ordinary portion of talent, they furnish an occupation,
which is both useful and ornamental, which is not incon
sistent with the necessary attainments in mathematics, and
which may not only well go along with the acquisition of
our own language, but is deemed to be indispensable to its
accurate knowledge^ and highest enjoyment.
But however feeble was the commentary of the Princi
pal, and however ignorant was the argument of the "stu
dent of arithmetic," yet, for him, it was not in . a wrong
spirit. Arithmetic was his pursuit, and it was fit that he
should think well of it.— But the poor student of Latin 1
What could be expected from his labours in a seminary
where the study was systematically depreciated ; and the
head of it, frpm whom he was to look for encouragement
and assistance, gloried (conscientiously, no doubt,) in having
nearly expelled it from his school ? The teacher might?,
and probably did, endeavour to perform his duty ; but it
must have been coldly and heartlessly done. Instead of
breathing warmth and animation into the atmosphere, to
invigorate the tender plants entrusted to his care, they
must have been in imriniiient danger of being stunted in
their growth, by chiUing and withering indifference.
Of the opinions which have been mentioned, the one
proposing entirely to exclude the ancient languages from a

61
course of liberal instruction — and the other, 16 reduce the
time and attention devoted to them, it would be.difficult to
say, that as applied to this country, the pne is more to be
deprecated than the other. Are the languages overtaught
now ? Will they bear a rediiction ? The reverse is known
to be the fact. Compared with the teaching- in the Ger
man schpols, where the design is lo make scholars, compared
with the teaching in the schools of England, where the
design, in addition to this, is' to qualify, men for all the
higher employments of life, as weU as for a life without
particular employment, it can scarcely be, said that hpre
they are taught at all. Excepting in the profession of di
vinity, is it too Strong to affirm that there is scarcely such
a thing as scholarship ? And even in that professiori, how
many are there, in propoi'tion to the whole number en
gaged in its sacred duties, who would be able to encounter
a learned infidel with the weapons of ancient learning?
We have eminent lawyers — we' have distinguished physi
cians— -enterprising and intelligent merchants — and a fund
of general talent capable of the highest elevation in every
employment or pursuit of life. Occasionally we meet "with
one among them, commonly of the old stock, in whom is
discerned the elegant influence of classical literature.
But where are our eminent scholars ? Where are the
greater lights, ruling with a steady and diffusive splendour,
and vindicating their claim to, a place among the constel
lations \yhich shine in the firmament of learning ? Nay,
how few are there among us, of our best educated men,
who, if called upon to Turing forth their stores, would be
able to say with Queen Elizabeth, that they had " brushed
up their Latin," or would haye any Latin to brush up?
The truth is fhat this branch of study is alrfeady at the very
minimuni, if not below it. It will not bear the least reduc
tion. It positively requires to be increased in teaching, and
raised in public esteem. Classical learning neither falls in

62
showers, nor flows in streams. Here and there a sohtary
drop appears, sparkling and beautiful to be sure, like the
last dew on a leaf, but too feeble, without the support of
its kindred element, even to, preserve itself, and utterly
powerless to enrich or fructify the neighbouring soil. To
propose a reduction, is therefore equivalent, at least, to an
entire exclusion, if it be not worse. Less taught than it
now is, or less esteemed, the teaching, would be almost a
false pretence, and the learning a waste of time. It would
be as well at once to blot it from the course, and, as far as
in our power lies, to let the Greek and Latin languages
sink into oblivion, and be lost in profound darkness, like
that from which, by their Single power, they have once
recovered the world.
This would be a parricidal work for civilization and sci
ence. But if it is to be accomplished, the mode, is not what
is to characterize it as unnatural. Before we advance to
a conclusion of such incalculable importance, let us first
consider what it is, and then endeavour to be fully assured
that it is right. If it be once decided that the study of the
ancient languages can be dispensed with, in a collegiate
education, and the honours of a college obtained without it,
there is no difficulty in perceiving it must also be dropped
in the preparatory schools. Why begin it, if it is not lo
be pursued 1 Why take up time in acquiring what is after
wards to be thrown aside as rubbish, and forgotten ? For
gotten it inevitably wUI be, if it be entirely discontinued at
the time of entering college. By what motives or argu
ments will a boy be persuaded to apply himself to learning
in a Grarrimar School, -vvhat is not necessary to obtain for
him the hbnours of a coUege, and what he is distinctly told
will be of no use to him in life ? It is absurd to think of it.
The youngest child has sagacity enough to understand an
argument, which coincides with his own inclination, and to
apply it to the indulgence of his own natural }ove of ease.

63
Tell him that he might as well be unemployed, and,
without having ever studied logic, he wUl be very apt to
jump at once to the seductive conclusion of idleness.
These languages, lel it be rememberfed, have hitherto
not merely formed a part, they have been the very basis
of a liberal education. I might almost say they have been
education itself. From the revival of letters to the present
time, they have held this station, through a period ' of five
hundred years, not in one country only, but in all the civi
lized world. They gained it by their ovim merits, and they
have kepi it by their unquestionable success. Would it
be wise or prudent to cast them off, unless we were fully
prepared to supply the large space they have occupied, by
something equal, at least, if not superior ? This is no me
taphysical question ; ndr does the answer to it require the
peculiar povVers of Mr. Locke, mighty as they confessedly
were. It is eminently a practical question, which common
sense is fully able to decide. It may be stated thus ; edu
cation, having a given end, and a. certain plan of education
having approved itself during some hundreds of years, and
stUl continuing daily to approve itself lo be well suited to
attain that end, is it wise or rational to require that it shall
be vindicated upon original grounds, and be rejected like
a riovelty, unless' il can be justified to our complete satis
faction,, by arguments a priori t Of - what consequence
is the modus operandi if the desired result be attained?
That is a good time-keeper 'which keeps good time, no
matter how constructed. That is good food which is found
to nourish the body, whatever peptic precepts may say to
the contrary. And thats is good exercise, which gives vig
our and grace . to the limbs, even though a Chinese lady
might not be allowed to use it. Against such a fact, once
well' established, argumentative objection ought to be un
availing, or there is an end to aU just reasoning.
" "What can we reason, but from -what we know ?"

64
This proof is manifest, in respect to nations, as it is in
respect to individuals. It is astonishing, that Mr. Locke
could have entertained the'suggestion for a moment, that
the study of the languages and philoisophy was unfriendly
to the formation of prudent and strong character, wheri he
looked around upon his countrymen, and perceived, as he
must have done, that they arfe not less distinguished for
their attachment to these studies, than for what Mr. Burke
has called, " the family of grave and masculinfe Virtues."
Constancy, resolution, unconquerable spirit, a lofty deter
mination never under any , circumstances of, adversity to.
admit the betraying counsels of fear, were not more sig
nally exhibited by the ol,d Romans, when Hannibal,
triumphant, and seemingly irresistible, from the slaughter
at Cannae, was thundering at the gates of Rome, than they
have been by that nation, which Mr. Locke's genius has
contributed to illustrate' and adorn. This same study has
gone hand in hand with every profession and pursuit, refin
ing, exalting and dignifying therin all. Theologians, states
men, lawyers, physicians,, poets, orators, philosophers, the
votaries of science and of letters, have been disciplined and
nourished by it, and under the influence of its culture have
attained the highest excellence. The arts of life have, at
the same time," kept on with steady pace, so that the people
whom Cesar spoke of as, in his lime, " Britannos toto orbe
divisos," now, if not in all jespfects al the very head of the
European family, are certainly not inferior to any of its
members. Let those who cavil at a liberal education, and
those especially who question the value of the Greek and
Latin languages, ariswfer this fact. The tree cannot be
bad which produces such fruit. It is unphilosophical to
doubt the adequady of a cause to produce a. given effect,
when we see that the effect is constantly produced by that .
cause ; and it is unphilosophical to search for another cause,
when we have found one that is sufficient. If the study of

65
the ancient languages has been foundj by Jong experience,
to discipline and nourish the • inteUectual faculties, why
should vve doubt that it is efficacious -for that purpose ?
Why should we go about to- seek forsomething else, that if
it succeed will but answer the same purpose — and if it faff,
leaves us entirely destitute ? One will flippantly tell us
that it is spending too much time about words, which could
he better employed about things. The great British lexi
cographer -has unintentionally given some countenance lo
tbis notion, in the Preface of his Diclipnary. A man, who
had accompHshed such a labour, might be permitted, at its
close, to feel the departure of the spirit wliich had sustained
him in its progress, and in the pathetic melancholy of
taking leave, so eloquently expressed as almost to draw
tears from the reader, he might be allowed even to depre
ciate his own work, by admitting that " words are the
daughters of earth, and that things are the sons of heaven."
But even the authority of Dr. Johnson cannot be permitted
thus to degrade the pedigree of words, or diminish their
importance. Articulate sound is from heaven. Its origin
is divine. The faculty of speech is the immediate gift of
Him -^vho made us, and its destitution (which hi^..good
Providence sometimes allows to occur) is felt to be a
great calamity. Language — words — are the exercise of
this faculty, as thought is the exercise of the facnlty
of thinking. The one is worthy of improvement, as well
as the other — nay, we can scarcely conceive of their
separate ¦ existence, or their separate cultivation^and
hence the first step in the instruction of the dumb is to
teach them the use of language. Words without thought
are idle and vain. Thought, withput the power of expres
sing it, is barren and unproductive. " Proper words in
proper places," is the point we aff strive to attain; atid
this is what constitutes the perfection of th^ power of
communicating -with each other. It is true, therefore, that
"words are things;" and there is no better proof of it than
9

66
this, that the most . extraordinary, may I nol say the most
vulgar error sometimes obtains currency, by means of an
epi'grammatick sentence, by the mere charm of th'e colloca
tion of words. The fact is, that they occupy our attention
throughout our lives; and a greater or less command of
them is one of the chief visible distinctions that mark the
different orders of intelligence. The chUd is taught to speak,
to spell, and to read — the youth to declaim and to compose
— and the man strives perpetually to improve and perfect
himself in the use of language, by frequent exercise, and
the study of the best models. Demosthenes is said to have. ,
copied the history of Thucydides eight times with his own
hand, and to have committed the greater part of it to'
memory, merely to improve his style. His orations were
composed with the utmost care ; and they were retouched,
improved, and corrected with the minuteness of a Flemish
painter — even to the alteration of parts of words. He was
never satisfied lill he had given the highest possible finish
to his work. Was this an idle labour ? More than two
thousand years have since rollpd by ; and the language of
Athens, in the days of t)emosthenes, cannot be said to be
now spoken in the world. Yet is he confessed tp be the
undisputed master in his noble art. His orations, said by
a strong figure to have beeri as an earthquake in. ancient
Greece, still agitate the bosom which ' is sensible of the
powers of eloquence, and offer the bestmodel to its votaries.
Like the fine remains of the Grecian chisel, they stand in
severe, but beautiful and commanding simplicity, as if con
scious that their title to respect, being founded in nature
and in truth, though perfected by consummate still, was
equally available, in every age.*
^ * Cicero not only studied the Greek language, but to such ka extent as to
be able fo declaim in it, and to excite the strong but melancholy adrairation
of Appolonius. " As for you, Cicero," he said, after hearing him declaim in
Greek, " I praise and admire yoii : but I am concerned for the fate of Greece.

67
If it therefpre be conceded that the study of the ancient
languages is calculated ,to assist us in what is disparagingly
termed the learning of words, or, as it ought to be express
ed, in acquiring a good style— that it improves the taste,
and corrects the judgriient — this, though but a part of its
merits, wpuld go far to vindicate its right lo a place in
evei'y system of liberal education.
Sometimes it -is objected, as it was by the priricipal of an
academy, already quoted, that an acquaintance with these
languages is 'ornamental,' but not ' useful.' The meaning
. of this objection depends upon two words, which, appear-
^ ing to be exact, are notwithstanding, as ambiguous, per
haps, as any in our vocabulary. They are often used
without a definite sense in the mind of the speaker, and
very seldom with any certainty of the same understanding
on the part of the hearer. If it were nfecessary to endea
vour to be precise on this subject, we might be permitted
, to say, that in the opinion of many very intelligent people,
nothing is properly ornamental that is not in soriie way
useful. But when we -have thus disentangled ourselves of
one perplexing word, we are obliged- to 'encounter another.
What is useful, and what is not useful? Are mankind
agreed about it? By no means. How then are we to
determine what is useful ? The. answer seems to be this —
we are to arrive at a conclusion by considering man in his
various relations, and thence inferring, as we justly may,
that every thing is useful which contributes.to the improve
ment or the innocent gratification of himself or of others, or
qualifies him . more effectually or acceptably to perform
his duties. Does any one object to those exercises of
youth, which give a graceful carriage to the body ? Are
they not admitted to be useful ? And is it less, important to
She had nothing left her but the glory of eloquence ajjd erudition, and you
are carrying that too to Rpme."

68
give a graceful carriage to the mind? Are good manners,
the external gracSs, worthy to be cultivated, because they
give pleasure to others I And are the graces of the intel
lect to be entirely neglected 1 Is the - generous youth to be
told that nothing' is necessary but to be, able to compijte
the cost of fifty bushels of corn ? The proprieties and even,
tiie elegancies of life, when they do not run away with the
heart, nor interfere with the performance Of serious duties,
are well deserving our attention. But let it not be ima
gined, that in thus insisting upon the general argument of
experience — the greatest of all teachers — rin favour of
classical learning, or iri answering one or two particular
objections, it is meant -to be conceded, that it cannot be
vindicated upon original grounds. It can be, and it has
been, repeatedly and triumphantly shown, that these un
equalled languages, which, as was long ago said of them,
"have put off flesh and blood, and become immutable,"
are precisely calculated to pefforrii the most important:
general offices of a liberal ¦ education, in a manner that no
other known study wiU accomplish. They .awaken atten
tion — they develope and employ the reasoning faculty —
they cultivate the taste — they nourish the seeds of the
imagination — give employment to the memory — and, in a
word, they discipline and invigorate, in due proportipn,' all
the intellectual powers, and-prepare them for orderly and
effective exertion in all the varied exigencies which may
require their action. Nor is this aU. They lay the fpun-
dation of that learning which will abide with us, arid in
crease our enjoyments in all the vicissitudes of life.
But the limits of a discourse would be unreasonably
. transcended, by an attempt to enter intp a more particular
examination of this subject. Nor is it necessary that^ I
should thus trespass upon your patience, already so large
ly taxed— Abler heads, and stronger hands — strong in good
learning — have been repeatedly employed upon the work
— and I should only enfeeble their demonstrations, by at-

69
templing to restate the process. As a ..^itnessj however,
• stating the result of his observations, confirmed by the
observations of others, I may be allo-^ed to say, that to a
young man, entering upon the study of a liberal profession,
?L thorough groundwork of classical education is like a
power gained in mechanics, or rather it is the foundation
wanted by Archimedes for his fulcruritil It gives him a
mastery of his studies which nothing else can supply. Of
its other influences, allow -me to quote to you the testimony
of a distinguished female, who, to uncommon opportunities
united extraordinary genius and power of observation, and-
is entirely, free from aU suspicion of partiaHty. "The
English Universities, (says Madame de Stael, in her ' Ger
many,') have singularly contributed to diffuse among the
people of England that knowledge of ancient languages and
literature, which gives to their orators and statesmen an
inforiiiation so liberar and brilliant; It is a mark of good
taste, to be acquainted with other things besides ipatters of
business, when one is thoroughly acquainted with them ;
and, besides,"^ the eloquence of free nations attaches itself
tothe history of the Greeks and Romans, as lo that of
ancient fellow countrymen. * * * * The study of lau;
gufiges, which forms the basis of instruction in Germany,
is much more favourable to the progress of the faculties in
infancy, than that of the Mathematics and Physical sci
ences." For this she quotes the adriiission of Pascal.
'¦^Some part of the doubt, which, in. this country, has been
insinuating itself into the public mind, is owing to the im
perfect and. insufficient manner in which the languages
have been .taught; or. rather, it should be said, in vvhich
they have been learned ; for there has probably been at
all. times' a disposition to teach them. Enough has not
been acquired to fix a permE^nent taste in the student him- '
self, or to demonstrate its value to others. The conse
quence is, that the graduate suffers his little stock to decay
from neglect, and his parents and friends exclaim that

70
learning is of no use. ; Afaother. Consequence is, that there
is no scholar-like mind, to exert its influence upon the com
munity, and operate upon the mass of public opinion. The
corrective is in more thorough teaching. It will require
more time and more labour from the student. But time
thus employed, will be well employed. And as to labour
—if he desire to arrive at excellence of any sOrt, he can
learn nothing better than how to apply himself with dili
gence to the work that is before him. There is a great
deal of affectation in the world, of facility and fexpedition in
the performance of intellectual tasks — of doing things
quickly, and without preparation or exertion, as if by an
inspiration of genius, and "differently from those, who, by
way of derision, are ealled plodders ! It is a poor affecta
tion. Sometimes it is maintained at the expense-of sin
cerity, by concealing the pains that are really taken.
Oftener it is only the blustering of conscious weakness and
indolence. The highest and surest talent — that which
will hold out longest, and often reach the greatest eleva
tion — the only talent, I might almost say, which is given
to man for intellectual achievement — is the talent of
applying his faculties lo produce a good result — that is, of
labouring with success. No one need be ashamed of pos
sessing, of exercising, or of cultivating it. The great les
son of life is to, apply ourselves diligently to what is before
us. Life itself is but a succession of moments. The larg
est afKiirs are made up of small parts.-T— The greatest rep
utation is but the aCcumulsition of successive fruits, each
carefully gathered and stored. The most learned scholar
began with learning,. words. Every day is by itself a day
of small things. ¦ But the sum of our days makes up our
life — and the sum of our days' work makes up the work, of
our life. Let every one, therefore, who would arrive at dis
tinction, remember, that the present moment is the one he
is to unprove, and apply himself dUigently to its improve
ment.

ARGUMENT,

IN THE CASE -OF THE CHEROKEE NATION ds. THE STATE
OF GEORGIA, BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES, MARCH 5, 1831.

Motion for an injunction to prevent the execution of certain acts ofthe legis
lature ofthe state of Georgia, in^ the territory pf the Cherokee nation of In-
dians, on behalf of the Cherokee nation; they claiming to proceed in' the
supreme court ofthe United States as a foreign state against the State of
Georgia ; under the provision of the constitution of the United States,
which gives to the court jurisdiction in controversies in which a state of
the Unitpd States and the citizens thereof, and a foreign state, citizens, or
subjects thereof, are parties.

Mr. Sergeant, in support of the motion for" the injunc
tion, after recapitulating the principal heads of the bHl, said,
that in the brief exposition to be presented of the case of the
complainants, he should confine himself strictly and entirely
tp the judicial aspect ofthe question, avoiding all political
considerations, and every topic which did not conduce di
rectly to a legal conclusion. That he would endeavour stUl
further to simplify the matter, by confining himself, as far
as possible, to the very party before the court, the Cherokee
nation: without- wandering into the discussion of questions
about Indians in general, their condition and rights, which
must necessarily be vague and indefinite. Each case must
at last depend, a few general principles beirig first settled,
upon its own patlicular circumstances. '
With this view, and within these limits, he would con
sider, and endeavour to establish the following propositions.

72
1. That the parties before the court were such as, un
der the constitution, to give to this court original jurisdic
tion of the complaint made by the one against the other.
2. That such a case or controversy, of a judicial nature,
Was presented by the biU, a.s to warrant and require the
interposition of the authority of the court.
3. That the facts slated by the complainants, exhibited
such a case in equity, as to entitle them to the specific
remedy by injunction prayed' for in the bill.
In the present stage of the inquiry, and for the purpose
of this motion, the statement in the bill was to be received
as true. The points before mentioned; therefore, being
made out; there could be no doubt of the right of the
complainants to an injunction against the state of Geor
gia, to issue immediately, and to continue until the com
ing in of an answer sufficient to dissolve it ; or until ' it
should be merged in the general injunction upon a de
cree in the cause. These points he- would now proceed to
consider. 1. The power relied upon is contained in the second
section of the third article of the constitution of the United
States, limited aftervtards by the eleventh amendment.
" Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases
in law and equity arising under this constitution, the laws
pf the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be
made' Under their authority, &-c. to controversies- between *
twp or more states, between a state and citizens of another
, state, between citizens of different states, between citi
zens of the same sta,te claiming lands under grants of difr ^X'
ferent states, and between a state or the citizens thereof,
and foreign states, citizens or subjects." "In aU, cases
affecting ambassadors, other public -ministers and consulstsi
and those in which a state shall he a party, the Supreme
Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other
cases before, mentioned,, the Supreme Court shaU have

73
appfeUate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such
exceptions and under such regulations as Congress shall
make." The first of these clauses specifies by classification, the
cases to. which the judicial power of the United States
shall extend, comprehending such as from the nature of
the subject matter, or from the character of the parties,
were proper for that jurisdiction, The .second distributes
the authority given by the first, among the courts of the
union, assigning lo cases of national jurisdiction their ap
propriate forum. It is subordinate to, and in execution of
the former.
There can be no doubt, that under this article all cases
"arising under treaties" are cases cognizable by the judi
ciary of the United States. They are Avithin the very
words of the article. The reason for including them is
obvious, and entirely conclusive. Treaties are declared
tp be "The supreme law of the land." Article 6, sec
tion 2. They are placed, in this respect, upon the same
footing with the constitution of the United States and acts
of congress. As acts of national law, it was equally essen
tial that the national power should be adequate to their
construction and their execution, by its own exertion,
without deperidence upori any other authority, and_with
that uniformity which could only be secured by a^supreme
judicial tribunal. As acts of national faith, binding upon
tlie honour, and involving the relations and peace of the
•whole nation, they had even a stronger claim 10 the cog
nizance of the national judiciary. That they ^re entitled
toil, in some of the courts of the union; is not to be denied
or disputed, ¦ The jurisdiction of this court, in its original
or its appellate exercise, as certainly extends to them under
the constitution.
The original jurisdiction of the supreme court, so far
as concerns the present question, depends upon the fact
10

74
that a state, that is, a state of this union, is a party. It
mattei-s not who may be the other party. The dignity of
a state entitles the case in which it is a party, to the juris-
dictwn of the highest tribunal. Chisholm's Ex. vs. State
of Georgia, 2 Dall. 419. State of Georgia vs. BraUsford,
2 Dall. 402, 415.
The eleventh amendment of the constitution does not
operate, in terms, upon the original jurisdiction : but upon
the judicial power of the United States, in certain cases.
"The judicial power of the United States shall not be
construed to extend to any case in law or equity, com
menced or prosecuted against one of the United States by
citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any
foreign' state. Its operation upon the original jurisdic
tion of the supreme court is only consequential, by ex
cluding altogether from the cognizance of the federal
judiciary, certain cases assigned to it by the first clause
ofthe original articlej and which in the distribution of
the second clause had been made subjects of that original
jurisdiction. This amendment operates by way of limitation or ex
ception. It applies only to the excepted 'cases, leaving
the jurisdiction and the power, in all other cases, exactly
as they stood under the original article. What are the
cases specified as exceptions ? They are very plainly
and distinctly defined, suits against any one of the United
States " by citizens of another state, or' by citizens or sub
jects of any foreign state." With this exception, which
is too plainly expressed to admit of doubt or cpnstruction,
the whole of the third article remains in full force, and,^
the jurisdictions created by it, as to their extent and dis- v:
tribution, are unaltered. The original jurisdiction of this
court, therefore, still exists, vvherever it existed before,
unless it be in the case of a suit commenced against a state
of the union " by citizens of another «tate, or by citizens

75
or subjects of a foreign* state." It is in full force where
a " foreign state" is one party, and a " state" of this union
is the other party, Or where two states are parties. Co
hens vs. Virginia,, 6 Wheat. 264.
It has sometimes been intimated that the Cherokees
are neither citizens of any " state," nor « citizens or sub
jects of any foreign state." Supposing for a moment that
this imperfect view were correct, what would be the legal,
or rather the constitutional result of it ? The limitation
or exception would not apply lo them ; and (a state being
a party) they would' have a right lo sue in this court, '
unless, indeed, it were further aUeged that they vvere
some how put ouf of the protection of the law, and inca
pacitated to sue at all, which, it is beheved, has never
been suggested. The matter would stand thus : the- case
arises under a treaty, and is therefore cognizable by the
courts ofthe union. A " state" is a party. The juris
diction, then, among the courts of the union, belongs to
tbe supreme court, being, given to that tribunal by the
constitution as originally made, and not laken away by
the amendment. Such would be the result of that argu
ment. That question, it was admitted, did not arise here ; and
it was adverted to, only for the light thrown by it upon the
case that was under discussion. The amendment, it was
known from its history, was intended to prevent suits
against " states" by individuals. Cohens vs. Virginia, 6
Wheaton, 406, 407. The description was meant to embrace
all individuals who might sue. How are they describ
ed ? By a classification understood to embrace them all ;
" citizens of another state" (of the union) " or citizens
or subjects of any foreign state : clearly showing that
all who were not citizens of a state, must be in the mean
ing of the constitution, citizens or subjects of a foreign
state. ¦

76
The Cherokees, in this case, approach the court, not
individually, but in their aggregate capacity, as " th^
Cherokee nation of Indians, a foreign state." The proposi
tion asserted on their behalf is, that they are " a foreign
state," with all the rights and attributes predicated of
them in their bUl of complaint.
In what manner is this inquiry to he judicially pursued ?
What fights are to be followed? What constitutes the
judicial evidence of the existence of a foreign state, as
such? Fortunately, , we are furnished witlji an answer to
these questions by settled and authorative decisions, of this,
the highest tribunal in the land. As to new states arising
in the revolutions of the world, it is the exclusive right of
governments to acknowledge them ; and until such recog
nition by our own government, or by the governnient of
the empire to which such new state previously belonged,
courts of justice are bound to consider the ancient state of
things as remaining unchanged. Rose vs. Himeley, 4
Cranch, 292. Gelston vs. Hoyt, 3 Wheat. 324. United
States vs. Palmer, 3 Wheat. 634. Divina Pastora, 4
Wheat. 63, and note to .65.
In matters of judgment, the ancient state, whatever it
was, continues, until it is changed by a competent author
ity : and of that ancient state, of the changes, if any, it
has undergone, the timeof those changes, or its continuance
to the present time, the acts of our government are
authentic and decisive evidence.
Of these acts, establishing judicially the existence and
character of other states and nations, the most unequivocal
and conclusive must be a, treaty. It is the act of the
nation ; in its nature, deHberate and solemn ; in its obliga
tion, most sacred ; and, besides its efficacy as a national
compact binding the national faith and honour, it is made
obligatory upon individuals, upon authorities and upon
tribunals, by the constitutional declaration that it is " the
supreme law of the land."

77
This principle being settled, as it must certainly be con
ceded to be, how does it apply to the present inquiry ?
From the beginning of the existence of the United
States as ^ nation to the present time, there have been no
less than fourteen public treaties made with the Cherokee
nation of Indians ; one under the articles of confederation,
and thirteen under the constitution ; all of them with the
solemnities tbat belong to public national compacts made
between independent states- or nations.
The first of these treaties was made as long ago as the
year 1785 ; and the last as recently as the year 1819.
These" treaties are at the present moment in full force ;
and on the face of them they bear, that on the one side
they are made by the United States, on the pther, by the
Cherokee nation.
In inquiring, judicially, into the fact, the first remark
that presents itself is, that the aggregate existence of the
Cherokees, with capacity to enter into binding national
compacts, is ipso facto admitted. How can this be, if they
are not a nation or state ? They act by pUblic agents,
few in number, representing- the aggregate or community,
and binding all the individuals of which that community is
composed, in the same manner as the public agents of the
United States, on the other side, contract for the whole
people of the United States. .How could this be, if there
were not such a community or state ?
But it is not by th0 inference, only (irresistible as it is)
that the fact is established. It is asserted in terms in
every treaty, from the first to the last. The treaty of the
28th November 1785 expressly styles them a "nation."
Sect. 6. In the succeeding treaties, the same description
is applied in almost every Hne, -as-any one .who wiU be at
the trouble to examine them -vviU perceive. See particu
larly the preamble ofthe treaty of Holston, Art. 1, and the
treaty of Washington in 1819..

78
The subjects, too, of these treaties are unequivocally
of national character and concernment: war; peace;
exchange of prisoners; national limits; mutual rights,
which nations only could claim or enjoy ; and mutual
duties, which nations only could fulfil.
The obligations are national ; the sanctions are national ;
the breach is national ; and the impress of na,tional char
acter, as belonging to the Cherokee Indians, is thus deeply
and inseparably fixed upon the treaties in every variety of
way, and with -them transferred to our statute book as a
part of the " supreme law of the land." Whatever others
may say, so long as these treaties remain in force, the
Cherokee Indians are, by our laws, a state or nation.
It was not now a question. What the United States might
heretofore have done, or what they may do' hereafter.
That belonged properly to another head of inquiry. The
present purpose was only to inquire judicially into the fact
as now existing, according to the established principle
already stated.
Following the rule of interpretation, or rather, of evidence
thus established, were not the Cherokee Indians a "foreign
state," within the meaning of the constitution? It would
be sufficient to answer, that they certainly are not a slate
of this union. What then can they be but a foreign state?
The constitution knows of but two descriptions of states,
domestic and foreign; Those which are not included in the
former class must necessarUy fall into the latter. Nothing
can be clearer than this ; following either the language or
the meaning of the constitution. There is no fhird descrip
tion in that instrument ; and there is no ,case of a state,
which was not intended to be within the scope of its judi
cial auihority, whenever circumstances might make it a
duty to ourselves or to others to interpose its exercise. It
is true that the Cherokee nation have no part or right in
the constitution of the United States, because they are a

79
foreign state, and that constitution is the compact only of
the states and citizens of this union. But there is a power
given by the constitution which they may invoke when
they have a demand of justice ; a power conferred upon
the authorities of the union, and in its nature conclusive.
What reason can be given why it should not equally ex
tend to them as to all other states.
The constitution itself created no new state of things.
It operated upon a state then existing, and of very long
standing. From the first settlement of the country by
Europeans, the Cherokees existed &s an independent nation.
They never' became incorporated with the European
settlers, nor subjected by them. It is only by one of these
modes, or by utter extinction, that they conld cease to
exist as a nation. Such as they were at the first, such
they have continued to be, and such they now are. If any
change has ever taken place in their condition, and
especially one so material as to destroy their independent
national character, it is for those who assert it to show
when, and how, this great change was effected. The
history of the case is in this respeqt the law of the case.
In what part of their history is it to be found? The
European claim of discovery never asserted their subjec
tion or extinguishment as its consequence. It asserted
nothing in respect to them. It only fixed the limits of the
pretensions' of different European states or sovereigns
between themselves ; each maintaining an exclusive right
to what he had discovered, and within his discovery to
deal with the natives according to his own wiU, without
interference by the others. The conduct of one was no
rule or law to his neighbour, except as it evidenced the
common consent to abstain from interference. Each was
the absolute master ofhis own cpnduct, and made the law
for himself withiri his own limits. If he had strength
. enough tb do so, he made the law fpr the native inhabitants

80
according to his own wiU and pleeisure, with more defer
ence to the suggestions of his own passions and appetites
than to the dictates of justice or of mercy. In some
portions of the discovered hemisphere they were hunted
with blood hounds and exterminated. Wnole races of men
have long since disappeared from the face of the earth
which they occupied. In others, their soil was forcibly
seized by the invaders, and the native inhabitants beQame
the slaves of their conquerors. Where these things hap
pened, nations, of course, ceased to exist. Such was, then,
the stem policy of the discoverer. But that is not our
case. He would not enter now into a discussion of the abstract
question of right as it stood between the European disco
verers and the native inhabitants, nor attempt to set up
here, on behalf of the latter, rights which (however they
migfat have stood upon original grounds) were now to be
no otherwise considered in a judicial tribunal, than as they
had been settled by a long course of time and practice, and
hy judicial decisions, including a decision of this court, to
which he should hereafter refer. He was satisfied to take
the matter as he found it ; to disturb nothing that was past
or settled, but to inquire simply into the fact, as it was
when the constitution was made, and as it stUI is.
With this view he proceeded to state, that the claim of
Great Britain never asserted the incorporation or subjection
of the native inhabitants within her discovery, nor the
extinguishment of their national existence and character.
It was always a Hmited claim, and left to them all bevorid
its limits. See Johnson vs. M'Intosh, 8 Wheat. 543. With
the exception of this limited claim, and what has since
been yielded by treaty, the Cherokee nation of Indians is
the same nation now, that it was when the soU of their
country was first pressed by the foot of an European.
They occupy this moment a portion of the very territory

,81
which then acknowledged their authority. Successive
revolutions have changed the parties on the other side ;
hut each in succession has claimed the rights and acknow
ledged the obligations of ils predecessors. The acknow
ledgment has never been questioned of their existence as
an independent foreign state ; on the contrary, it has been
continually, habitually, and uninterruptedly repeated and
confirmed, so that from the beginning to the present day
there is one uniform current of autlientic , testimony, with
out the slightest semblance of contradiction.
Thus, the constitution of the United Staites found the
Cherokee nation at its establishment — a state, not of the
union, and yet a state. What could it be but a foreign
st^te ?
It is not necessary, fpr the present purpose, to go back
to the nurinberless treaties made, with the Cherokees before
the revolution. By whomsoever made, they were uniform
in their admission, express and implied. History, too, is
uniform, in attesting their existence as a foreign state,
coniposed of foreigners, owing no allegiance to the
crown of England, to the colony, to the ^tate, or to the
union. ' '
When fhe confederation of these states was formed,
where was this subject arranged ?. Among the foreign sub
jects which were of national concern, and to be dealt with
and managed by the national power. There could have
heen.no doubt ; for if there had been, that jealousy which
yielded nothing but to the niostevident necessity,' and even
withheld much which a short experience proved to be in
dispensable; would not have conceded this. But it was
conceded. Congress had the power of " entering into
jtreaties and aUiances."
They had the power also of " regulating the trade and
managing all the affairs of the Indians." Under these
powers the treaty of JlopeweU was made inthe year 1785^
11

82
between the United States on the one side and the Chero
kee Indians on the other, and mutual faith was solemnly
pledged between parties admitted to be competent to con
tract as nations.
This was the state of things when the constitution of the
United Slates was formed to establish amore perfect union.
Can any thing be stronger to fix the construction of that
instrument upon the point in question ? A treaty with the
Cherokee Indians, made under the authority of congress,
within two years only from the time when the convention
completed its labours, was already in the statute book, and
was one of the treaties " made" which that constitution
declared should be the " supreme law of the land,", attest
ing the existence of the nation, as a foreign state, and its
competency in that capacity, though within the limits of a
state or states of this union, to contract with the United
States. Besides its other sanctions — sufficient if public
faith be regarded — ^this treaty has the sanction, in a peculi
ar manner, of the constitution itself.
Nor had this state of things arisen from haste and
inconsiderateness, or the want of due dehberation. Even
before the confederation was formed, congress had as
sumed and exercised authority over this subject, as one
which naturaUy belonged to them. (Journals of 13th
July, and 16th December, 1775 : January 27th, March
8lh, April 10th, 29th, May 27th, June llth, 1776;
August 19th, September 19th, December 7th, 1776.)
In the last mentioned year (1776) they made war
upon lhe Cherokees for committing hostUities on South
Carolina. (Joumals, December, 2d, 1777,) They distinct
ly asserted the power of war and peace towards the In
dians, and denied it to the States. (Joumals, 5th March
1779.) In 1781 they sanctioned a negotiation for peace
with the Oierokees. (Journals, 1st November, 1781.) From
this negotiation, proceeded the treaty of Hopewell (1785),

83
the provisions of which, are set out in the bUl. In 1788,
congress by proclamation, declared their determination
to protept the Cherokees, and if necessary to use force
for that purpose. (Journals, 1st September, 1788.) In
1787 the attention of congress had been forcibly and
particularly drawn to the subject of their own power.
The states of Georgia and North CaroHna had raised a
question about the construction of the articles of confede
ration (which were not in this respect altogether free
from obscurity) ; and Georgia had actually proceeded to
treat with the Creeks. The matter was referred to a
committee, consisting of a member from Massachusetts,
New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware and Virginia. They
made a report (12 Journals, 82) on the 3d August, 1787;
in which the question was fully examined, and the pow
er of congress asserted and maintained. The clause in
the articles of confederation, upon which the doubt had
been raised, was as follows, "congress shall have the
sole and exclusive right and power of regulating the
trade and managing all afi&irs of the Indians, not mem
bers of any of the states; provided that the legislative
right of any State within- its own limits he not infring
ed or violated." Upon, this proviso, the pretensions of the
states were founded. Whatever may have been the
merits of this controversy, it was for ever ended by the
constitution of the United States, which omitted the limi
tations in the articles of confederation, and gave the
power to congress unfettered, and (to use the language
of the report before mentioned) "indivisible." That this
was purposely and deliberately done, we. have the au
thority of Mr. Madison in the Federalist, No. 42. So
that by the constitution of the United States, all Indian
nations, within or without the limits of states, are put
upon one footing, — that asseirted by the report of the
committee of congress. No state has any power over

84
them ; it would be inconsistent with the power of con
gress. *
In what light, then, mustthis constitution be considered
as regarding the Indian nations ? After the reference
which has just been made, the answer is plain and
unavoidable. In adopting, without exception, treaties
previously made, it adopted the treaty of Hopewell,
which was one of them, and immediately in view. In
conferring upon the president and senate the treaty-ma
king power, it gave to them the powers which had
heen exercised by congress under the same terms in
the articles of confederation, including that of making
treaties with the Indians. In giving to congress the
power to regulate trade with the Indians, it gave to them
all the power which had been exercised by congress
before, freed from the embarrasment of the obscure pro
viso which had caused some question, and therefore,
if not enlarged, at least rendered more firm and indis
putable. It plainly, purposely, and unequivocaUy as
signed to the federal jurisdiction, in its diflerent depart
ments, the whole subject of the Indian nations, as one
which belonged exclusively to the union, and not to
the states; employing for this object, in substance, the
clauses in the articles of confederation which had heen
found efficacious before, and rejecting only such as
had been the occasion of doubt or embarrasment As
to the nations themselves, it regarded them as they
had heen regarded before, as states, not of this union,
and therefore foreign, and capable of making treaties
with the United States. Whoever wUl examine the re
port before adverted to, wiU be fuUy satisfied that these
were the views of the public men of that day, and that
they were entertained upon the strongest and the ^undest
reasons. Occurrences of the present day ^ve to them
additional strength.

85
Under the constitution, the subject eigain received a
deliberate, and peculiarly solemn examination ; chiefly as
to the expediency of the mode of proceeding; for the
power was not questioned'. In the year 1790 (August
11), President Washington sent to the senate a message
in relation to the Cherokee Indians, which concluded with
asking the advice of the senate upon three questions.
The first of them was whether overtures should be made
for arranging a new hownd.ary by treaty with the Che
rokees. The second related to the mode of compensating
them for the land they might cede. The third was as
follows; "shall the United States stipulate solemnly to
guaranty the new boundary which may be arranged?"
The senate resolved to advise and consent that the pre
sident should at his discretion cause the treaty of Hope
well to be carried into execution, according to the terms
thereof,' or enter into arrangements for a new boundary,
compensating the Cherokees for the lands they might
cede. In answer to the third inquiry, the senate came
to the following, resolution. " Resolved, in case a new or
other boundary than that stipulated by the treaty of
Hopewell shall be concluded with the Cherokee Indians,
that the senate do advise and consent solemnly to guar
anty the same." Under this deliberate expression of the
advice and consent of the senate, the trealy of Holston
was made on the 2d. July, 1791 ; and was duly submitted
to and approved by the senate. It is still in full force,
as a treaty between the United States on the. one part
and the Cherokee nation of Indians on the other ; with
the solemn guarantee on the part of the United States
which the senate had advised. Eleven treaties have since
been made, tlie last of them in the year 1819, adopting
and continuing the same guarantee. As to the state and
condition of the Cherokees, they are all of them perfectly
clear, and especially the treaties of 1817 and 1819.

86
The existence -of the Cherokee nation of Indians, as a
state, and a foreign state, is thus brought down to the
present moment The evidence of the public acts of the
United States is conclusive. It is impossible to question
the authority to make these treaties. The constitution
plainly intended to give the power to make them. This
is no constructive power, impUed from doubtful clauses,
or inferred fi-om other powers or from general words.
The very case was within the view of the statesmen who
framed that instrument They adopted the provisions in
the articles of confederation which had confessedly given
the power, and omitted the one which had thrown a doubt
upon it, for the very purpose of cutting off all dispute
or question. It is not, therefore, a construction supported
merely, or even principaUy, by a practice of forty years
¦without question ; though such a practice, concurred in
by aU the departments of the government, must even he
deemed a venerable authority. The history of the con
stitution, the language of the constitution interpreted by
its history, the known intention of those who framed it;
fuUy justify the assertion, that this power could never, at
any period, have been questioned, without doing flagrant
violence to the known and manifest meaning of that instru
ment There is not a power of the federal government
more certainly conferred than this.
These, then, are treaties made in pursuance of the
constitution. They are in fiiU force. They stand in the
statute book, with aU the sanctions of treaties with fo
reign states; and we are in the possession and enjoyment
of the benefits derived from them. Can we under these
circumstances deny that which they necessarily import?
Can we, consistently with any right rule of interpreta
tion, or with the common obligations of good faith, caU
in question the character of the party, announced and
admitted upon the face of the instrument itself, especially

87,
when by so doing we impair or take away from him the
stipulated advantages of his compact. If it were mo
rally or politically admissible, is it judicially possible,
whUe'the' government acknowledges, as it continues to
do, the existence and binding obligation of these trea
ties ?* Can any court deny to them their natural con
struction ?
The articles of agreement and cession between the
United States and the state ' of Georgia, of the 24th of
AprU 1802, are equally conclusive upon the point in ques
tion, by the concession of Georgia herself. The United
States stipulate to extinguish the Indian title t& lands
•vvilhin the state of Georgia, for the use of Georgia, " as
soon as the same can be peaceably obtained ¦ upon rea
sonable terms." There is an admission here that there
was an Indian title; that it could only be extinguished
with the consent of the Indian nation ; and that the
United States alone had the power to extinguish it, be
cause the United States alone had the power to make
treaties with the Indians. The act of congress of 30tb
of March, 1802, commonly called the Indian Intercourse
act, speaks the same language in all its provisions. That
act was made in fulfillment of the obUgations of justice
contracted by treaties. It was nothing more than had
been solemnly guarantied. The United States were bound
to make such laws, and they are bound to execute them :
a. failure in either would be a violation of the national
faith so cleariy pledged. They are bound to respect
the Indian boundaries and rights themselves^they are
bound to protect them from encroachments by states, or
by citizens of the United . States ; because they have en-

* The act of the last session expressly declares, in a proviso, that they
are not to be impaired or questioned.

88
gaged to do so, and have received the equivalent for their
engagements Judicial decisions, in accordance with this view, are
not wanting. In Johnson vs. M'Intosh, 8 ^Vheat 543,
the Chief Justice, in delivering the opinion of this court,
assumes the existence of the Indian nations as states, by
ascribing to them powers, and capacities and rights, which
belong only to that character. In page 592, is the fol
lowing passage. " Another -view has been taken of this
question, which deserves to be considered. The title of
the crown, whatever it might be, could be acquired only
by a conveyance from the crown. If an individual,
might extinguish the Indian title for his own benefit, or,
in other words, might purchase it, stiU he could acquire
only that titles Admitting their power to change their
laws and usages, so far as to allow an individual to se-
pcirate a portion of their lands from the common stock,
and hold it in severalty, stUl it is a part of their terri
tory, and is held under them by a title dependent on their
laws. Tke grant derives its efficacy from their vjill:
and, if they choose to resume it, and make a different
dis'position of the land, the courts of the United States
cannot interpose for the protection qf the title. The per
son who purchases lands from the Indians within their
territory, incorporates himself witA, them, so far as respects
the property purchased ; holds hii title under ' their pro
tection, and subject to their laws. If they anntd the grant,
we know of no tribunal which can revise and set aside
the proceeding." Their sovereign power within their own
territory ; their authority to make, to administer, and to
execute their own laws ; to give titles and to resume them,
to do, in short, what states or nations only can do ; are
bere distinctly admitted.
In GoodeU vs. Jackson, in the court of errors in New
York, the question was discussed as to the character <rf

89
the individuals composing the Indian nations. They were
decided to be aliens. If the subjects of a state be aUens,
the state itself must he an alien state, a foreign state.
In Holland -ys. Pack, Peck's Reports, 151, the very
question was directly presented and directly decided by
the court of appeals of Tennessee in the year 1823. It
was an action brought against a Cherokee innkeeper, re
siding in that part of the nation which lies within the
Hmits of the state of Tennessee, for the loss of the goods
of a guest. The question presented by the pleadings was,
by what law the case was to be governed, the law of
Tennessee or the law of the Cherokees. The court de
cided that the latter was to govern. In the opinion, which
is full and elaborate, the whole subject is examined ; and
the conclusion pronounced by the court is, that the Che
rokees are an independent natipn,,with the exclusive ppwer
of legislation within their own territory.
• This point, of the national character of the Cherokee
•Indians, is put to rest by two of the treaties, in terms
which admit neither of doubt or controversy. The treaty
of the 8th July, 1817 (Art, 8) makes a provision for se
curing certain reserves of land to those of the Cherokees
who-might choose to become citizens of the United States.
This provision is referred to and adopted by the treaty of
1819, article 2. It is too obvious to require a remark, that
this stipulation necessarUy characterises them as aliens,
then in a state of alienage, or of allegiance to a jbreign
state,' but capable of becoming citizens of the United
States at their own election, and untU that election should
so incKne them, of reriiaining in the condition in whicb
they then were. How were they to become citizens?
It could only be upon the terms prescribed by the na-
turaHzafion laws of the United States, of renouncing their
foreign allegiance. How could they renounce it if none
such existed ? It may not be amiss to add, that this
12

90
provision applied to individuals and tO reserves of land
within the limits of states of this union. A list of them
is appended to the treaty of 1819, with, a description of
their locality. It wiU be there found that the greater part
of them were within the limits of the states.
This review, upon the principles heretofore adopted in
judgment, would seem to be sufficient of itself for a court
sitting under the constitution and laws of the United
States. But wherever the inquiry may be pursued the
result will be the same. The Cherokee nation is a state.
It has " its affairs and interests ; it deliberates and takes
resolutions in common ; and becomes a moral person,
having an understanding and a wiU, peculiar to itself;
and is susceptible of obligations and laws." This is the
very definition of a stale, according to the most approved
writers on public law. Grotius, b. 1, c. 1, §. 14. B. 3, c.
3, §. 2. Burlamaqui, vol. 2, p, 1, e. 4, §. 9. Vatlel, b. 1^
c. 1. It is a. foreign state, for it is not a state of this union.
It is no part of pur body politic. The Cherokees have no
influence in our affairs, and no control over our conduct;
and we have none in theirs, save what is given by treaty,
and that is by mutual stipulation between the entire
bodies politic, in their aggregate capacity, as equal con
tracting parties.
¦ It is ' no objection .to this that they are inferior or
dependent allies. A state is stUl a state, though it may
not be of the highest grade, or even though it may have
surrendered some of the powers of sovereignty (Vattel,
b. 1, c. 1, § 5 and 6): as a man is stUl a man, thoUgb
mutUated and deprived of some of his limbs. Such an
argument, indeed, is destitute of all colour of suppoi't,
for it, supposes that by entering into a treaty the very
rights are given up which are reserved by the treaty.
This is an absurdity.
Is there in the constitution of the United States

91
any thing to limit or alter this natural and unavoidable
construction as applied to the question of jurisdiction?
In other words, is it true that though " foreign states" to
other intents, they are npt "foreign states" within the
terms of the provision for the judiciary ?
The only conceivable suggestion to the contrary, if any
there be, must be derived from the third clause of the
eighth section of the first article. Congress shall have
power, it is there said, " to, regulate commerce with for
eign nations, and among the several states, and with the
Indian tribes." The argument may be, that what are
here caUed " Indian tribes" are ¦ specified, 'because they
are not comprehended in the words " foreign nations ;"
and therefore can not be considered as embraced by the
words " fol'eign states," in the third article of the con
stitution. This, it will be observed, is a mere verbal
criticism, which, if allowed to prove any thing, would
prove far to muih. -The provisions are framed for dif
ferent purposes and with different views, and are found
in different parts of the constitution. The one relates
to the legislature, the other to the judiciary.- There is
no incompatibility between them, nor is there any difficulty
at all in letting them stand together, inasmuch as they do
not belong to the same subject
In what sense is the word "tribes" to be considered
as here used? Its original and most appropriate mean
ing is a subdivision of a state, nation or community,
forming a constituent part of it, but set apart or distin
guished fpr the more convenient management of its affairs.
Thus, Rome was divided into " tribes," in the first
instance three, and finally thirty-five. Athens was
divided into fen tribes. There were the twelve tribes
of Israel, forming together one nation, under one head,
until the revolt of the ten tribes, when they became two
nations, and so continupd until the ten were lost The

92
constitution cannot have used the word in this sense. We
know of no such subdivisions within the Indian nations ;
and if there had been, no one will suppose that the
power given to congress was only to deal with portions of the
nations. Sometimes, it is true, this word is applied to
wandering hordes, who have no territory ; no fixed resi
dence, and no organic structure. But this could not be
affirmed of the Cherokee nation. They had a territory ;
they had fixed boundaries ; they had laws and govern
ment ; they were already parties to a treaty with the
United States, and in that treaty were expressly denomi
nated a " nation." Whatever might have been the habits
of individuals, the nation had a local habitation, and
sufficient stability to be treated with as an organiz
ed community.* Was it meant to he excluded from
the power of congress? This word "tribes" will be
found to occur frequently in the journals of the old con
gress, and especially in the report before referred to,
of August 1787 ; where it is manifestly employed as
synonymous or equivalent to "nations." If it be more
comprehensive it might be used from greater caution,
in order to cover the whole subject ; to comprehend tribes,
if any such there were, which were not nations. It
would not, therefore, exclude those which were nations,
bat they would be embraced by both the words. So
it has been construed in practice.
But if this verbal argument have any weight, we
shall be obliged by it to concede that wherever it happens
that different words are used, though occuring in different
parts of the constitution and on different branches of
power, they must necessarUy mean a different thing.
Then it wUl follow, that " a foreign state" and " foreign
» The present principal town of the Cherokee nation will be firand men.
tioned in tiie earliest records of congress by the name of Chata.

93
nation" are different— that the federal judiciary has
no jurisdiction in the case of a "foreign nation," and
that congress has no power to regulate commerce with
a " foreign state." In the tenth section of the first
article, clause second (prohibiting the states from entering
into alliances), the words employed are "foreign powers."
This, upon the same principle, would exclude "foreign
powers" from both the former articles.
The same argument would perhaps take away the
treaty-making power with the Indians from the United
States. A treaty cannot well be made with those who,
according to the constitution, as thus understood, have
no capacity to fulfil their engagements, or even to be
bound by themj
It would work out a result stiU more repugnant to
what was certainly intended. If the use of the word
"tribes" in the first article excludes the application of
the words "foreign states" inthe third, it must equally
exclude the -words "fpreign powers" in the section just
referred to (article first, section tenth,, clause second.)
What follows? That the States individually are not
prohibited from making' compacts with the Indians, be
cause they are not " foreign powers." No one, it is
believed, 'would contend for this. .
But has it ever been admitted as a sound rule of
construction, justly applicable to the constitution, that
a specification must necessarily restrain the general
words which precede it, and can in no case be con
sidered as merely redundant? There are repeated in
stances in the same section, where such a rule would
be fatal to "the sense. See clauses five, ten, thirteen, &c.
It is submitted, however, that the process of verbal
criticism is, not the correct, mode of deaHng with a
constitution of government, where the grants of power
are necessarily made in a few words. It must be inter-

94
preted in a different way. Some weight must be allowed
to the general intention and design of the instrument
The judicial power of the United States was intended
to be co-extensive with the legislative and executive, so
as to form a government complete, within the range of
its powers, in all its departments, and capable of inde
pendent existence. Osbourn vs. Bank of the United
States, 9 Wheat 818.
The treaty-making power confessedly belongs exclusive
ly, to the United States. Treaties thus made are declared
to be the supreme law of the land. " Cases arising under
treaties" are, therefore in express terms assigned by the
article under consideration to the federal judiciary. The
subject belongs to the United States tribunals, and not to
the tribunals of the states. Of this, there can be no dis
pute. Why then suppose- it to be excluded from the
original, jurisdiction of this court ? A state.of the union is
a party, and it is the dignity of that party alone which
entitles the case from its beginning to the attention of the
highest tribunal. The character of the other party is
in this respect of no importance. What reason can be
assigned for an exclusion so contradictory? Why should
the constitution which says expressly that, in aU cases
where a state is a party, the supreme court shall have
original jurisdiction, be made to say by implication, that
in this case, where a state is a party, it shall not have
original jurisdiction? To what jurisdiction would they
be referred. The same argument which took away the
alien character of the nation wotUd equally destroy the
aUen character of the individuals composing it They
certainly are not citizens ; and if they be not aliens, what
are they ? Outlaws. Declared outlaws, without a nation,
and without protection. PubHc law abhors such a state
of existence. It is not more essential in municipal arrange
ments that every thing capable of ownership should have a

95
legal ahd determinate owner, than it is in the great society
of nations that every man should be bound by some alle
giance, should be a member -of some community. The
Cherokee Indians are wUling to' be so. They are so.
They are more so no\V than they were at any former
period. Guided by o.ur counsels, aided by our efforts (for
which we have taken much credit with the world) they
have become civilized and enlightened, and attached to the
arts of civiHzed Hfe ; and are consolidating their advan
tages under a form of government instituted at the sugges
tion, of one of our most eminent statesmen.* The preser-

* The followihgis th&speech addressed to them by Mr. Jefferson.
My Children, Deputies of the Cherokee Upper Towns.
I have maturely considered the speeches you have delivered me, and will
now give you answers to the several matters they contain.
You inform me of your anxious desires to engage in the industrious
pursuits of agriculture a.nd civilized life ; that finding it impracticable to
induce the nation at large to join in this, you wish a line of separation to
be established between the Upper and Lower Towns, so as to include all
the waters of the Highwassee in your part ; and that having thus con
tracted your society within narrower limits, you propose, within these, to
begin the establi§hment of fixed laws and Of regular government. You say
that the Lower Towns are satisfied with the division you propose, and on
these several matters you ask my advice and aid.
With respect to the line of division between yourselves and the Lower '
Towns, it must rest on the joint consent of both parties. The one you pro
pose appears moderate, reasonable and well defined ; we are willing to re
cognize those on each side of that line as distinct societies, and if our aid
shall be necessary to mark it more plainly than nature has done, you shall
have it I think with you that on this reduced scale, it will be more easy
for you to introduce the regular administration of laws.
In proceeding to the establishment of laws, you- wish to adopt them fi-om
ours, and such only ibr the present as suit your present condition ; chiefly
indeed, those for the punishraent of crimes and the protection of property,
But who is to determine which of our laws suit your condition, and shall
be in force with you ? AU of you being equally free, no one has a right
to say what shall be law for the others. Our way is to put tliese questions
to the vote, and to consider that as law for which the majority votes — ^the
fool has as great a right to express his opinion by vote as the wise, because

96 >,
vation of their character as a state was essential to their
happiness and even td their- existence; it was essential,
too, to enable them to fulfil many of their treaty obligations
towards the United States.
In conclusion, upon this point, Mr. Sergeant remarked
that he would not be understood to question the power of
the United States over the whole matter. He would not

he is equally fi-ee, and equally master of himself. Butas it would be in- '
convenient for all your men to meet in one place, would it not be better
for every town to do as we do : that is to say, choose by the vote of. the
majority of the tovm and of the country people nearer to that than to any
otiier town, one, two, three or more, according to the size of the town, of
those whom each voter thinks- the wisest and honestest men of their, place,
and let tiiese meet together and agree which of our laws suit thengj ' But
these men know nothing of our laws. HOXv then can they kno-W which
to adopt ? Let them associate in their council our beloved man living with
them. Colonel Meigs, and he will tell them what our law is on any' point
they desire. He Will inform them also of our methods of doing business
in our councils, so as to preserve order, and to obtain the vote of every
member fairly. This council can make a law for giving to every head of
a family a separate parcel of land, -Which,- when he has built upon and im
proved, it shall belong to him and his descendants for ever, and which the
nation itself shall haVe no right to sell from imder his feet. They will de
termine too, what punishment shall be inflicted for every cHme. In our
states generally, we punish murder only by death, and all other crimes by
Solitary confinement in a prison.
But vvhen you shall have adopted laws, who are to execute them ? Per
haps it may be best to perrait eVery town and , the settlers in its neighbour
hood attached to it, to select s6me of their best men, by a majority' of its
voters, to be judges in all difi"erences, and to esequtB the law according to
their own judgment. Your council of representatives . will decide oil this,
or such other mode as may best Suit you. I suggest these things, my chil.'
dren, for the consideration ofthe Upper Towns of your nation, to be decided
on as they think best, and I sincerely wish you may succeed in your laud
able endeavours to saye the remains of your nation, by adopting industrious
occupaticais, and a government of regular laws. In this you may rely on
the counsel, and assistance of the government of the United States. Deli
ver tiiese words to' your people in my name, and assure tliera of my fi:iend-
ship. - THOMAS JEFFERSON.
January 9, 1809.

97
undertake to say what congress might do. But untU the
power was' plainly exercised, to the extent pf abrogating
the treaties, upon the resppngibilit'y which, belonged to
such a 5tep ; those treaties would continue to be the law,
and must be respected and executed as such.
2, That a sufficient^" case" oi* "controversy" wasprei
Rented to call for the exercise of judicial power.
What constituted such a case? "."A.ckse in law or
equity" is a tc^rm weH understood, and of limited significa
tion. ¦ It is '"a controversy between parties which, has
taken a shape for judicial decisipn." (Speech of Chief
Justice Marshall in the matter of Nash alias Robbins,
npt^ to Bee, 277.) It is defined also in 9 Wheat 819.
I' This clause" (1st- clause, 2d,.setit 3d art Constitution
United States) ^''enables, the. judicial department to -teceive
jurisdiction to>the full extent of the constitution, laws, and
treaties ofthe United. States, when any question respecting
them shall assume such a form that the judicial power is
capable pfi acting, upon it That power is capsible of
acting only when the subject is;submitted to it by a party
who asserts his rights in the form prescribed by law; It
then becomes a case, and the constitution declares, that
the judicial power shall extend to all cases arising under
the, constitution, la w,s, and treaties of the United States."
To make sUch a cdse a conttover^y, there ptiusf be, 1.
Pai-ties capable of suing and being sued- 2. A subject
matter proper for judicial decision.
. il'. It could not be questioned that here were such pat'
ties. •They were within the very woi-ds of the constitUc
tion. ;That clause admitted at the same time, that there
might be subjects of judicial controversy between such
parties ; there is, therefore, no presumption from f;heir
character , against the jurisdiction. It might be, that a
question between the United States and a foreign state,
arising'upon a treaty, could' not bte a case of judicial cog-
13

98
nizance; that it would necessarUy be political or diplo'-
matic^ and not judicial. But a question with a state
could not be of that description, because a ' state could
have no political or diplomatic relations. Const Art J,
Sect 10. It was no more diplomatic than if it were the
case of an individual complainant. The questions might
be precisely the same. Its being the case of a sia<e, de
fendant, could make no difference, for this court enter
tained jurisdiction in equity of controversies between
states, as in the pending case between New Jersey
and New York. As to the parties, there could, be no
doubt. 2. Was there a subject matter, proper for judicial de
cision ? That must ' depe'nd upon the nature of the right
which was asserted, and the nature of the wrong, which
was inflicted or meditated. As to the rights of the com
plainants, as they -were here asserted,- they might be con
sidered for the prissent purpose as founded entirely upon
the laws of the Qnited States; that is, , upon treaties and
upon acts of congress, which were of equal authority.
These rights were judicially known to the court as part
and parcel of the laws of the Uhited States. It was
not necessary to go out of those laws for the purpose
of investigating them. They were riot obliged now to
explore the original grounds of right, nor to question
the European principle of discbvery^ Such as they
appeared upon the statute book the complainants were
wiUing lo consider them; and they asked nothing more
than lo have them enforced as they there appeared.
Of these rights the Cherokees were in actual possession ;
with the knowledge and acquiescence of all the authorities
of the United States. There was no dispute between
them. Their claim was only to be protected from dis
turbance or interference with their estabUshed rights;
and they claimed it against those who were subject to the
authority of the laws of the United States and within

99 -^ -^
their jurisdiction, but did not profess to derive any sanc
tion for their conduct from the United States.
These ^ rights, it was further to be remarked, were
such, that Jn a suit between the citizens of the. United
States, they would undoubtedly be, within the jurisdic
tion ofthe laws ofthe Unified States. What are they?
The treaty of July 1817 (art. 5) continued in force all for-
mer treaties. The treaty, of February 1819, was only a
final adjustment of the fp'rmer. . All the guarantees of
former.lreaties are therefore in full force.
, 1. The first of the rights admitted, and professed lo be
guarantied and secured to. tliem, was the right, within
iheir own boundary, of self govei'fiment "Their political
power is abridged by their own cbrtcesssions, and so is
their right of property by conditions aiinexed to it. But
the right to regulate their own civil condition within their
own limits, to make and to execute their own laws, is ex
clusive and absolute. It is extended expressly by treaty,
as well as by the intercourse act, to persons going amongst
them. "This is the plain import of all the treaties, as
WeU as of the intercourse act. In the treaties, means are
employed for ,'civUizing them, but they are proppsed in
the way of advice and assistance, and not in. the wa;y of
authority or command. See particularly Art 14, treaty
of 1791 ; Art 2, treaty of 1806; preamble of treaty of
1817, and Art 8 of same.
2. The next was the right of. property, modified, but
StUl exclusive, apd absolute against aU interference. The
mode of fenjoying it was left to themselves. Whatever it
might be, it resolved itself into individual .enjoyment as to
its end and purpose. As against the United States and
their citizens, this right was sacred and inContestible. It
was .acknowledged in every variety of way. The boun
daries were fixed by treaty, and what was within them
was acknowledged to be the landof fhe Cherokees. This
was the scope "of aU the treaties. Treaty of Hopewell,

100
Art 4. Treaty of. Holston, Art. 7, &c. The United
States would not even assume the right of passage without.
their consent, and when it was granted, it was by treaty
in a limited way, by a particular road. Treaty . of Hol
ston, Art. 5. Treaty of 1795, Art. 7. They stipulate
against intrusions, abandoning intruders lo the laws and
tribunals of the Cherokees. Treaty of Hopewell, Art
5. Trealy uf Holston, Art 8. They stipulate also for
protection. Treaty of 1798, Art 4.
It was unnecessary for this purpose to go more fully
into those treaties. They spoke one language throi^h-
out, and that was, that the Cherokees were entitled to
the occupation and enjoyment of their land without in
trusion or interference. The same language was spo
ken by the intercourse act Indeed, he might" add, that
as yet, it was not disputed by any act or .declaration of
the United States through any official organ authorized
to do or to speak on the subject These rights were
absolutely unquestioned, and the obligation to protect
them was in full force. The United States had never
by any competent auihority disclaimed it. They do
not disclaim it now. The' solemn guarantee advised by
the senate in 1790, and given by the executive,^ with the
advice of the senate, in the year 1791, is as fresh in its
claim upon the public faith as the day when the treaty
was agned. It is true that the stipulated protection
is not aflS)rded ; but the congress of the United States
have never denied the right to claim, or the obligation to
afibrd it
3. What are the wrongs they complain of?
The violation of these rights, to the extent of their total
destruction and extinction. The legislation of Georgia
proposes to annUulate them, as ils very end and aim ; the
acts already done under it are in furtherance of that pur
pose, and those which are further menaced wUl belts
consummation. The laws of Georgia profes no other ob-

101
ject;- they are effectually conceived for this. If those
laws be fully executed, there wiH be no Cherokee boun
dary, no Cherokee nation; no Cherokee lands, no Cherokee
treaties, no laws of the United States in the case. They
will all be swept out of existence together, leaving nothing
but the monuments in our history of the enormous injus
tice that has been pi'actised towards a, friendly nation.
These laws of Georgia operate upon the individual Che
rokees as well as upon .the nation- They are virtually
made outlaws, neither jcitizens. nor aliens, nor competent
to be witnesses in courts of justice. They operate
also upon their property, and upon the rights and pri
vileges declared for them by the laws of the. United
States. -
Is not this, then, a case or controversy of judicial
cognizance? The bill sets forth a number of individual
instances of the exercise of the unjust authority. Would
they not, upon the complaint of individuals, be tbe subject
of* judicial cognizance? Would not the questions to be
presented, discussed, and decided, be precisely as they now
are? As questions pf property, as personal privileges,
or as corporate privUeges, they are matters of judgment
purely and strictly, without any admixture whatever of
political or diplomatic considerations, and' they have be-
conie a case,. or subject of a. suit,, by the actual perpetra
tion of injury and the menace of its repeitition. They are
questions upon the laws of the United States, in suits
against citizens of the United States; and if it be necessary i
still further to. examine the ground of complaint, il will be
found that it is one of every day judicial cognizance,
namely, that the laws of Georgia are unconstitutional
and void. , ,
Is not the character of the aggregate the same eis that
of the particulars of which it is composed? Is there
any thing in the process of aggregation to aller it ?
The constitution of the United States gives no colour to

102
such a distinction. It applies the same description of
case or controversy to bodies and to individuals. Judicial
decisions gives it no countenance, but the contrary. Juris
diction is entertained of suits^ between states, as in the
instance now.pendingi In the case between states, there
must always be individual interests involved with, those of
the state. Jurisdiction is entertained of suits by corporate
bodies. Osbourn vs. Bank of the United States, 9 Whea
ton, 739.
To what forum (of those belonging to the United
States) the resort is to be had, depends upon the parties.
The federal jurisdiction depends upon the nature of the
case or question. If that be such, that it might be here
by an individual, under the twenty-fifth section of the
judiciary act, by appeal ; it may be brought here
originally by a state. ~ '
, It might be that, in fact, the present was the only
mode in which the protection. of the United Stales judi
ciary could be obtained, or in which if could be called
upon to vindicate the majesty of the laws and treaties.
The nature ofthe Cherokee institutions and polity, as
tothe tenure of land, presented a difficulty oh the one
side. The determination of, the authorities and tribu
nals of the state of Georgia not to permit a suit to reach
A«lage where a writ of error could be made available,
was at present an insuperable difficulty on -^the other.
If rpdress could not be afforded in the mode now pro
posed, they niight aU, .like Tassels, suffer' final and
irreparable infliction while waiting for the time of
hearing before this court
The complainants, then, come here upon the ground
of the violation of a legal right, and that, he submitted,
was a case or controversy. They do not present an
abstract question. They do not pi-esent a political
question. They do not come to demand in general
terms the fulfilment of a treaty, nor to ask this court

103
to enforce the execution of an active article. They
do not come tp claim anything adversely tp the United
States, nor to ask this court to settle questions between
the high contracting parties. They ask for redress
and protection . aga,inst wrOng-doers in the accustomed
legal way, and they vpuch the treaties as th6 evidence
of their rights. . .
4. Is,such a case presented hy the biU as entitles the
complainants to the Specific remedy of injunction. For
the purpose of this . inquiry, in its pfesent stage, aU the
averments of the bUl are 10 be taken to be trud.
An injunction is the process of equity to restrain, where
restraint is necessary, to prevent irreparable -mischief;
for whi(jh there is no adequate redress at law. Eden
on Injuncfionsi 1, 209. It is granted to hold a fund, untU
a decision can be had of a claim upon it State of Geor
gia vs', Brailsford, 2 DaUas, 402.
•In this court there is a decision . directly applicable.
An irijunctjon maybe issued to rfestrain a person who
is an officer,- of a state from perfbrmitig an act enjoined
by an unconstitutional law of the state. . Osburne vs.
Bank of the United States, 9 Wheaton, 733. Mr. Ser-
geBirit referred particularly to the ' argument . of counsel,
748, and the opinion of the court by the Chief Justice,
838, 9. This case, in the argument and decision, was
full to the present purpose, and was an adequate and
sufficient authority for the injunction in the present case.
The subject of complaint Was the sanie — an unconstitu
tional law. , The object was ]he sanie — to restrain its
execution. • The state of things, calling for relief, was the
same, except that here the threatened danger was far
greater and more urgent Here, as there, the property,
the franchises, rights and privileges of' the compilainants
were menaced.
Perhaps it might be suggested that the complaint
related to matters out of the United States, but within the

104
Indian nation, and therefore beyond the limits of the
jurisdiction of the court. It was not necessary to examine
very particularly the foundation in fact of such a sug
gestion. Among the acts stated, however, it would be
remarked, was that of drawing the complainants to tri
bunals within the United States, to which they were not
amenable. But, independently of this, there was a very
satisfactory- answer. A court of equity does not reg.ard
the situation of the subject matter in dispute, but con
siders only the equities arising from the parties. It has
enjoined a party from proceeding in a ^fpreign court
Eden,- 101, 2, 3. Wharton vs. May, 5 Ves. 27. Upon
the same' point there is a clear authority in this courlj*
In Massiejjs. Watts, 6 Cranch, 148, it was decided, that
a court of equity has jurisdiction, -ere personam, in cases
involving trust, contract, or fraud, wherever the person of
the defendant is even casually to be found -vvithin its
jurisdiction ; although it may be unable to enforce its
decree in rem, the property in controversy being out of
its jurisdiction. This was a cas'e involving contract.
He deemed it unnecessary to trouble the court further
upon this point

SPEECH
ON THE BANKRUPT BILL, DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES, TUES-
pAY, FEBRUARY iV, 1818.
Mr. Sergeant remarked, that, from the course which
had been taken by the opponents of thb bill, its provisions
seemed to be understood s^s having no object but the relief
of debtors, and those of a particular claSs. One gentleman,
indeed, appeafSd to have a glimpse of a more extended
operation, for his objection was that the bill imposed extra
ordinary liabilities, and conferred peculiar privileges, upon
the mercantile part of the community; but it did not seem
tp have occurred to him, that the imposition of extraordi
nary liabilities might of itself be an adequate inducement
for granting some peculiar privileges. The truth is, that
the bill now under consideration, and every well conceived
bankrupt law, proposes, chiefly, the security and advantage
of the creditor. The ultimate relief afforded to the debtor
is only ah' incident, though an incident, undoubtedly, of
great importance, whether it is regarded in its connexion
with the public interests, with the demands of justice, or
the duties of humanity. The question which presents itself
to the consideration of an enlightened legislature, is simply
this — 'if from motives of public policy, you deem it neces
sary to exercise over a certain description Of citizens the
summary power Of arresting them in their careerj upon in
dications of weakness and' approaching failure ; bf taking
their property out of their hands, and distributing it among
thfeir creditors, for trie satisfaction of their debts, wnat
terms oUght you to grant to those over whom you have
14

106
exercised this authority ? An interesting question it must
at all times be, and at the present time it has a peculiar
interest from circumstances to which I shaU perhaps have
occasion to advert hereafter.
My purpose in the first place, is to state very briefly,
why the bUl is and ought to be confined in its operation to
the persons described in the first section, that is to those
engaged in trade. And in this I have in view to meet an
objection that I find has had a considerable influence upon
the minds of members. Why, it is said, why not extend
the provisions to aU classes of the community ? why confine
them to a single class? The answer is a very plain one.
The design of the Constitution, was to vest in the govern
ment of the United States such powers as were necesgary
for national purposes, and to leave to the States all other
powers. Trade, commercial credit, and public or national
credit, which is intimately allied to it, were deemed, and
rightly deemed, to be national concerns of the highest im
portance. In the adjustment of our government, at once
national and federal, they were intended to be confided, and
were confided, to the care of the public authority of the na
tion. It is too much the fashion everywhere to indulge in
general censure of classes or professions. When merchants
are the subject of discussion, we hear of speculators, and
even worse; when protection is asked for manufactures,.
we are told that manufacturers are extortioners, and there
is often danger that the great interests which are connected
with their occupations, may be lost sight of in the prejudice
raised against the individuals engaged in them. But, what
ever may be said of the merchants, it is nevertheless cer
tain, that trade, trade carried on by merchants, and com
mercial credit, are favourite objects of the Constitution.
It is, in fact, to a regard for trade, to the obvious necessity
of a system that should he adequate to its protection, its-
regulation and support, that we are indebted for the Con
stitution itself, aud aU the blessings we enjoy or promise

107
ourselves from that instrument The commissioners who
met at Annapolis in September 1786,. delegated by the
States of New- York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware,
and 'Virginia, assembled in consequence of a resolution of
the State of "Virginia, " to take into consideration the trade
of the United States; to examine the relative situation and
trade ofthe said states, &c." Their seport, grounded upon
the suggestion, " that the powCr of regulating trade is of
such comprehensive extent, and will enter so far into the
general system of the federal govern ihen t, that to give it
efficacy, and to obvi&te questions and doubts concerning its
priecise naturcand limits, may require a correspondent ad
justment of other parts of the federal system," recommend
ed the plan of a convention, with enlarged powers, to pre
pare such a system. The recommendation was adopted.
The convention that formed the Constitution was assembled.
This Constitution was the result — and "commerce with
foreign nations and among the several states" Was one of
it's chief concerns.
The power to' " regulate commerce with foreign nations
and among the several slates," would have been inadequate
to its purpose without the concession to Congress of certain
auxiliary powers. They were granted.-^Among them, and
I advert to it as having the nearest affinity to the power,
now more- immediately -under consideration, was the au
thority -to establish a national judiciary, with jurisdiction
over controversies between foreigners and citizens, and
over those between citizens of different states. What was
the view of the convention in giving to the foreigner, and
to the citizens of other -states in relation to the debtor, a
forum such as this ? To secure to him, as far as practicable,
a fair and impartial administration of jtistice, to place him
above the reach of local feeling and local prejudice, beyond
the sphere of those influences that may, by possibility, affect .
the state tribunals, in contests between their citizens and
others. This was the immediate, but what was the ultimate

108
ohject? To protect and encourage trade, to support and in
vigorate commercial credit, by the security offered.
The power "to establish uniform laws on the subject of
bankruptcies," is of the same character. For the construc
tion of this power, I do not think it necessary to resort to
verbal criticism. It does not appear to me that we need .in
quire, whether the term " bankruptcy" had a definite mean
ing, to which we are limited, nor whether we are bound to
follow the model of the statutes in England, or any state
bankrupt laws that may have existed here before the Con
stitution was framed. Por the present purpose, the general
spirit and scope of the Constitution furnish a sufficient
guide. The design of that instrument was to occupy na
tional ground, and leaye the re^t to the states. Who are the
persons then, that, in the relation of debtor, stand connect
ed with foreigners and with the citizens of other states ?
Who are the persons that in the same relation stand con
nected with domestic and foreign trade, and with the com
mercial and public credit of the country ? The answer will
be at once, they are the merchants, the traders, the dealers,-
by whatever name you may be pleased to call them, whose
business it is to buy, and sell, and circulate what is produc
ed at home or imported from abroad. . Other persons may
contract the same relation, but it is occasionally and by
accident only. These (merchants or traders I mean) do
so habitually, constantly, and in the regular course of their
business. Again, in what other class of citizens has the na
tion the same sort of interest? I wish not to.be misunder-t
stood. The nation has an interest in the prosperity of all
her citizens, and of every branch of industry. Agriculture,
the essential, basis of national strength and wealth, deserves
to be cherished and supported. — For manufactures, every
day becoming more and more interesting to this country, 1
trust that much will be done to afford protection and sup
port I declare myself willing to go as far in measures to
support and protect them, as may be necessary — a declara-'

109
tion which 1 am willing should be understood either literally
or liberally, to give it the most positive meaning. But let
it be considered for a moment what is the sort of interest
the nation has in the trading part of the community, and
it will immediately be seen how important is the power to
control them. Take the whole amount of your imports,
add to it the whole amount of your exports, and (if any one
can estimate the value of it,) of your internal trade fpr cpn-
eumption. The great aggregate circulates by means of the
trader, and is in his hands. When the farmer or the planter
carries his crop to market, he does not become the shipper,
and' enter into the mystery of invoices, and bills of lading,
and policies of insurance : he sells it to the merchant By
the hands of the merchant, too, the government receives
its revenue. With such a mass of public and national inte
rest concentrated in the concerns of this class of society ;
with such a power, in the nature of their occupations, to
influence trade, and credit, and revenue, I am satisfied that
the controlling power of Congress was intended to reach
them. We are on national ground, then, intended by the
Constitution to be occupied, in making a bankrupt law for
merchants and traders, and others immediately connected
with trade. Can we go further ? Without undertalcing to
say we cannot, under any circumstances, I am free to con
fess that I see no 'necessity for it, and there are objections
of no inconsiderable magnitude. Beyond., this limit, none
occurs to me as assignable short of an entire comprehension
of all descriptions of persons. To say nothing of the im
policy of exerting the summary and sweeping authority of
a commission of bankruptcy over farmers, and manufac-
turers, and mechanics, it would be a plain encroachment up
on the rights of the states, Was it intended that Congress
should regulate their internal concerns ? This is left to the
states themselves. Why then should we undertake unne
cessarily to interfere? And we should interfere to a most
enormous extent, if we should attempt, by any meati^ to

110
regulate or to affect the relation of debtor and creditor
within the states, upon the comprehensive plan suggested.
The argument is, to my mind, decisive, and it brings us
back to the ground originally taken, where we may safely
stand, assured that we are within the limits of constitutional
duty — from which we cannot depart, without the risk of
doing what is at once unnecessary and inexpedient, perhaps
unconstitutional. The discrimination which is thus indicat
ed by the spirit of the Constitution, and by the theory of
our government, is conformable also to the terms used by
the Constitution. Bankrupt laws, as distinguished from in
solvent laws, have a sufficiently appropriate signification, ,
determined by experience and practice. Their most uni
form feature, whatever other differences may have existed,
has been, that, in their principal operation, they were usually.
confined to the commercial class ; to that class which is most
extensively intrusted with the property of others — which
is most engaged in hazardous adventure, and whose good
or ill fortune, and, if you please, good or ill conduct^ have
the most extensive influence. I would not, however, be
understood as meaning to give any positive limitation, in.
this respect, to the power. If is possible that circumstances
may arise, which would render a more comprehensive de
scription necessary ; and then we should be called upon to
say whether the Constitution permitted such a construction.
At present this is not the case ; the broad line is sufficiently
marked between the national ground which the national
legislature ought to occupy, and those subjects of internal
regulation which may he sufficiently provided for by the
state legislatures.
It is certainly true, that the merchant or trader may be,
and commonly is, indebted to persons residing in the same
state with himself; and it is equally true, that the bankrupt
law will operate upon debts of this description, as well as
upon debts due in other states, and beyond the limits of the
United States. The objection, however, has very little

Ill
weight. If this operation were an evil, it would be only an
incidental one, such as, in a greater or less degree, belongs
to every human system. The work of legislation must be
at an end, if it can never go on without the perfect assur
ance that it will- produce pure, unmixed good — ^that it will
precisely accomplish its object, without producing any con
sequences in themselves to be deprecated., I will not stop
to illustrate, for every man will find the illustrations lying
in every direction about him. But it is not an evil : it is a
part of the object of the bankrupt law, and a part of the
result contemplated by the Constitution in conferring the
power. The Constitution looks to the mass of commercial
dealing — to the character of commercial dealing — to the
sum of the relations arising frpm it, and the sum of the
effects produced by it — upon trade- — upon credit — upon the
nation, and upon society. Itregards, also, the entire mass of
commercial dealing, not the individuals engaged, as the ob
ject of national concern. Is any other discrimination practica
ble ? Suppose you should attempt to exclude creditors resid
ing within the same state with the debtor, one most unjust
consequence would immediately follow. You exclude these
creditors from a participation in a bankrupt's estate ; that
is, you divide it among one set of creditors, to the exclusion
of another, not less iperitorious. Or, suppose you admit
them to partijCipate, but upon different terms, say upon the
terms of not being barred by a certificate, this would he a
discrimination in their favour, both unjust and impolitic, ¦
and tending directly to weaken and undermine the founda
tions of credit ; it would be palpably repugnant not only to
the policy, but tp the very terms of the Constitution, which
give us authority to make uniform laws on the subject of
bankruptcy. Still less force is there in that objection which would
confine the operation of the law to pases between merchant
and merchant, excluding all creditors who are not traders..
If the exclusion should be entire ; that is to say, if you

112
were to distribute the estate of the bankrupt only araong
creditors who are traders, giving no part to the f^rmra-, the
maniffacturer, the mechanic, or others, it would be unjiSSt
If you ^vethem a portionof the estate, withont affecting
them by the certificate, it is unjust as well as imptflSic, for
the reason I have before stated. In either case, (and this
remark applies to both the objections,) you lose sight of
and defeat the very object of the power, which owes Its
existence in part to the extent and nature of the relations
between the merchant and others.
The question which rpmains for the consideration of the
House, is, shall this power now be exercised? I do not
mean to contend that, because we find it in the Constitution,
therefore we are bound to keep it always in exercise. My
honourable friend and colleague (Mr. Hopkinson,) did not
say so, and he has been misunderstood by those who have
endeavoured to illustrate the extravagance of the positiofl
by reference to the power of making war. It Is a poWer to
be exercised by Congress in their discretion, with this guidis,
however, to direct them, that the framers of the ConStittt-
tion thought it a power fit and proper to be exercised' by*
Congress, and not to be left to the states; they, therefore,
supposed It not merely possible, (for a mere possibility
would not have afforded a sufficient motive for insertipn,)
but highly probable that a state of things would exist, ren
dering an uniform bankrupt system not only convenient,
but absolutely necessary^ Whatever arguments, therefore,
are Urged against such a system, simply as such, (and most
of the arguments we have 'heard are of that description,)
intended and tending to show that It i^ at all times, amd
under sfll circDmstances, an evil ; every argument, too-^
grounded upon the supposed adequacy of state le^slatlon
to accomplish the design of the Constitufldn, Is an argument
that might, with propriety, have been addressed to those
w4io framed, and to the states when deliberating upon tlie
adt^tioa of that instrument; It Is, in tmth, an argument

113
against the Constitution itself, a;hd ought to be applied, not
to prevent the passage of a law, but to produce an amend
ment Can a state of things ever be supposed tn exist, more"
inlperlqusly calling upon Congress for their interposition,
with a view to the results which the power is to be con-
ffldered as having been intended to produce ? This question
will he most satisfactorily answered, by considering, in the
first place, for a few, moments, the general provisions of
the bin, as they relate to the interests of the creditor.
The bill proposes, in the first section, that, upon the
proof of certain facts, indicating unequivocally that a mer
chant's or trjader's concerns are in a state of irretrievable
embarrassraent and disorder, and that he is rapidly ap
proaching to a state of insolvency, or already arrived at it,
a creditor may cause a commission of bankruptcy to be is
sued against him. The effect of the proceeding Is, to take
out of his hands sJl ih^ prOperty, he may have In his pos
session, or may be entitled to, and place it in the custody
of persons appointed by the law. for the purpose of equal
distribution among all his creditors, without distinction, In
proportion to the amount of their ifespective debts. Nothing
can be fairer or more reasonable than this. The detqiils of
theblll, so, far as they concern the creditors, are all directed
to the. object I have stated, to accomplish the hpnest stir-
render of property by the debtor, and the equal distribution
among his creditors. Is not soineAing of this kind requir
ed? Those members who represent commercial i districts,
are prepared to answer the question from experience; and
those who have not had the sarae means of information,
may, notwithstanding, afrlve at the con fiction of the neces
sity byTne simple process of reason.
The state insolvent laws, (with, I believe, but one ex-
ceptlon,) proceed only upon the application of the debtor.
They do not operate till he himself thinks proper to peti
tion, and then they give him relief in such manner as they
15

114
deem most advisable. Some, by general laws, commit the
authority to judicial tribunals ; some exercise it themselves
by direct legislation upon existing cases ; some have per
manent regulations ; others pass occasional laws ; some few
grant the most extended relief, dischargingfrom the debt;
the greater part, pnly the limited relief of immunity from
imprisonment. Their views, in all these cases, are direct
ed, as in other matters, by statej and hot by national policy,
and so they ought to be. . This policy is different in difi'er
ent states, but ih all it Is liable to be embarrassed by the
very omission of Congress to provide for the case which
by the Constitution is committed to their care, inasmuch
as it throws upon the states, individually, the almost 'in
vincible difficulty of endeavouring- to conciliate interests
and views that can scarcely be made to harmonize. ¦ New-
York, being highly- coramercial, may be very much in
fluenced by coramercial feeling in her local legislation on
this subjeqt Pennsylvania, hot long ago,, passed $, speciil
insolvent law for the city and county of Phikdelphja. This
was an effort to describe cominercial cases by local limits,
and may be plainly traced to the sarae , fruitful source of
erabarrassraent — ran embarrassment . that would no longer
have an existence if Congress would exercise their authority,
and, by withdrawing from state legislation the subject of
commercial bankruptcy, leave the states free to pursue each
its Own appropriate policy upon othcsr cases of insolvency
— cases that, from their nature, are essentially dependent
upon other and much less extensive considerations. ¦ . < •
One great defect, however, of the state insolvent laws,
is the one I have raentioned. They wait until the insolvent
asks for relief In the mean time he is consuming, or wast
ing, or mismanaging the property tbat ought to satisfy his
debt^, and, when he coraes for relief, has nothing to sur
render. The uncontrouled authority over his estate, too,
occasions a resort to expedients, which, in a general view,
ought not to be permitted — expedients that have become

lis
almost consecrated by pra,ctlce>, but are not, on that aqcbunt,
the less exceptionable. The failing merchant is Influenced
in the distribution of his property, not by any general con
siderations of justice,, but sometimes by feelings of regard
for particular creditors, often by regarij only for himself
and his future hopes. He pays one, and leaves nothing to
pay another. Why?, Because one is a friend or neighbour,
the other is hot; one has lent hifli money, or endprsed his
paper, the, other has onJy said him goods.; one importunes
him, the other has not the opportunity ; making thus cer
tain arbitrary distinotiohs, natural enough, but nPt defensi
ble 'upon any just general principles. Sometimes^ and not
seldom, his. distribution has reference only to. himself. Is
he most intimately connected with domestic creditors ? He
inay secure their good' will- and future aid by gmng them
a preference to his foreign creditors.. Is he most nearly con
nected with foreign .creditors ? He .preserves their ctinfi-
dence, and lays a.^ ground to hope for their future assistance,
by giving the preference tp them ; and among creditors of
the same.kind, he may adopt a similar distinctibn. The ob
ject of the bill is to prevent aU such doings, and to ibring
back .the distribution to the only fair rule, the rule of im
partial equality. I do not pretend to pursue the mischiefs
that exist in all their detailsr—sufiering a failing debtor, to
raake his own assignees, perpiitting him- to extort terms of
composition froin his creditors, and the like. I refer to
these things briefly, to show, that circumstances' call for
the incorporation' of a bankrupt law into the code of the
Unitejl States, for. the -protectiori of the creditor, and the
preservation cf commercial integrity and commercial
credit. ,, -
It would be' a sufficient' answer tothe argument which
supposeSiith^t the states may do all thatjis necessary, to say>
that the Constitution does not permit us to think so, or Why
did it give the^ower tb Congress? The states cannot make
uniform laws on the subject, noi* laws that will operate be-

116
yond their own terrl'tofy, much less that will haVe any fo
reign operation. The stafesj in their local legislationj. must
be chiefly go-verned by loCal views— this is the theory of
the Constitution' — and by the' clause in question, they have,
themselves, not only conceded the principle, but they have
also 'conceded the fact, that the poweriin question Is one of
national^ and not of Ipcal concern. How can this argument
be urged Wilii any thing like even a plausible appearance,
by those who, in another instance, endeavour to deduce the
principle, not frora the express words of the Constitution,
but from the mere proof of the ftct? You have upon your
table a most important report upon^ the subject of internal
improvement. Is there any express authority given to Con
gress by the Constitution, to legislate-on this subject? The
answer is plain ;. there is not. Whence is the authority de
rived ? From the -fact rnerely that national iraproveraents,
by;"oads and inland .navigatlonj may be necessary for the
coraraon defence and general welfare. And, cannot this be
done by the states ? The answer ?gain is, no. The states,
individually, arfe not competent to ihe Care of the national
concerns. They raay and do raake roads for themselves,
and it may happen that these will be so raade in reference
to each Other, as to produce, by their corabination, what iS
desired — natlohEil thoroughfares, for national conveniehee
and national defence. But it raay happen otherwise. I warn
those -vvho argue thus — who derive the , power itself from
the necessity and convenience of its exe,rcise— against send
ing back to the states a Jiower, which t\ie states themselves,
upon similar reasoning, have expressly gi-aijted to Congress.
The interest which the United States, as a creditor, have
in this question, ought not to be overlooked. One of the
eommunlcatlqns made by the Secretary of the Treasury,
during the present session, (I cannot lay my hand upon it)
states, that the preference, intended td be secured to the
United States, Is defeated by' partial assignments and dis-
posltjions of property made by the public debtors. The

117
H steady ahd regular collection of the Rublic tevenu^
pottanl^ to the public service, is, at all times, worthy ofT:he-..^
attention of Congress; and It must, therefore, be" consider
ed as a pQ-yverful recommendation of a barikrupt law, thjit
It Would effectually remedy the evil complained of. The
wisdora of the legislature may be able,' perhaps, to devise
other reniedieS ; I know of none, (and I do not say it with- i
out some rejection,) that will be effectual, attd not be liable
to very great objections.
Upon the remaining, part of the subject^ that which re
lates to thei condition ofthe debtor, I shall, at present, say
but a vet-y'few words, not Only because it has beeti fully
and distinctly put before the committee by my honourable
friend and colleague, (Mr. Hopkinson,) but because It Will
be more proper to consider it when we arrive 'at that part
bf the bill which contains the provisions for 'his relief. The
general design is to discharge hira altogether, provided
two-thirds of his creditors shall agree. The commissioners
are boiind to sign his certificate, if he has been'^ guilty of no
fraud ; but that will riot discharge him. Two-thirds of his
creditors must concur, and as they may either give or with
hold their assent, at their discretion j without assigning any
reason, they will, of course, be determined , in their deci
sion, by a -general and comprehensive View; of the whole
c6ndUct of the debtot. Has he been unfortunate ? They
will agree to his discharge. Has he been unjust, has he
been "carfeless, extravagant? They raayj at their pleasure,
ref\iSe it.' Is there any thing unreasonable in this? If, by a
summary process, you itake all fVom the debtor, if he has
fairly surrendei-ed every thing to his creditors, satisfied a
large majprity pf them that he has been' the victim of mis
fortune, not of raisconduct, ought he to be held in subjec
tion to the merciless resentments, or the mcvcixess iavarice
of a few, and be'condemned, at their pleasure, to idleness
and despair? And foi^ what pui^osei? Society is deprived
of the benefits of his exertions; he is himself deprived of

118
the use of those faculties which have been given, to him —
and for -what? Does -the creditor gain by ItPrHas he a
chance of obtaining more? I have the authority of expe
rience for saying, that thp chance is not worth estimating.
Look at the operation of those laws, which grant only a
partial discharge. Is' a creditor in a better condition for the
hold, he has upon the future earnings_of the debtor ? Orfe
of two consequences Inevitably follows ; the debtor either
sinks into a state of hopeless and helpless, inaction, , or con
ceals the fruits of his industry by various contrivances that
are hurtful to his and to the public morals. Besides, we
must never forget, that if is for misfortune that this provi
sion is to be made ; for misfortune, which no prudence can
avert or prevent^ but which is inseparably incident to .the
pursuits of those who are proposed to be coniprehended in
this law. But I forbear, at pretent, to press this part of the
case. ' ' I
I would beg leave to remark, however, that I confine
myself to the exemption of the earnings pf his Industry.
I have no objection to give to his creditors whatever he
may afterwards acquire by gift, devise, - descent, . or any
other means, in shortj but his own exertions. , Of these he
should have the full benefit, not only for his own sake, .but
for the sake Of- society. '
It was no,t.ray intention to notice the objections to pari
ticular parts pf the bill, norwill I at this time notice them.
There are two or three objections of a more -general cha
racter, upon which, I will ask the indulgence of the com
mittee to say a very few words.
A system, it is said, must be a bad one, and contain in
itself very strong temptations to. fraud, which requi^res such
bloody penalties as are to be foupd In the English statutes.
The Whole penal code of England is deeply stained with
blood- When Blackstone composed his GommentarieSt he
mentioned, with regret, that of the offences which a man
!Biay commit, no less than one hundred and forty were

« 119
capital felonies, punishable' with-death. How many may-
have since been added by statute, -to the catalogue", I do
noj know. The bankrupt laws of England are in the spirit
of the rest of this code, arid their penalties are no bettet
evidence of the temptations offered by those laws, than are
the penalties In the laws -for securing life and property,
that the security of life and property offers .a great tempta
tion to the" perpetration of mur dei* and robbery. 'You may
trace it, if you please, to the state of society.; you may
trace itto the error of the legislature, or to a general want
of humanity in their Institutioris, tp extreme prodigality in
the punishment of death, but not to the mere existence of
laws for securing life and property.
Again ; it is said, that a -bankrupt law must be a spurc'e
of endless litigation, and the evidence of it is a bill that
passed spme time'ago for corapleting ,the execution of com
missions under the ¦ former law. To raake this arguraent
available. It Would be necessary to know how raany cases
Were finished, and hpw many remain Incomplete. It might,
be useful, then, to compare, the ¦ propprtlPn of each, with
the cases of each 'kind urider the state' inipl vent laws. — ^^
The comparispn wbnlpl be decidedly in "favour of the bank
rupt lawj unless, indeed, the cases, under the insolvent law
are considered as terriiinating with the discharge of the
debtor, for. In truth, very- little more ever comes, of them.
It riiay be well, hpweVer, to remind the honorirable raem
ber who thinks the -pvant pf a Court of chancery. of so great?
importance, that a ^system without It must be a wretched
system,; it may be well tp remind him that one of the chief
objections to a court of ehancery, so commorily urged. Is,
that its proceedings, are interminable. But, I am sensible
that I have'.already trespassed too long on the attention of
the House. • ' , .

SPEECH

ON THE BANK OF THE UNITED STATES, DELIVERED IN
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, FEBRUARY 22^.1819.
[On the aoth November 1818, on motion of Mr. Spencer^ of New-fork,~ a reflation
instituting a committee of inquiry- into the affairs of the Bank of the Unitsd States,
passed the House of Repiresentatives* The colamittee, <!Qnsisting of Mv. Spencer, Mr«
l/0wiides,-Mr. M'Lane,Mr. Burwell, arid .Mr. Tyler, Reported on the sl6t3i January lalg^
A majority of" 'the committee, Messrs. Spencer, Burwell^ and Tyler, were of opinion that
ihe charter of th,e '3ank had been violated in the following instances :
1^ In purcha^ng two millions of public delit, in order tp substitute them for twd other
millions of similar Hebt, which it had contracted to sell, or had sold in £ng[laivd, and
- which the Secretary of the Treasury claimed the right of redeeming.
' 2. In not requiring" the fulfilmeYit ofi;he engagement made by the stockholderSjon fth'
scribing, to pay. the second and thirdl instalments on the stock; in' coiii or fundgd debt.
3. In paying dividends to stockholders who had i^^t completed their ii^stalments.
¦ 4. By the judges of l3ie fii'st and second elections allowing many persons to g^ve^^pre
tjiau .thirty votes each, under the pretence of their bei:pg attorneys for others in whose
names shares then stood ; when*those Judg^, the directors, and officers ofthe Bank^ knew
that these shares belonged tb the' persons offeriug to -vote upon them as attom^s.
Onthe 19th January, Mr. Trimble, qf Kentucky, off*er6^ the following resolution. He-
solved, That the Ai;tbrriey General of the United States, in conjnnctibn with<the District
Attorney of I*ennsylvania, shall 'immed^tely cause a »c^e facias ta.he issued, ^.ccording
, to the 23d Section of the Act *> to ine'orpofate'the stdiscribei's to the.Bank of the United
States," calling on the .borporation created'by tlie said act to show cause wherefore the
^haj^r thereby granted^hall not be declared forfeited, Sw. ' '
On the 3lst January, Mr. >Spencer oifered a resolution dice^tiing the SecretiuT' of the
Treasury to withdraw the public disposit^ fro^ the Bank, and the Attorney General to
cause a sdre faeias to be; sued out, with .the view to try the q^ijestibn: of forfeature, unless
^e Bank should aspent to a aerieaof propositions, which, when assented to, were-to be
made,'by Act of Congress, part of the charter'of'the Bank.
Onthe 9th Febnutry, Mr. Johnsoii, pf Virginia, submitted a resolution ipstmcting the
comniittee on th% Judiciaty to. report a bill repealing th6 charter ofthe Bank.
It was-during tiie discus9ion.of these resolutions. that this speech was delivered. Thfe
principal otSier speakers w£re Messrs. Spencer, FindalL Bafbour, and l^ter, against. Ihe
Bbnk, and Messrs Lownder, 'M'Lane, and'Storrs, in dience of iL<— The resoluidons were
rejected.] ' ¦ '¦ ¦ ^
"*¦ Mr. Chairman f I must beg the permission. of the cofin-
Mittee, tp offer to them some observations upon the several
propositions that^are now submitted for their consideration
and decision.

' 121
^ 'The inquiry in which we are engaged, is attended with
some intrinsic difiiculties, of no inconsiderable magnitude,
and .calculated very much to embarrass our deliberations,
as they must, haye been to embarrass the- delijierations of
the select committee, to whona the examination of this sub
ject was more particularly confided. In the first place, it is
retrospective, and I admit it is necessarily so. We are call
ed upon -to, take a review of the management and conduct
of the ba,nk,, during, all the period of its existence, and we
expect to find that the best has be?n clone iri every instance,
which, with the full light derived from a knowledge of all
tl^at has since happened, appears to us to have been possi- •
ble. In this manner it is, that battles are fought over again
in discussion ; and, whether they have been lost or whesther
they have been won, it seldom happens that those who thus
sit,>in judgnaent upon them, cannot detect some errors that
have been committed — point ddt advantages that have been
lo^t^— and opportunities that have been suffered to pas's un
improved. The justrule of judgmiyit in such cases, if, in
deed, its application were practicable, would be to place.
ourselves in the situation of those, upon whose conduct we
are called to pass, in the midst of the -difficulties by which
they were surrounded, and with no better view of the fu
ture »than what their own judgment could afibrd them.
Ittis in the nature, too, of this inquiry, conducted as it
has, been, to group and connect together all the exception
able acts that have been done by those to whom the ma
nagement of the institution has been confided: while, to
use a bank phrase, it gives no credit for those, things'which
were /right, and even entitled- to some commendation.- I
wish, sir, to be distinctly understood. I am not using the
language either of complaint or censure. I only say, that
as the inquiry, from its nature, was in a great measure con
fined to exceptionable acts, it must necessarily present thenj
in a body, without relief ^frpm their association with th©
mass of good deeds with which, in thieir order, they stQ(>4
16

122
connected. This is a sort of judgment which none of us
would be willing to submit to, or could expect to endure.
Let the life pf any man, the most honest and honourable,
be exposed to the same kind of examination. Begin with
his infancy, (to use the language of the gentleman from
Virginia) and, following him through the difi'erent periods
of his progress, put together, as constituting his history,
whatever, from the severest scrutiny, yoii can find, that has
deserved reproach or censure. What a dark exhibition
would It be ! ,
Besides, sir, what is at last the test we apply ? We set
opinion against opinion, upon a subject of a very compre
hensive, and of a very complicated nature, involving much
detail, and every detail Involving more or less speculativer
Inquiry. There are extrinsic difficulties,, of no less magnitude. It
cannot be denied that there has been a vast deal of prejui
dice in the public mind against this institution, which,- what
ever may be our resolutions to the contrary, afiects us in
sensibly, and, when we neither know nor suspect It. The
sources of this prejudice are suiEciently apparent.
The state institutions have many of them been induced
to regard the national bank as an enemy, and the spirit of
hostility which they have felt, has had a most powerful In
fluence throughout the community, with which they are so
extensively and intimately connected. — :It is in the ordina
ry course, too, of the operations of the bank, to give fr€f-
quent ofience to individuals. Every, man who is refused a
discount, thinks himself aggrieved, and indulges a feeling
of resentment, not at all mitigated by any consideration of
the circurastances that may have rendered it prudent, or
even necessary, to reject his application. The same remark
might be made, with equal truth, of every sort of aceom-
modatipn which the bank Is supposed to have the capacity
to afibrd, but which events, beyond Its power to control^
frequently oblige it to withhold. When the directors, nott

123
very long ago, exercising a right that no one denies to have
belonged to them, and exercising it under the compulsion
of, circumstances, so imperious, that every one now con
fesses they could not have refrained without a plain viola
tion of their duty — when, I say, they determined that
branch notes should thenceforth be paid only where, upon
their face, they were made payable, there was, an almost
universal clamor. — Sir, there is still anpther source Of pre-
judice. The bank has had the day of its beginning. It is
now in the day of Its humiliation. But, it has had the day
of its prosperity, too ; when success, even beyond the ex
pectations of its most sanguine friends, seemed to crown Its
operations. In that day— ^I appeal to many who are within
hearing of what I state, and are able to confirm its truth,
as' a mere matter of fact — I appeal to every one acquainted
with our nature, to say whether it is not what would natu
rally happen-^-those' who had themselves refused to sub
scribe, and discouraged the subscription of others — those
who had thus neglected to avail themselves of what then
appeared to have been. the golden opportunity — sufiered all
the mortification of seeing their predictions continually fal
sified, and could scarcely avoid the influence of a certain
deeply implanted .kindred feeling, which is never more
sharply exerted than when we see others profit by what we
have permitted to escape from ourselves. They did not
avoid it.
There ^re, besides, many, who think that a national
bank, however oirganized. Is impolitic and unwise : And
there are some who think It not within the constitutional
power of congress to establish' a bank.
Under the combined operation of .such a mass of causes,
the committee had no doubt a difficult task to perform,
even if they had tgken much more time for its performance
than seems to have been allotted. If they have fallen into
errors, it is not at aU surprising, but it ought to secure from
them some Indulgence; for error in others. It will at least

124
entitle us to difler from them in opinion, and freely and
fully to canvass the grounds of the report.
Before, however, I proceed to examine the report, I beg
leave to call the attention of the committee to the authori
ty under which we have been acting, as it Is to be found In
the law for incorporating thte subscribers to the' bank. The
provisions of the charter, designed to secure, the faithful
administration of the bank, contain in them a distribution
of powers, just In itself, and perfectly well adapted to at
tain the object. The power given to this house, (section
83) is confined to a single point of inquiry, namely, tvhe-
ther or not the charter has been violated ; in order that we
may be, enabled to judge whether or not It ^is expedient to
Institute legal proceedings for its repeal. The e^taminatlon
weare authorized to make,' is subordinate to this object;
and, to my mind, it is quite clear that we have no right to
pursue it further. The care of the remaining interests of
the government in the institution, is confided to the Exe
cutive. The President appoints the government directors.
The Secretary of the Treasury has an almost unlimited
power of examining the proceedings of the bank. Weekly
statements are to be made to him, (sec. 11, art. 15) and he
has the right to inspect every thfng except the accounts of
individuals. . The purpose is manifest. It is, in the first
plaae, to enable him to judge of the conduct of the directors
appointed by the government. It is, in the next p^ace, to
enable him to decide whether the public interest In the
bank, consisting of the stock belonging to the government,
and the deposltes of public money, is faithfully guarded.
The necessary sanction for enforcing the exercise of this
power is also confided .to the Executive, The President
has authority to appoint, and to hini Is given the authority
to remove, the directors on the part of the government
(sec. 8.) A much more Important sanction Is the power
given to the Secretary of the Treasury, by section 16, to
withdraw the public deposltes, laying before Congress hjs

125
treasons for so doing. The Interests of-the stockhplders,
which form the remaining branch of this great natlpnal con
cern,' were Intended to be left to the care of the stockhold
ers themselves, as their best and safest guardians — their na
tural guardians ; and it is the right of the stockholders to
dielegate the authprity to such directors as they may think
proper. This right Is enforced and secured by the power
of election. Their servants are accountable to them, pre
cisely as we are to our constituents.' If, upon a review of
our conduct here, they are not satisfied with our efforts to
serve them, they elect ils no more, but devolve the honour
able trust of representing them in the councils of the na
tion, upon others, whom thdy think more worthy of their
confidence. These provisions, thus arranged and distributed, are of
sufficient efficacy for all th.e purposes that were designed to
be. accomplished. Thus arranged and distributed, they are
in harmony with each other, and while every Interest Is
guarded hy its appropriate sanction, they all co-operate to
secure the common resiilt — a faithful administration of the
bank. If this be a correct exposition of the terms of the char
ter, our inquiry ought pioperlyonly to be, (what alone It
can- be efifectuall y,) whether the charter has been violated.
Any other course will inevitably lead us into difficulty. If
we undertake to examine the general administration of the
affairs of thp bank, or to investigate the conduct of particu
lar directors, we are involved at once in the danger of an
interference Mth the Executive. To that department it
belongs to decide whether the. public duty has been per-
fbrmed. The officer at the head of the treasury must al
ways be well qualified to decide. None hut a citizen of
distinguished talents will be placed in that high and respon-
'sible station, andy when there, his official occupations, the
habitual tenor of his studies and reflections, his daily ac^
(Quaintance with the management of the bank in all its re.

126
latloris to the fiscal concerns of the nation, as well as his
repeated inspection ofthe statements exhibited, will enable
him, better than any other person, to judge how far Its con
cerns are faithfully administered tpwards the public. , Are
we npt in danger, too, of involving ourselves in collision
with the judiciary ? We are here entertaining a mixed In
quiry, partly of expediefacy, and partly of 'charter-right,
mingled in such a way, that, in deciding whether the char
ter has been violated, we make no distinction between
errors, or, if you. please, misconduct, in the management,
and Such ofi'ences of the corporation as would work a for
feiture ofthe charter. Indeed, the distinction, obvious as
it is, seems scarcely tP have been noticed, either in the re
port of the committee, or in the debate that has taken place.
The great stress, of objection has rested, not so much upon
the specific violations of charter, alleged to have been com
mitted, as upon the more comprehensive ground of mis
management in the exercise df indisputable charter-rights.
Suppose, then, that, under the impression of considerations
like these, you send this corporation to the judiciary, there
to receive its trial — you hiay send it there with -all- the
weight of prejudice arising frorn a vote of Cpngress — lyou
may, and you will, in some degree, pre-occupy the public
mind, always deeply afl'ected by the judgments of their re
presentatives, and you may, and probably will, more or
less impair the chaiice of a fair and ihipartial trial. , But,
when this trial shall, come— when the corporation shall ap-
p.ear at the bar of a judicial tribunal-^there will he an end
to every question except the, naked questipn of forfeiture.
There will, be an end to every consideration that is foreign
to that precise inquiry, and then the conseqi^ence will be,
thaj:, following a difi'erent rule of judgment, the judicial
tribunal will probably arrive at a diflferent result. You are
thus ia direct collision. Difi'erent departments of the go
vernment are placed in a state pf hostility towards each
other, the public mind is irritated, and that harmony which

127
we all know to be of sp much importance, in the structure
of our government, is uselessly endangered.
Sir, we interfere,^ to a most alarming extent, with the
just power of the stockholders. They are the ej^clusive
judges of whom they will have for directors. Th^y are the
best' judges. That sure instinct, '? that keen, steady, and,
as it were, magnetic, sense of his own interest," which
every man feels and obeys, in his own concerns, is the best
security to be relied upon for a careful and prudent gelec-
tlon. It is the right of the stockholders, by the charter,
and it isalmost th^ only 'right they have reserved. To the
government they have conceded much ; for themselves they
have detained only the power in question, to be exercised
under such modifications arid restrictions as Congress
thought fit to prescribe. Upon the faith of an undisturbed
and free enjoyment of this republican right, of choosing
their own representatives, they have embarked their pro
perty in the institution ; and would you, can you, without
doing unjust violence to the compact you have made with
them, impair or disturb the exercise of the power that be
longs to them, of judging for themselves whom they will
have for directors ? Sir, I will put to you what may at this
moment, perhaps, be deemed the strongest case. Suppose
they choose to elect a broker, or a speculator — can you say
they shall not? Have you the power to ;tell them what shall
be the occupation, what the character of the men whom
they are to employ ? You may think their selection unwise
or imprudent, but they will answer you .that they know
their own interests, and are able to take care of them. That
in the very instances you object to, though the individuals
may be obnoxious to the imputation of being speculators
or brokers, . and youj on that general ground, may think
4;hem exceptionable, yet they, the stockholders, have the
means of knowing their individual characters from various
sources, Inaccessible to you, and feel the fullest confidence
in their intelligence, aqd fidelity to the institution. I do

128
not now touch the question of elections ; it belongs to a
different part of the inquiry.
I will make but one observation more upoii this branch
of the subject. It is essential to the interests pf the stock
holders, and it Is no more than just to the directors, that
the latter should be free, while they are performing the
duties that are assigned to them ; that they should be free,
not only from all restraints except those to which the law
subjects them, but that they should be free from the appre
hension of an unlimited and undefined accountability. Many
things are exclusively confided to them, and must be so
confided. Their own judgment, fairly applied — their owu
discretion — Is what must guide them. Who will under
take an office like this — whom can we rely upon to execute
It with fidelity— If he is to act under the terror of an in
vestigation, which may put the worst construction upon
well meant efforts, which may even expose his best acts to
censure, and which, governed by no known rule in Its
course, and limited by no measure in its, result, is calculated
to confound ail distinction between the officer and the indi
vidual, between error and misconduct, and' by a hasty sen
tence to inflict the keenest punishment that an honourable
man can endure?' And this, top, upon what a member of
the splect committee has termed, and properly termed, an
ex parte inquiry, where the accused has not the opportu
nity either of explanation or defence, and where ^le first
notice he receives is in the heavy condemnation going forth
against him under the respected authority of a committee
of this honourable body.
Sir, other objections will readily present themselves to
such an inquiry. We have no better rule or principle to
direct us,, than one man would have in judging whether
another managed his estate to the greatest advantage. If
tbe inquiry were simply whether the charter had been vio
lated, we should have a comparatively easy duty. There
mi^t, and from what has occurred, I think it probable

129
there would be difference, of opinion. Still, we should ¦
differ only about the application of established rules, and
should be relieved from the most unple^.san^ part of the pre
sent inquiry. .
But i know well that every public body, hpwever con
stituted, listens with reluctance and with some displeasure,
to any argument or suggestion that tends to bring in ques
tion Its own power. 'I< do not mean-^for it is no longer
material — 'to question the power of this house, in Its imme-
di|it,e application to the business in hand. It Is too late.
Still less do I mean to avoid the full examination of all the
grouhds of, complaint and censure which are displayed In
the report of the committee. But, I have- thought it right,
to submit, with candour and freedom, sueh observations as
occurred to me, upon the general nature of the authority
possessed by this house, chiefly with a view to expose the
mischiefs that might result from, franscending it. Every'
member will allow to them such weight as he thinks thejf
deserve, and no more. .
I will now proceed to consider the subject, under the
twp aspects in which it is presented by the committee-
1. As regards the general management of the institution,
II. As regards the alleged violations of the charter,
1. We all of us rememb^er distinctly the state of things
that exlste.d when the law passed for incorporating the sub
scribers to the Bank of the United States. We had a cur
rency, or rather, to speak more accurately, we had curren
cies, lo.Cal In their circulation, and variously depreciated in
different parts of the Union ; in some quarters of the coun
try as niuch as 20 per cent. We had no general currency ;
none that would circulate freely everywhere. The evil
effficts were already very manifest, and threatened to in
crease. To' say nothing of the obstructions and difficulties
which Were thrown in the Way of domestic commerce and
exchange, nor of the continual Irritation that was occasioned
by the changes in value which, took place at every step by
17

130
what was called money, in its progress, either 'with travel
lers or traders, through different parts of th* Union — to
say nothing of the efiect upon the credit of the country-".
but passing these by, as evils familiarly known and. felt,
there still remained one great .source of grievance and pub
lic mischief, which, it becariie peculiarly the . duty of the
government of the United States to endeavour to remove.
The revenue of the government was received in the paper
of the state banks ; its debts were paid in the same paper.
What was the consequence ? Its funds were not transfera
ble from place to place, according to its wants ; but confined
in their use to the local limits which bounded the circula
tion of the paper in which they happened to be paid. Again
— There was nothing like uniformity in the payments made
to the government. A merchant In Boston, owing precisely
the same nominal amount, paid twenty per cent, more than
a merchant in Baltimore. There was the same inequality
in the disbursement, as in the receipt of the revenue. The
public creditor, who had the good fortune to receive his
money at Boston, received twenty per cent, more than the
creditor who was obliged to receive it at Baltimore or
Washington. In addition to all the inevitable evils belong^-
ing to such a state of- things, (sufficient surely, if allowed
to continue, to have endangered the well being ofthe Union)
there was one, perhaps, also, inseparably Incident, which
began to manifest itself. I allude, sir, to the power it gave
to those who were intrusted with the collection and dis
bursement of the public moneys. They had the opportunity
of benefiting themselves, and of favouring their friends, at
the expense of the treasury, and at the expense of the pub
lic creditor. The very possibility of such an abuse was a
sufficient ground ef suspicion. At the period we^re speak
ing of, an officer of the goverriment found it necessary to
ask of this house an Investigation of his conduct, in order
that he might vindicate himself from certain injurious ru
mours circiilated against him, upon no better foundatioa

131
than the one I have mentioned. The investigation took
place ; the result was satisfactory ; and I refer to it only to
bring into view one of the- many kinds of mischief growing
out of the disordered condition of the currency. Whether
the state institutions would of themselves have corrected
the evil, I do not think it necessary to inquire. The go
vernment of the United States ha<i no direct controlling
power over them ; and, if they had so far sacrificed their
own interests, in deference to the public good, as to restrict
their business, and, of course, their profits, it must have
been from a voluntary submission to motives of a higher
character than ordinarily govern the conduct of individuals
or bodies. But this I will say, that if they were to be
brought back by any thing deserving the name of coercion.
It could npt have been gentler than that which has been
employed by the Bank of the United States.- Sir, when
this, subject was before Congress at the time of passing the
act of incorporation. It was thought by many that the de
struction of the state institutions would rapidly follow the
establishment of the National Bank. I confess myself to
have been one of those who were influenced by this appre
hension. I thought the new institution would press heavily
upon the old, and through them would press severely upon
the community. I" did not then see how the great public
views were to be realized, without departing from that
course of lenity towards the State banks which the interests
of the community seemed most imperidusly to require.
The objects to be attained were thus immense : the inter
ests to, be conciliated Were of the highest importance, and
at the same time apparently irreconcilable. The task was
a fearful orie ; and the mariner in which it has been executed,
when it comes to be fairly developed, will seem little short
of marvellous; If proof were necessary of what was gene
rally thought at the time, to be the burden the bank had
assumed, and of its capacity to bear that burden, we might
refer to the history of the subscription at the opening of the

132
books. Great doubts were entertained whether It would
he filled. Ih fact. It was not filled during the twenty days
prescribed by the law. There remained unsubscribed aboVe
three millions of dollars, nearly the whole of which was
taken by one individual in Philadelphia.
I will npw proceed to show^ what the bank has done, con
sidering, first in order, the national objects it was designed
to accomplish, , ¦
Among these, the most interesting, and in every point
of view the most important, the one .which chiefly induced
the passage of the law-— was the introduction of an uniform
currericy, in sufficient quantity to answer the purposes of
circulation, so far, at least, as to enable the government to
collect ^nd disburse Its revenue. I mean a cu'rrenCy as
nearly uniform as the nature of things will adifait. It can- '
not be supposed to be within the power of any governmfent,
or of any barik, to make a dollar at New-Orleans worth as
much to a merchant in Boston, as a dollar in Boston; un
less, indeed, he has employment for his dollar at New-Or
leans, In, which case it niay be worth more or less to him,
according to circumstances. We might as well pretend to
make a bag of cotton worth as much upon the plantation
where it is produced,. ?s in the warehouse at New- York, or
in the manufactory at Philadelphia. Put this part of the
subject has already been fully and ably handled by the gen
tleman from South Carolinay (Mr. Lowndes,) who has shown
conclusively that the currency afforded by the Bank of the
United States, approaches nearer to uniformity throughout
lhe whole extent of this great country, than has been at
tained by nations possessing at least equal advantages, and
operating within much narrower limits.
Neither was it understood or expected that the Bank
would be able to place, and to keep in circulation, every
where, as much as in each particular quarter of the Union
might be wished or wanted. This is as impracticable in re
gard to states and districts of country, as it Is with respect ta

133
individuals. A parent may give to a child a fortune adequate
to his suppprt, and suited to his circumstances, but he can
not prevent him from wasting or parting with it, unless he
imposes restrictions upon its use. The yery phrase, "a
uniform currency," implies a currency that will pass every
where: that will flow everywhere, without any obstruc
tion, but what arises from the expense of conveyance ; of
equal value everywhere, and for that very reasbri in un
equal quantities. .This is the precise distinctipn between
the paper of the Bank of the United States, and the paper
pf the state banks] which, having no currency beyond cer
tain local limits, remains within tliem in greater abundance
than is necessary. It is the same distinction which exists
between either kind of paper, when not redeemable, and
gold and silver. We n^^ay illustrate it more cjearly by an
instance: ,A merchant in the state of Ohio makes a sale In
Ohio, In order that he may be able to buy in Baltimore, or
he sells in Baltimore that'he may buy In New- York. He
wishes, in either case, to receive what will pay for his pur
chase in Baltimore or New- York, and he carries from the
place of .sale to the place of purchase the ^riiount he has re
ceived. It,.has happened to most of us to have some expe
rience of the na.ture of this distinction. Formerly, there
was great complaint by travellers In some parts of New..
¦ England, that the mpney, or rather the paper, they received
in one town, woUld not pass in another. ;There,. I, believe,
the grievance hasqeased. But In other par^s of theJcountry
we experience it every day ; being obliged continually to
inquire whether the paper put into our hands in one place
will be taken in payment. In another, and feeling instantly
the inconvenience, if, by mistake, we carry It beyond the
limited bounds of its circulation.
, Where the currency has the quality I have mentioned,
that is, uniform or nearly uniform value, the quantity that
will remain at any given place depends upon the course of
trade. The quality, depends upon its solidity. The memo..

134
rial to the Ohio Legislature, pr the report qf a. committee
of that body, (I dp not know which,, for. I was not in the
house when it was quoted by the geritleman from Sputh
Carolina,) complains, in substance, that such a currency
was furni-shed to them. That Is the amount of the go m-
pialntj for they -say they w-ere tempted to employ it in
purchasing from the cities to the eastward beyond what
they ought to haye purchased. A very sirigular complaint,
indeed, which charges . upon' others the consfequences of
their Own imprudence ! The complaint should be, that they
did not keep what Was given to them, or at least a pprtion
of it, and use it, as they might have done, in the payment
of their dues tO' the government. There is no doubt, bowr
ever, that they have approached, if they have not reached,
the true, cause of their present embarrassments. This cur
rency would not have wandered .away, and left them desti
tute of the means pf paying their debts, if their local circu
lation had not been overcharged, vyith state hank paper, de
preciated from its abundance^^too easily obtained— Supply
ing the purpftses of local exchange, and failipg when it was
wanted for the more exten'Sive exchange,, to which the
United States bank paper, from its uniform value, was ex
actly adapted. The paper and credits afforded by the Bank
of the United State's were thus banished by the local paper ;
they werC s^nt off to' perforhi the distant service of buying
in the cities at the eastward, and the, people of Ohio kept
nothing to pay their debts but the paper of the state banks.
This was their own fault, Imputable to themselves alone.-
Time, economy, and the industry of the state, employed
In producing what will buy mpney, or, in other words,
what may be exchanged with those parts of the Union
where the money has gone,- will bring all right.
One of the charges made by the committee against the
management ofthe Bank of the United States, (and which
this is the most fit place to notice,) Is on account ofthe sup
posed excessiveness of its loans in those states and cities

135
against which there was a balance of trade-^those which,
to simplify the Idea, were debtors — ^particularly in .Ken
tucky, Ohio — in Baltimore and Philadelphia. The argument
they employ to sustain this charge, namely^ that injustice
was done to the states arid cities which had the balance in
their favour, or werfe creditors, has already bepn amply and
conclusively refuted. It has been shown— indeed it appears
from the statement of the report itself — that these loans
were in the highest degree beneficial to the creditor states
and citie?, the money dbtained by the borrowers going di
rectly thither, and enabling them to obtain .specie from the
branches, to be employed'in the manner most. advantageous
to themselves, either by their banks or by individuals.
" The effect of these draughts upon - the northern offices,
was, to compel the coristantremittance of specie there,'&c."
(Re'port, p. 4.) How, then, it can be said "that those
places were made tributary to Baltimorej" I am altogether
at a loss to Understand.
But, considering the diffusion of an uniform currency
thrpughout the Uriited States, in sufficient, quantities fpr
public purposes,' to have been, (as it is conceded to have
been,) an important public object, it Will be easy to show
that the imputed errOr is far from being censurable. To
put in circulation such an uniform currency as has been
described, in the manner most advantageous to the Union,
it was necessary, when the bank was organized, to give a
preference to those states against which there existed an
unfavourable balance. , It would flow from them. In pay
ment of their debts, (retaining, if they were prudent, what
was required for local purposes,) where it ought to go, that
is, into the Creditor states, and thus the creditor states would
also be supplied. But, vvhat was thrown by the bank into
the creditor states, would never find its way to the debtor
states, unless it were in the shape of loans by them, which
was not to be. expected. If an individual, having a sum of
monfey to lend, were disposed to lend it to one of tWo per-

136
sons, each of whom he was equally Inclined to serve, and
in both of whom he had ponfidence as to their ultimate
ability, to repay, and it so happened that one of them was
indebted to the otlier, would he be most likely to benefit
both by lending it to the debtor, pr by lending it to the
creditor? .The answer is obvious i if lent to the debtor, he
would be enabled to apply it towards the' payment of his
debt, retaining what might be necessary for more urgent
wants. The creditor would receive his money. Thus both
would derive sOme advantage. K lent to the creditor, none
of it would find its way to the debtor. A different course
would, perhaps, have,- been more for the interest of the in
stitution, as it is always better to. lend' to the rich than to
the poor ; I mean better for the lender. But, If the object
was to distribute an uniform currency throughout the United
States, there was no error. That such a currency has been
introduced, in sufficient quantities, to answer all the;pur-
poses of the government, cannot be controverted. It is
urideniably prpved by the fact, that the receipts arid pay
ments of the Treasury are now made in a currency of uni
form value. Neither can it be controverted, that such a
currency has heen Introduced into every quarter, of the
Union, iri sufficient quantity. If it has not reriiained in the
places where it was introduced, that cannot be chargeable
to the bank, for the bank had no power to prevent its mi
gration or transfer. So far, therefore,, as respects this great
object— an Uniform currency— ^th^ duty ofthe bank towards
the public has been faithfully and fully performed.
Nearly connected with thl^ object, was the effort tp make
the, branch notes payable everywhere, without regard to
the place of payment indicated upon the faCe of them. Jt
would undoubtedly have been a great public convenience j
but it was more than. thp public had stipulated for, and more
than the public had a right to expect. I think it ;easily de-,,
mongtrable, that the system could not be acted upon with
out great inconvenience and loss, and serious danger to the

137
institution.- It, must be remembered, however, that the
practice of the late Bank ofthe United States, whosis notes
were only payable or receivable at the place where they
were made payable on their face, hkd been strongly, though
I agree unreasonably,- reprobated. Jt must be reinembered,
too, that many well informed mpn believed in the practica
bility of the plan first adopted by the present bank, and
probably nothingbut experience,, the most authoritatiye; of
all teachers, would have convinced them ^ of their error.
Under these circumstances the experiment was, -perhaps^
necessary to be made, in order that the public might be
fully satisfied. It was certainly well riieant arid innocent.
" The wants of the country, and the interest of the bank,
(says the President, in his letter of the' 4th October, 1817.
Documents^ p. 28,) require an extensive circulation of its
paper; and itis the policy of the parent board to encourage
the indiscriminate' use of the notes of the bank,, reserving
for imperious eircu.instanceS, and Inevitable;occasions^ the
exercise of thelCgal right which it possesses, .of declining
to receive or pay, except at' the' respective places where
payment "is promised onthe face of the notes." The ex
periment has been made ; experience' has condemned the
attempt; "imperious circumstances'-' hav-e compelled the
bank to exercise the right It possesses; arid I am glad to
find that the report of the committee approves the Changej
and admits that it was made in the marin"er le^st' exception
able ahd inconverile'nt, There must be an end now to the
complaint made about this act df the bank. ,
I, will now ask the attention ofthe committee to another
branch of the public management pf the bank — that, which
regards its duties towards the government. Of the- manner
in which these duties- have been fulfilled, no one can be
better qualified to judge than the Secretary of the Treasury ;
no orie would more promptly feel the inconvenience of the,
smallest failure, as they are all intimately connected with-
the fiscal arrangements confided to his care. His testimony^
18

138
therefore, ought to. be of the greatest weight with the com
mittee, if, Indeed, it be not quite conclusive; for distrust
and suspicion must have acquired a most unreasonable and
excessive Influence in our deliberations, if they can Incline
us for a moment to question or doubt the statements of that
high and distinguished officer. In a letter of the Secretary,
during the last session of Congress, the words of which I
cannot quote, but to which every member may refer on the
files of the house, he expresses, accCording to my recollec
tion, a general approbation of the conduct of the bank; as
having exceeded bis expectations. In his letter of the 4th'
December,. 1818, to the select committee of this house,
(Documents,- p. 95,) he states in detail how the specific du
ties of the bank towards the governmerit have been per
formed. I appeal to that letter to show that.they have al
ways been faithfully performed.
But the manner in which the bank has performed Its du
ties towards. the government, the services it has rendered
to the government and nation, cannot he more plainly
evinced than by a statement extracted from the documents
furnished by the select committee. The hank commenced
its pperations about .the- 1st January, 1817, excepting a loan
to the government, of ^500,000, made in December, 1816.
The public deposltes, on the Slst January, ,1 §17, amounted
to $ 1,147,772 97; in the following March they had risen
to $ 11,615,017 62; the 30th April they Were ig 11,345,-
796 75; and on the 29th July, ig 24,746,641 2&. ,(See Ap
pendix A.) This, sir, waS when the bank had been in
operation but six months. That this immense amount , of
i? 24,746,641 26, was the saving of the revenue received
during that time, no one will pretend. It was the accumu
lation of revenue previously collected, distributed through
out the United States,, in credits pf state banks, variously
depreciated, and of wjiich the government could not be said
to have the coinmand, because they were local, and of
course applicable only where they happened to be, and

139
where the public service did not require their eJcpendlture.
By-this single operation,'^ twenty-four millions were thus
converted-by the bank frpm depreciated, local currency,
intoiipecie,,or, what-was equivalent to specie, of uniV.ersal
circulation, and which the government, through thfe agency
ofthe bank, might apply, -without expense, Whereveri and
whenever, its wants or Its service required.
Another conversion took place Immediately after, high
ly advantageous 'to the goyernment, and, I must be allow
ed to add, extreriiely unfavourable to the bank.; With
;g 15,398,438 -02, part of the ig24,74e,641 26, .which had
thus; been appreciated, and. rendered available to the go
vernment, by the assumption of thiebank, the government,
on the. Slst July, 1817,, redeemed, at par, ^13,398,438 03
of the public debt, -belonging to the bank. Which had been
paid In by the subscribers; 'The report speaks in terms of
censure, of what it styles the "^ .unfounded and unnecessary
complaint,, by the officers of the bank, against this vtfry
prudent measure^;" meaning thb redemption of the debt.
Thaf it was the right of the government to redeeni, I do
not deny.- That the officer at the head of the treasury,
whose first duty is to the government, was justified iri the
measure by a proper regard to the interests of the govern
ment, I shall not at all question; I will admit, too, that,
as the government clearly had the right, and chose to ex
ercise it, complaint' by the. ofjScers of the bank iivas alto.-
gether useless.. But, that the operation was prejudicial to
the interests ofthe bank, and might reasonably cause some
dissatisfaction in those to whOm those Interests were con
fided, J ddem most perfectly evident, and altogether consist
ent with that zeal for the real welfare of the Institution,, in
which some other parts of the report seem to suppose them
to have been wantihg-.' -By the original plan, a large pro
portion of the. capital wastb conslstof public debt, bearing
an interest, with liberty to sell in sriiall successive portions.
The value of such a possession, to a new institution, which

14p
the report supposes ought tp have "proceeded gradually,
growing with the growth, and strengthening with the
strength of the nation," (page 7) it requires no. great finan
cial skill to estimate. It w&s a sure resource for obtaining
the -means pf extertding their 'business, when that should
become expedient, and In the, mean time was productive.
It was all redeenied at oncfe, and it was redeemed at par,
when the market price was considerably higher. But, pass
ing by this, loss on the redemption, the mere circumstance
of withdrawing at once thirteen millions of stock, and throw
ing suddenly upon the bank thirteen inillions of money, for
which they were to find immediate employment, mu^ have
materially, and most Injuriously interfered with their ar-
rangementsi .There can be no doubt tJiat it led directly to
some, of those measures (the extension of loans pn s,to,ckj for
instance), which, the report most strongly disapproves; Bu);,
be that as it ma^, none can question the advantage of it to
tbe government.
By the redemptipn of the public debt, And payments of
the government, the public deposltes in October 1817,, were
reduced to ®7,743,&99 74. In October laSt, (1818) the go
vernment redeenied a moiety of the- Louisiana debt, ex
ceeding five millions of dolliEU"S, and this, too^ was done
through the agency of the bank.
, Looking back to the period when the bank w£^s estab
lished, considering the state of things at the moment when
it came into existence, considering hpw short a time it had
been in operation, and the difficulties it had had to sur
mount, the effect is wonderful, and, to all unprejudiced
minds, would seem to indicate a steady and faithft^l attehr
tion to all its public duties. Sir, that institution has beeri
a servant, I had almost said a slave, to the public;- a faith
ful servant, always forward and zealous, even at some exr
pense to itself, to promote the public interests, in all their
various and. complicated relations. This is the spirit in
\yhich its affairs have been administered. It still cpntlnues

141
to perform allits public duties, withoutaffording just cause,
in this respect, either of complaint or of reproach. I might
add to the list of benefits, Veceived by the gpverrirnent and
natron, the decided Improvement which' rapidly foUowed
In the public credit ofthe country, both athome and abroad.
If gentlemen doubt, let th,em consult the price current of
stock here, and in Erigland; , ' ' -'
The only allegation, indeed, of any thing even approach
ing to a default In the pubhc duty of the hank, is that con
tained in page 10 of the report, where it is stated, '•' that
the amount done under that resolution (to 'discount, notes
for those who had revenue' bonds to pay) was srpall,' &e."
This is Certainly a "mistake, as has already been shownfrom
the letter ofthe Secretary of the Treasury—from .the evi
dence of Major Butler — ^arid from the' fact that there has
been no complaint. Such has been the inclination to cen
sure, that you iriay rely upon It hp well founded cause would
have been suffered to escape.- It is a mistake arising from
the circumstance, acknowledged by a member of the' com-
iniitee, (Mr. M'Lane) that the' inquiry was ex parte. If
they had asked for information, they would have learned,
that at every discount day the directors had before them a
list of the bonds coming due,' and that they uniformly gave
a preference to those who were to pay them, as far as
they 'Cduld do so consistently 'with the interests of the bank,
of which I beg leave still to say they were thS exclusive
judges. ' *
The next object of Inquiry is, how the inanagement of
the bank has been conducted In regard to the interests of
the stockhplders. This is altogether independent of the
question of violation of charter, which will be considered
separately hereafter.
In the progress O'f an institution like the bank, founded
and. established with a view to certain great, public objects,
perplexing questions might, arid would, occasionally pre
sent themselves. The interests of the public might. In

142
some instances, bpal variance with those pf the stockholders.
Which were to yield ? If, upon every such occasion, fhe
directors bad allowed a paramount influence to the interests
of the stockholders, and had- sacrificed the public Objects to
the profits of the institution, the public would then have
had some reason to Complain. But, If every public duty has
be6n faithfully and fully performed, even beypnd any rea
sonable expectation that could have beeri entertained, it is
certainly a very sirigular inquiry to be made by Congress,
whether the utmost has been done foi' the interest and pro
fit of the stockholders. That is an, investigation which he-
longs, to the stockholders themselves, and which they are
competent to conduct, having the means in thieir. hands of
correcting errors, and of removing grievances, by changing
their officers.. But what is to be the consequence, if Con
gress, assuming their power, should be of opinion that the
institution has not been well riianaged'for the Interests of
the stockholders ? To alter the charter — to take away ¦ the
charter — or subject it to the wasting and destructive pro
cess of a protracted judicial examination by scire facias?
Have the stockholders made any complairit? Have they
asked from us any relief? Not at all ; on the contrary, they
implore us to abstain; You have upon your table a memo
rial to that effect frpm Boston, a memorial- from New-York,
and an exceedingly well reasoned memorial from Richmond,
which desferves the attentive pCrusal of every member of
the house. If their interests have been injuriously affected,
they have, on that accourit, a stronger claim upon the pub
lic, After we .have gain6d.sp many objects of greatJtiatlonal "
Importance at their expense, would. It not- be Iniquitous, yies
sir, a national iniquity,- now to depri'v.? them, by a wanton
exercise of unjust power, of all the hopes of an equivalent,
founded upon the public faith pledged to induce them to
embark their property in this concern ? Can you restore
them to the state in which you found them? Will you re
turn that part ofthe bonus which has by this time become

143
due, and I presume been paid ? Will you. restore to them
their stock and coin ? Will you, finally, indemnify the sub
scribers, and, the purchasers, who have bought upon tlie as
surance of the charter, for the losses they will sustain? A
gentleman from Virginia, a member Of the committee, (Mr;
Tyler,) seems to have intended to anticipate some of these
inquiries,, by sayifig, that the bank, .after paying all its'
debts, could now return to every stockholder "dollar for
dollar." A most honourable concessipn, undoubtedly, as
Ij; respjBcIs the management of the b^nk, and one that goes
far to finswer every complaint' against it. For, if the pub
lic service has been punctually performed, and the bank.'
(after dividing eighteen per cent, in two years and -an half)
could, now wind' up its concerns, and pfiy to every stock-,
holder "dollar for dollar," no riian who has the slightest
acquaintance with the niatter can deny, that it must have
been well managed. But how long would it require to
gather together the funds that have been scattered bver the
Uijlted 'States, so as to be able to restore them to the -stock
holders? Seven years have elapsed since the charter of the:
late bank expired ; its concerns were much less extensive
In amount, as well asin the. space through which theywere
spread ; It expired, too, under circumstances highly propi
tious for drawing in Its resources ; and the management of
Its affairs had been, uncommonly able and faithful. Never
theless, I believe they are not yet closed. How long, then,
I repeat, would it be, before this "dollar fordollar" would
he restored to the stockholders? It is matter. of conjecture
— r-but still wij;h so much ,of certainty belonging tp it, that
no prudent man would give a stockholder any thing like
"dollar for dollar" forhis share of the proceeds. Sir, I
cannot refiect upon the mighty wreck, without astonishment
at the coolness With which even the possibility of it seems
to be Contemplated-^The organisation destroyed, the frag
ments scattered over the whole United States, no longer
obedient to any power but the power of time and chance,.

144
which, like tte winds and the waves, may drive them to
the shore, or may drive them where they can never be
reached or collected. '' '
.The first topic of complaint is the too great liberality to-
'Wards the state banks. As a charge of error, it may not
be wKblly without foundation. But, it answers, fully and
authoritatively, and, I hope the sequel will show,- satisfac
torily, one df the heaviest chargescommonly made through- '
out the country against the bank-- the , charge, I mean, pf
having acted with oppressive rigour towards the istate insti
tutions. I am glad the committee have cleared away this
ground of accusation. At most, however, it proves orily a
rhistak6; a mistake onthe right side, and asmistake that
was almost inevitable. Tp .bring about the payment of spe
cie, within any reasonable period, and at the same time to
avoid a severe pressure Upon the state banks, and through-
them upon the community, it was indispensably necess'ary
tp treat those banks with the most indulgerit liberality,
wherever they manifested a sincere Intention to return to
the payment of specie. This was the inducement to the
CO ihpaCt ofthe Slst Jatjuary, 1817. Without such Indul
gence, the paper of the United States Bank, apd that of the ,5
state banks, could not have circulated together. A good
and a bad currency, or, if you please, a good and a better
currency can never associate in circulation, They must asr
sociate upon terms of equality, or approaching to equality,
or they Cannot associate' at all.' The continental money
banished gold and silver. When assignats were used in
France, specie disappeared. When, -by excessive issues, '
or from 'whatever other cause, the state bank paper was de
preciated, .coin was no longer used. Where paper is now,
from, the same caiise, depreciated, (as in some parts of the
western country,) gold and silver or notes of the Bank oft*
the United States, equivalent to gold and sii Ver, are not to
be found. They will not be found there, until either the
better currency shall obtain th6 entire ascendancy, by' ban-

145
ishing the state bank^ paper from circulation, or, by a re
moval of the causes that have pccasioned depreciation, the
latter shall be restored to an equality in Value with the for
mer, which is on every accpunt most to be. desired.
The. next' subject of complaint and censure is the resolu
tion, of the 28th .J^^ovember, 1816, for paying the dividends
of foreign stockholders in London, at the par of exchange.
(Repprt, page '8 — 9.) I shall assume, fpr the purpose of
treating this subject, a single maxim of justice, which every
mari will assent to as the only fair and reasonable rule of
human judgment. It is, that, where an act is right In itself,
the mPtiyes or reasons are not to , be inquired into as a
ground of crimination. They may strip the act of its claim
to merit, but they can never expose it to criminal imputar
tion. Charity, indeed, common charity, between man and
man, that which the infirmity of our nature demands to be
continually exercised towards , each other, adopts and ap
plies a much more comprehensive and benevolent rule —
that even where the act Is wrong, yet it may be exempt
froin censure, if the motives were just and good. Sir,
without deciding whether that resolution was right or wrong
, in itself, and adriiitting that it was one of those " general '
and abstract subjects to Which the resolution of the house
did not direct their attention," the report condemns It as a
measure .adopted with a view to speculation, that is, upon
what tjiey suppose to have been, bad motives. It Is true,
they take, also, anpther ground, which I will examine pre
sently, namely, the possible loss to the American stock-'
holders and government. But they do not deriy, and I
think they most clearly admit, that the directors ]bad.a
right to make the arrangement.
If It had been the policy of Congress to prevent foreign
ers from becomiflg stockholders in the bank, they would
have expressed it by a prohibition , iri the charter. The
matter was not overlooked ; it was considered arid discuss
ed in this house, when the law. was passed^ If It was the
19

146
*
policy of Congress tp permit foreigners to become proprie
tors of the stock — and certainly the refusal to prohibit
amounted to an' invitation — would the directors have been
justified in adopting measures to thwart and counteract that
policy? It was their duty to execute the lawjn its spirit,
to effectuate Its intentions, to subserve, and not to defeat-
the policy of the government. If, substituting their own
conceptions of what was politic, for the rule given to them
by the law; they had pursued a different system, they would
have made themselves justly obnoxious to censure and re
proach. Now, sir, the resolution in question had two ob
jects — 1. The payment, in London, of the dividends to
foreign stockholders: 2. The payment at the par of ex
change. The first of these the report does not much ob
ject to. It was done by the late Bank of the United States,
as to its own dividends. That bank also remitted to fo
reigners their Interest uppn the public debt of the United
States, r believe, free of charge. This is powerful evidence
that It was advantageous to the institution, for now that the
'whole history Of the late tank is before lis, its life and its
death, I suppose no one will deny that it was very fairly
and skilfully managed. We have the e?cample too, of the
government, in the instances of the French and Dutch
loans. Why was the interest stipulated to be paid abroad ?
Because it was favourable to the credit of the country; it
enabled the government to obtain loans which It could not
otherwise have had, or to obtain theni upon better terms.
The mere convenience to the stockholder, the freedom frortJ
risk and from the charges of receipt arid remittance, when
he has his Interest sent to him, Instead of being obliged to
send after it. Is a conslderatipn of great moment — the same
consideration which Induces an individual to invest his
money near to where he lives, though he might make a
greater profit by investing it further off. Such an opera
tion, however, was inconvenient to the government ; be
cause it was not within the ordlpary range of fiscal mar

147
nagement ; and, therefore, the government proposed to
e^xchange the foreign debt for a debt bearing interest, pay
able in the United States. As ari inducement, they offered
to increase the annual interest one half of one per cent.
France accepted the pffer; the Du'tch refused it, estimating
the convenience of receiving their interest at home at more
than the annual one half of one per cent. Such an opera
tion, though, inconvenient and burdensome to the govern
ment, is precisely adapted to the transactions of a bank,
authorized by its charter to deal in exchange, and having
established arrangements and credits for that purpose. It
Can remit and, pay abroad with as much facility as it can
pay at home. ' To my mind, therefore, it seenis; that the
measure, so far as regards the paymerit ahroad, was riot only
justified by experience, by example, and by sourid calcula
tion, but, that the neglect of it would have betrayed Igno
rance, and want of foresight. I might instance, also, the
Louisiana debt, which was taken by a single individual, or
a single house, and sold at a profit by stipulating to pay the
interest abroad. The second.part of the resolution regards
the rate at which the bank would engage to remit, and at
' 'which the stockholders ' would stipulate to receive the re
mittance of their dividends. For, we m'hstrecollect that It
V5'as a mutual contract, binding iipon both parties. The
bank would pay abroad upon no other terms but those' which
were prescribed. , It cannot be denied ^at the directors
had a right to arrange the ternjs. Dealing in exchange is
one of their legitimate powers, expressly giveri by the char
ter,, and as there Is. nothirig which restricts them' to succes
sive, unconnected Instanpes, there can be no valid objection
to such an p'xercise of the, authority as is now the subject of
discussion. , Therp can be no doubt, therefore, of their right
to " compel the Am'erican stpckholders to contribute to the
possible loss" (Report, page 8) upon exchange operations;
and there can be none of Its expediency and propriety, pro
vided there was a well grounded prpbability of profit In-

148
stead of loss. The directors had before them the experience
of the past. From two tables before me, I can say, that,
from the year 1791 to the year 1817, inclusive, the average
of exchange has been greatly in favoUr of this country.
The first pf these- Is a statement from the treasury pf the
annual gain and loss upori remittances for payment of the
Dutch loan, from 1791 to 1809. The gain is ^409,197 20';
the loss is §103,377 06. The clear gain upon the whole
of the remittances is @ 305,820 14. — (B) The other is a
statement of the annual gain and loss by exchange, under
the operations of the commissioners of the sinking fund.
There is an uninterrupted annual gain, amounting, alto
gether, to §482,361 20, with only an apparent exception
in the years 1815 and 1816. . The exception is only appa
rent, for it was owing, not to the state, of exchange, but to
the depreciation of the currency with which the bills were
bought At the very time (and it is a convincing proof)
exchange in Boston, where a sound currency was main
tained, was at or about par. Deduct those two years,
(§129,640 66) there is still a total gain of. §352,720 54 —
(C.) As far as the past can afford us any light to look into
the future, this exhibition naight be relied upon. It was
not of a year or years, but an unbroken series of six and
twenty years in succession. It was not of a.period of uni
form character, either favourable or unfavourable. It em
braced the infancy of our government, the arrangement of
our finances, years of prosperous commerce, and years
when commerce was oppressed by formidable restrictions
and impositions abroad, and by prohibitions and embargoes
at home. It embraced a lorig period of peace, and a short
period of war, (a proportion .which I hope our history may
always present) — it embraced, in short, exactly such a va
riety of circuinstances, as, in the ordinary course of events,
may be expected to happen, and, for that very reason, ex
actly such a period as a prudent man would select for the
basis of his calculation. Experience, since, I am informed,

149
has given its sariction to the measure. I do not know the
fact, hut I am told there has been a gain 'upon exchange.
The committee of directors, who reported against the mea-
sure^who are complimented, and deservedly, too^ for their
able reasons, were, upon general grouhds, in favour of it,
as the report will show ; and gave very "able reasons," the
same which finally decided the board to adopt It, namely,
"the effect which it would have in 'reducing the rate of ex
change, by inducing 'capitalists to iri-vest their funds in the
stock, and thereby facilitating the resumption of specie pay
ments." They were deterred .by- then existing circum
stances; which are now proved, to have been temporary ;
and probably, among others, by the doubt, whether a sound
currency could or Would be very speedily restored. The
remittance ofthe dividends they recorrimended without qua
lification. We are to recollect, also, that one of the terms
ofthe compact was a delay of six months. The January
dividend was to be paid in the following July, and the Ju
ly .dividend in January. Supposing three months neces
sary for making the remittance-^-^there would remain three
months,, during which the barik might have the use of the
money, equal at least to one and a half per cent; and dur
ing Whjch, too, the bank would have the range for select
ing the most- favourable moment tp buy exchange. Its
range for selection would, indeed, be much more extensive
— it would be almost unlimited ; for, as it was atithorized
, to deal in exchanges, it would always have funds or credit
abroad, to be applied or draWn upon, accordihg to the state
of' the market for bills.
If this measure-were right tp.be adopted at all, it was right
to be adopted at that time, and precisely for the reason as-
sighed in the letter of Mr. Ddhriel. If foreigners were to
become the owners of stock, it was for the interest ofthe
American stopkho'lder, 'as well as for the interest of the na
tion, that the rise should take place before they became pur
chasers, rather than afterwards; ' This is a proposition no

150
one will be Inclined to dispute, and of course it cannot,
with any colour of reason, be denied, that if measures were
in the contemplation of the directors, which would have
a tendency to enhance the value ofthe stock, they were
bound in duty to adopt them, in the early part ofthe institu
tion, so that the American stockholder might have the bene
fit of the rise, and not the foreigner; and the nation thus
have the advantage of the increase of the exchangeable or
market value of the stock. The prospect of an enhancement
of price was itself an equivalent to the American stock
holder for any possible loss on exchange. But whUe I agree
that paying the dividends in England (which is not objected
to) was calculated to raise the price ofthe stock, for the rea
sons before stated, I am not satisfied that paying at the par
of exchange would necessarily have that effect If it were
likely to be advantageous to the bank, (as I believe it was,)
it was for the same reason- likely to he disadvantageous to
the foreign stockholder. What the one gained on exchange
the other would lose. The materials for calculation were
as open to the one as to the other. The report seems to sup
pose, that it would raise the market in England, and that
the rise there would operate upon the market here. The
reasoning is incorrect — because, it looks only at one side of
the question. We may affirm, with equal truth, that, If it
was disadvantageous to the American stockholder, it would
depress the market here, and that depression would affect
the market in England. The market abroad, for our stocks,
is regulated by our own, rather than our own by the fo
reign ; though, doubtless, they do somewhat affect each
other. The only question, however, at last, is the one which
I have before stated, and I hope, satisfactorily answered —
was there a reasonable prospect of gain from this arrange
ment? But the gentleman from Virginia, who was orie of
the select committee, (Mr. Tyler,) has advanced an opi
nion, not the less extraordinary and unexpected for the ex
planation of it given fay the chairman. He thinks tbat even

151
if there were a gain, it wouldmot Increase the dividends of
the American stockholder, because. If I understand him cor
rectly, the remittance .would not be made till afterthe divi
dend, and the loss or gain would not till then be ascertained.
What then does he suppose - Would become of the gain ?
Would it not go into the' general profits of the bank ? He
did not recollect, that, though the reihittance- Would follow
one dividend^ it wOuld precede ariother, through the whole
term of the charter.- It might with equal correctness be af
firmed, and for the same reason, that the dividend cpuld
not be diminished by a loss on exchange, and then, I sup
pose, we should arrive at a result exactly right, that the di
vidends Would neither beincreased nor diminished. A mo
ment's reflection will convince him ofhis error. And. now,
sir, I may be allowed to ask, whether this arrangement Is
not What every riian would have made in- his own case ? Is
It riot what every merchant does, habitually, and every
planter too ? Why, theh, should we impute it to unworthy
motives ? ¦
Another, and>a heavier charge. In the estimation ofthe
reportjls that which relates to loans, on the deposite or pledge
of stock ofthe bank. . It is not disputed, and It cannot be
disputed, that the directors had a right to lend on any sort
of personal security npt prohibited by .the charter. Itis
equally beyond dispute,^ that the stock was a good security.
The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Lowndes,) has
stated, and the gentlemari from Virginia has agreed, that in
the'event of a dissolution, the stock loans at par would settle
themselves. If that be so, the security is unexceptionable.
It is demonstrable, further, ^^^t under the circumstances,
the Iqans ori stock were judicious, and for the interest of the
institution. These loans did not originate in occasional re
solutions! they had their origin In thefourth of the by-laws,
adopted before the bank went Into operation. In the month
of December, 1816. The by-law is referred to in the re
port There were vices in the hanking system, as it was

152
then commonly conducted, which the directors ofthe Bank
of the U'hited States were anxious, as far as possible, to
correct . Among them was the, use of accommodation, or
" credit the drawer" paper. Another, and a very serious
one, was the extensive practice of mutual endorsements.-
A man who wished to get a discount, was obliged to bpr-
row the .name of a friend, and, by borrowing, came under
a well understood obligation to lend his own name in return.
A connexion was thus formed Involving both in the fate of
either. If one failed, he dragged the other after him ; and,,
indeed. It often happened, that, by multiplied entanglements
of this sort, the ruin of one man injured, perhaps destroyed,,.
the credit of many. The fpurth by-law was intended, and
honestly and prudently intended, tp diminish these evils.
It provided that accommodation paper should not be dis
counted ; and, to limit, as much as practicable, the evil of
mutual endorsements, it invited persons applying for dis
counts to .deposite personal security instead of endorsers.
The subsequent resolutions pf the board, (excepting that
of the 25th August, 1817, which shall be distinctly consid
ered) were evidently adopted only to carry, the fundamen
tal by-law into execution, by extending it to the branches,
and by declaring the rates and other terms upon which the
several kinds of stock shpuld be received in pledge or de
posite. They are thus, by a very obvious reference to the
Original source, freed from the suspicion of havirig been
' produced by occasional riibtives of speculation, and placed
upon their true foundation — which no one, I think, will
deny, is solid enough to sustain them. Such was the cha
racter of the resolutions, of the 18th December, 1816, (Docu
ments, page 65) and of the 25th July, 1817, (page )
The resolution of the 25th August, 1817, authorized the
loan of 125, upon stock, with two approved endorsers, who,
as the repprt explains it, were orily to be security for the ">
25 per cent, excess beyond the par value of the stock de
posited^;^ This resolution, I have no hesitation to say, I do

153
not approve, for reasons, however, very different from those
stated in the report Sir, the directors themselves did not
long approve' It. The resolution was acted upon but a
very short time, not more than 9 week Or ten days, and
the amount 16aned', under it appears, froni the- documents,
to have beeri very spiall. Let us now, for a moment, exa
mine the operation. 01 th^se measures. The amount of dis
counts on stock, remaining un,pald on the 30th July, 1817,
was §5,221,267 60— (Documents, page 60.) The total
amount of discounts, then, was §25,770,12.0 59.' So that
there was loaned on personal Security about §20,000,000,
and oristock about §,5,000,000, which no one can affirm to
have been an undup proportion. Ifthe original by-law, and
the resolutions rriadein pursuance dfit, were right, there
was now additional motive for desiring to extend their
operation — that is, to increase the loans on stock; It was
originally designed,, as I have already stated^ that the Capi
tal of the bank shpuld be composed in part df public debt,
bearing interest, and to be gradually converted into active
capital. . The whole of it, exceeding thirteen millions, and
including two inillions which the bank had endeavoured to
convert into specie, for the benefit of the cpuntry, was re
deemed at par on the 31st July, 1817, and in plac© of it thir
teen millions of monPy were thrown iritothe bank, for which
the directors were- to find employment. ' If they were de
sirous to place a part of it in loans upon stock-^upoh a good
security, bearing somP resemblance to that which had thus
been taken from therii, rather than hazard It all at once upon
personal security, it, was a ijatural, a prudent, and a com
mendable desire, and it was in precise conformity with the
original plan of the bank, as" well as with the <' graldual ex
tension," which the report, in one, part, thinks was expe
dient; It was a desire, nevertheless, however prudent, not
likely to be gratified. The stock was then rising, and had
reached somewhere aboUt 140, as appears from the'table of ¦
prices exhibited by the committee. They were not to ex-
20

154
peCt stock to be deposited at par, when Its market price was
140. On the contrary, with a rising market, there would
be a constant tendency to escape from the deposite, and to
disappoint the wish of the directors, which was to increase,
and not to diminish, this kind of security. It was under
the influence of views like these, I should suppose, (as stat
ed by the late president, in his examination, among the doc
uments) that the resolution of the 26th of August, 1817,
was adopted, combining the two kinds of loan — tm pe'rsonal
security, and on stocks — In'order to increase the quantity of
the latter. I repeat that I do not approve of this resolution,
and for this simple reason — that as, in the discounts upon
stock, they regarded only the security, and not the person,
or the amount, I do not see how the two kinds of loan
could thus be combined, without the temptation to lend more
to Individuals upon the personal security, than was either
prudent or proper ; inasmuch as the loan upon the personal
security was always to bear a fixed proportion to what was
considered as lent upon the stock. But the question is,
whether itwas sincerely adopted, for the reasons given, and
not to promote a scheme of stockjobbing. The board soon
put an end to its active existence, which must be regarded
as some evidence, at least, of sincerity.
What are the objections made to this kind of discounts ?
Not thatthey were insecure and imprudent, or unprofitable.
No. To the whole of the loans on stock it is objected, that
they Inflated the price of the stock. In the language of the
report, "kept it constantly advancing, until it reached a
point where it exploded and fell. " (page 11.) The first point
to be established, in order to support this position, is, that
the stock ever has been inflated beyond its real value. What
is Its real value ? Sir, it is (within certain limits) matter of
opinion, matter of conjecture, depending upon a thousand
considerations, and, among the rest, at the preSent moment,
depending upon the decision of this house. What will it
rise to hereafter? No one can tell. It is an institution of

155
great resources, calculated, I believe, if supported by th«
public confidence, to be a. blessing to this nation — in peace
a bond of union,' a sinew of strength in war. But what at
ariy given time will he the price of its stock, I will not ven
ture to predict, Havepurchasers been injured? That, de
pends upon what- the price will come to hereafter- But,
though I will not undertake lo answer either of these ques
tions, nor hazard any opiriion upon the value of the stock,
yet, In justice to the bank, I will venture to say, that, as far
as my knowledge extends^ there never was any great money
ed institution established, there never was any great moneyed
operation commenced, that produced so little speculation.
I do ,not advance this hastily, and I do not wish it to be as-
serited to without full reflection. Speculation- stockjob
bing — these are the suhstarice of all the charges, or the co
louring spread over them all. Where Is the instance of a
new. insti tution, in which there was so iriuch steadiness, so
little extravagant speculation? The maximum of the price
of Its stock (see Table among the documents) was inthe
latter part of August, 1817, when it had gradually reached
56 per cent advance. Do gentlemen recollect, or have
' they heard, what happened when the public debt was fund
ed ? One' would suppose that nothing could have been less
fit to occasion speculation. ,The amount was fixed, and
could not be exceeded, the rate of interest was fixed, at the
current rate of the oouritry, the period and riianner of re
demption were also fixed, every thing, in short, was re
duced to the greatest possible certainty — yet the six per
cent, stock rose to twenty-six shillings and threepence. . It
afterwards fell,, considerably below par, and did not re
cover till I think after the year 1803^ We have another,
'and a much more striking, instance in the establishment of
thp, late bank of ,the United State?. The scrip for which
ten dollars had been paid, and no more, rose to two hun
dred and seventy dollars. Fortunes were made and lost
The road^ between the^omQupereial cities are represented to

156
have been covered with expresses, conveying intelligence
of the fluctuations of the market, in order that they might
be advantageously seized. The stock of that bank I have
been informed, but do not speak positively, afterwards fell
below par. Sir, I have seen many moneyed institutions
established, and though I have had little tp do with them,
I have nevertheless had occasion to obserye their usual pro
gress. ' Their history is nearly the same. At first, their
stock has an extravagant rise, then succeeds an equally ex
travagant depression, and afterwards it finds what may be
termed its just or natural level,- that is, the level at, or near
to which it rests, unless disturbed by some extraordiriar.y
occurrence, or moderately advanced by a gradual Improve
ment The stock of the late bank of the United States may
be considered as having settled at about 30 advance, after all
speculation had ceased. In the year 1802 the United States
sold 2220 shares at. 45 advance, and they sold to a person
who bought to sell again, and of cpurse to sell at a profit. I
have always understood that he did sell at a profit. Indi-
¦viduals sold as high as 50, advance. (Seybert's Stat An.)
The permanent advance, therefore, was very little short of
what has been deemed the inflated or speculation price of
the present bank. I am aware that it may be said, and tru
ly said, that' the late bank had some advantages which the
present does not possess. But the existing bank has! also,
some which were not possessed by the former. At "the pe
riod we are speaking of,, when its stpck rose .to 56, it had
this most sfriking advantage, that not a year of Its charter
had expired, and there were above nineteen years remain
ing, whereas, when the stock of the late bank was at 50,,^
eleven years had run out and only nine remained. This
inflated price, therefore, was very little higher than the
level, stationary price of the stock of the late bank of the
United States.
It Is not correct to say that it " exploded and fell." (Re
port, page 11.) Allowing all reasonable indiUgence to the

figure,"it means. If I uhderstand it, that the price ^Si-su^cM*- J
denly precipitated, when the artificial means used foru
elevation had" ceased to operate, or ceased to produce any
eflect. It Is.not correct The table, of prices annexed to the
report of the comriiittee shows, that its decline was gradua/1,
and that decline' can be traced to other causes, which I will
advert to pres.ehtly. The price was highest in August, 1817:
it began to fall, but not materially, in September, 1817 —
and it had not arrived at the lowestpointof depression,(l 10),
what In the table is- called "the lowest price," till Novem
ber and Decemberyl818, more than a year after the depres-
slon-begah. The Table does not give us the intermediate
prices, but we knPw, from other sources," that the decline
Was not considerable during the first part Of that period. It
may be dated, chiefly, from the summer of 181S, arid iriay
be -traced to causes which not only had no connexion with
artificial mearis, but are wholly Inconsistent ¦with their' use.
Again, sir, let us examine in another point of view these
charges against the loans Upon stock.
The price on the 20th of August, 1817, was from 144 to
147j to which it had g-r^dually attained; How could suc-
'.cPssiye, repeated" advancements of price be owing to are-
Solution adopted before the organization of the bank, per
manent in its nature, and operating uniformly from the first
adoption? There is some confusion in the treatment of this
part of the subject One would be led by the language df
the report, to suppose, that there were successive measures
brought forward from time to time,. and calculated Continu
ally to stiiriukte the market, which was stimulated accord
ingly. The fact is npt so.' It Wa^ a system^^the founda
tion was laid in the 4th by-law, arid the subsequent resolu
tions, all conformable tp that by-law, were merely execu
tive or- ministerial, to carry it into effect. The committee
have themselves furnished the most conclusive evidence that
'the supposed facilities for obtainirig money were not so' ea
gerly seized upon, arid for that very reason not calculated

158
to produce the effect imputed. The amount loaned upon
stock, prior to the SOth of July, 1817, had been as high as
i? 8,046,932 64. It was at that time only 5,221,267 60.
(Documents page 70.) Of course, 2,815,665 04 had then
heen redeemed and withdrawn, voluntarily, as respects the
borrowers, and against the policy and the true interests of
the bank. The bank could not lend in this way as much as
it might prudently desire; This statement Is what I alluded
to, when I said some tiriie ago that there was a continual
tendency In the deposite to- escape. That the resolution of
the 26th of August (for advancing § 125) had no influence
in raising the price is most evident On that day it was at
150, nearly the maximum; it rose but very little In the
next three or four days, and then, instead of rising, began
to decline.
But this resolution is supposed by the report (page 11)
<'to have given equal facUities to the bankrupt who had not
credit enough to obtain an endorser, and to the capitalist
Stock, it Is said, could be and was purchased without the
advance of a cent by the purchaser, who had only to ap
ply to the director?, or to the President and Cashier, be
tween discount days, for a, loan on the shares about to be
bought, and by what Is termed a simultaneous operation,
he obtained Ms discount, and with it paid for his stod^
A rise in the market would enable him to sell his shares, '
pocket the differem^, and commence operatiarts anew.''
Nothing can be more inaccurate, more strikingly inaccurate
than the whole of this reasoning ; and nothing more desti
tute of solid support than the hasty condemnation founded
upon it It fails, entirely, in point of fact For, in the first
place, the price of stock, oh the 2eth of August, 1817, was
150. A loan could be obtained upon it of only 125. There
remained, therefore, 25 dollars a share to be supplied from
the resources of the purchaser. Again : For the 25 dolkrs
excess beyond the par value of the^hare, "two approved
names" were required, (Documents 79.) Thus the bor-

159
rower was to firid ah "approved" ehdorser, and was to
furnish.25 dollars a-share In addition to what the bank
wpuld lend him. How, then, can It be affirmed, that this
resolution " gave facilities to the bankrupt, who had not
credit - enough .to obtain an endorser ?"' How can it be
said, that by means of it stock could " be purchased with
out .the Advance of a cent?" Or, that, with the riioney
obtained from the bank, the purchaser "could pay for his
stock?" [Hprei Mr. SpenCer rose to explain, ahd stated
that the reasoning quoted from the report was not meapt to
apply to the resolution of the 2^th of August, but to the
previous resolutions authorizing loans at par.] Sir, the
reasoning immediately follows the statement ofthe resolu
tion of the 26th df August, and seems to be most espe
cially, If not ex;clusIVely, applied to that resolution. But I
accept the chairman's, explanation, and will the reasoning
be any better? Rather worse I think. Under the resolu
tion of the 26th of August, the pUi'chaser was to furnish
25 dollars a share, in money, and an endorser for 25 dollars
more. Under the resolutions for loaning at par> he would
have to advance 50 dollars a, share, (l5o being the market
price) which I suppose would-be at least as difficult for " a
bankrupt," and quite as inconsistent with liie idea of buy
ing *' without the advance of a cent," as advancing 25 dol
lars, and finding an endorser for 25 more. ,
..JWhIle I am, upon this part of the subject, I would take
thediberty of asking a question of the ch'airmaM of the se
lect committee. The report (page 11) says that "a rise in
the market, would enable him (the purchaser) to sell his
shares, pockefe the difference, and commence operations
anew." I should be gladto be informed, how many times
a man rtiust commence such operations anew, how raany
tiihes he must buy arid- sell In a market " constantly ad
vancing," before he will make a profit? Ifthe market was
** constant^ advancing," as the report states it was. It
would seem to me very difficult to understand how succed-

160
sive operations could faenefit tfae speculator. I should sup
pose, frorri a plain calculation, that the oftener he bought and
sold, the less stock fae would have, and, repeating the "ope
ration" a sufficient number of times, and a slight depression
supervening, he would inevitably lose bis whole capital.
The repprt, sir; goes on to, charge that the loans Were
"unreasonable and excessive," were not made "to raer
chants and traders," but " to a few persons, consisting bf
"directors, brokers, and speculators,"'and that very little
" go.od business paper was done." (Report 10, 11.) Upon
what foundation of fact these charges rest, we are not pre
cisely informed. The niembers of the committee have re
ferred to a list of borrowers which has not been printed,
and they have differed from each other as to the trhe pui^
port of that list The member from South Carolina, (Mr.
Lo'wndes,) one of the committee, has stated that a large
proportion of the borrowers were "merchantsand "traders."
It is of no manner of consequence, for it is not denied, but
it is agreed, that tfaese loans were offered indiscriminately
to all who could give the required security — that they
were made with impartiality, and without favouritism — and
that, in making them, the directors did not regard the oc
cupation of the borrower, provided he offered good secu
rity. Was not the security unexceptionably good — the best
that could be offered ? Suppose these same ¦" speculators''
had got discounts on funded debt,, would there then be "any
complaint? Whpre then is the point of this accusafian? Do
gentlemen mean to establish a high moral standard, gradit.
ated not by the laws of the land, nor with any reference to
the nature of the subject, by which the directors of the
bank are to be governed in exercising a censorial authority
over the lives and occupations of those who come to bor
row, and by which they are themselves in turri to be tried
and censured? We are all df us fond of power, and suffi
ciently inclined to abuse it ^-What power could be more
dangerous, what more liable tp abuse, what more inevit»-

161
bly tending to generate a tyrannical spirit iri the heart of
man,, than such ari authority — no matter by whorii exprcis-
ed— to become a censor and inquisitor of tfae thoughts and
occupations and conduct of his fellpw creatures; to judge
them, not by thfe laws of the, land, nor by any defiried or
established rule, but by an arbitrary and fanciful theory of
his own creation?. Sir, Is it riot enough that these<loanS were
not prejudicial to the interests of the institution, that the secu
rity was unexceptionable, thatthey were iriipartia} and gene
ral ? Is It not enough that there were at least very plausible
reasons} if not conclusive onesy for making them ? Is it not
enough, that they were prohibited by no law, and that they '
Were made by 'the directors under a discretion committed
to them? That they are still safe and good ? Thatthey
were made to persons exercising occupations npt forbidden
by law, who were not prohibited from borrowing, and to
whom it was not unlawful to lend ? If they were right in
themselves, let us not engage In needless inquiries, that
can do no possible good, and may, do much mischief.
But the report expresses surprise " at fin((ing so little
good business paper done at the bank and its offices."
How, in the course of such an exarriination, (completed in
thVee weeks) It was ascertained what quahtity of "business
paper," usually so called, was done at the '".bank and its.of-
Jicis," or what " good" business paper was done, or whe
tiier any was done that was bad, or whether any good or
bad was refused, and for what reasons, I am at a losS to
understand ; especially as there was no opportunity fdr ex
planation. I take it for granted, from other parts of the re-
porti that this phrase is meant to apply, though applied
inaccurately, to loaQs on stpck, as contradlstlriguished from
loans on personal security. Iri that sense, without admit
ting our right to regulate the business of discounts — in that
sehse, the surprise expressed appears to be unwarranted.
When the loans on personal security, were §20,000,000,
the loans on stock were § 5,000,000. When the loans on
21

162
personal security were §30,000,000, the loans on stock
were §11,000,000; and that proportion never was exceed
ed. (See documents page 70; and table 43.)
There is still 'another accusation, which J have heard
here and elsewhere, and which, for that reason, I have
he.en at some pains to examine. The " curtailment," (says
the report, page 11) "fell. In almost all cases, upon the
business paper;'' by which is here meant the paper for
loans on personal security. The table 43 furnishes a most
conclusive -answer to this allegation.
The greatest amount loaned on stock appears to have
been in January and February, 1818; § 11,244,514 19
In November, 1818, It was reduced to . ' 8,i934,712 94

Reduction §2,309,801 25
The greatest amount loaned on personal security, was In
March and April, 1818, §30,318,932 50
In November, 1818, it was reduced to 26,989,992 12

Reduction §3,328j940 38
The reduction on stock Is beyond all proportion greMfsr
than on the personal secu'rity paper.
Take another period— ^that given by the committee.
In July, 1818, the loans on stock were, § 10,657,125 85
November, 1818, '8,934,712 94

Reduction §1,723,412 91
In July, 1'8 18, loans on personal security, §28,836,670 2S
November, 181.8, 26,989,992 .12

Reduction, § 1,846,678 16
There Is another period stated, (June and July) which
gives a result somewhat different, but still shows the stock
loans to have been more than proportionably reduced. The
first, however, is most, fair, as It gives a reasonable range.
-I have gone irito these details, sir, not fbr the mere pur
pose of differing from the committee, or pointing out inac
curacies in the report, but to avoid hasty results, from a

163
superficial examination. The conclusion, so far as we have
gone, is, that the inferences are not warranted. Every
measure is fairly accounted for, provided yoU examine it
upop'its oWn merits, free -from the prejudice of extrinsic
considerations. I shall trouble you no more with particu
lars that must, necessarily, "be tedious and uninteresting.
There is one allegation of the report, however, which the
chalrman'^ ha<s ¦voluhl^arlly corrected, admitting that the lan
guage Is broader than he meant it to be. It is the assertion,'
In pagCxlO, that « the priricipal business of the bank certainly
has been to discount On notes secured by a pledge of
stock;" an assertion which, as it stands in the report, did
certainly occasion some astonishment It is now explained
to be meant .only of the operations gt Philadelphia. We
have no table that shows how much of each kind of paper
was done at Philadelphia, and, therefore, cannot fix with
any precision What Is to be understood by this Vague ex
pression, "theprincipal business." But, is it nOt easy to
account, and to account' fairly, too,' for the faCt, supposing
It to be as stated? The largest loans ori stock would natu
rally be Whtere tfae largest quantity of stock was held, and .
where there was most of that kind of security to offer. -The
largest loans were accordingly at Philadelphia arid Balti
more. The list of subscriptions td the" bank. (No. 47) gives
us the following: At Philadelphia 88,520 shares; at Balti
more 40,141 ; at New-York 20,012 ; at Boston 24,023. It
Is worth remarking, though not directly applicable td the
preserit purpose, tbat at-Charlestori there were 25,986 Shares
subscribed, more than either at New- York or Boston. At
Richmond, 16,987 shares; at Washington 12,708; and at
Lexington, Kentucky, 9,587, nearly half as many" as at
New- York. I would remark, furtfabr, with regard to the
loans on. stock at Philadelphia, that thfey were not corifined
to stockholders in Philadelphia, but a considerable joor^iora
of them was for. persons residing in different parts of the
Union, who, from some cause or other, found it most con-

164
venien^ to get their, loans there. This is a fact well known
to the Committee, from whom indeed I have derived it.
But the heaviest charge of all,'in the estimation of the
report — that which pervades and. gives a. colour to the whole,
at the same time that it is of no manner pf importance ih
the present inquiry — ^^is the charge of speculation made
agalnst^individual .directors and officers of the institution.
How far It may be justifiablp or proper thus to scrutinize
the private transactions . of men, in order to fasten uppu
them, by an ex parte Inquiry, the imputation of an unde
fined and undefinable offence — to hold them up to public
odium, under the authoritative sanction of a committee of
this hpuse — it would be .useless no W to inquire. , Specula
tion and speculatprs, sir, are terms pf very vague' Importj
and of very extpnsive application. There are speculators
of many kinds— there are speculators in lands — there are
speculators in merchandise — there are, speculators in manu
factures — there are speculators In stocks ; the variety is
infinite, and in np country, upon earth greater than in this.
Every thing about us invites to speculation. Such are the
resources, such the youthful eriergy of our happy couhtry,
that a man can scarcely apply his labour or his money amiss ;
whp.rever he employs them he Is sure of a liberal and rapid
increase. Not an axe sounds in the forest, withput adding
to the sum of national wealth. I should like, then, to know,
in what the discrimination consists, which makes one kind
of speculation offensive, and another innocent, if both are
permitted by laW, and neither unfairly or fraudulently con.-
ducted. What is the difference between speculating ih land,
and speculating in merchandise, or the stocks? Sir, the.
charter does not prohibit dealing in the stocks, either to
directors, or to the officers- of the Institution ; it Is,' there
fore, not unlawful or criminal. The omission, with respeot
to the officers, cannot have been casual, or accidental.. If
my recollection be accurate — I do not speak positively-;-it,
was prohibited, as well as every pther kind of trading, tp.

165
the officers in the late Bank of the United States. I' know
it is prohibited by law in most of the State institutions. It
is impos^ble tliat it Should have escaped the attentiori of
Congress. — But let us examine this matter, and hot be car
ried away by gerieral denunciation; That a man might sub
scribe; and yet be a director, is not tp be questioned ; none
bat a subscriber could be a director. Every subscription
hatda view, to profit or advantage, and was so far a Specula
tion. Large subscrifitlon in general had a view to profit,
by selling, and the larger the subscription, the greater spe
culator was the subscriber, and the more was he Interested
in advancing the value and price ofthe stock.. Was he, on
that account, incapacitated to be a director? On the con
trary, was it not thought, and with sofne appearance, at
least, pf reason,' that the greater his stake in the institution,
the more he would. feel interested Iri Its prosperity? Again
— ^the committee, adopting a distinction I do hot very well
understand, find ho fault with a dirCctdr for buying, or for
selling. And, yet, is.it not most obvious, that the one ope
ration 'wOuld make it his interest to depress, and the other
to raise the price; that in the one case he might buy as
cheap, and in the other sell as dear as possible? The whole
.censure of the report is directed against those who bought
and. sold — who dealt in the stock; It would be very diffi
cult to make out -that one who tfaus dealt In buying and Sell
ing, was more likely to be affected by it in his conduct as
a director, than one who only bpught, dr one who only
sold. ¦ On the contrary, as his interest would be Sometimes
on one side, and sometimes on the other, he w'ould be less
.likely to be permanently infiuenqed, or influenced at all.
But this is,,itself, mere matter of speculation, and specula
tion of the most dangerous sort ; because It subjects the con-
- duct of men to speculative examination, arid to speculative
conviction. It is a speculation upon character, where there
ought to he, and where there is a plain practical rule which
will be sure to guide us to a safe result. 'Upon this part of

166
the subject I wish to be clearly understood. The rule a
man may think proper to lay down for the government of
his own conduct, is one thing; the'rule he will adopt iri
judging the conduct of others, is another. In fixing a stand
ard for his own government, it matters little how high he
may raise it — if he aim at all the perfections contained In
the table of the Illustrious Franklin, so much the better.
Should he fail, as heassiiredly will, of reaching the highest
point, he will nevertheless be rewarded fof his pains. He
will promote his own happiness, and, from the difficulties
he has to struggle with, he will learn a lesson of charity,
towards others, 'which increased contentment with himself,
at every step of his progress,, will every day more and more
qualify him to practise. But, when a man undertakes, to
judge the conduct of others, let him beware how he applies
to it a severer rule than the law of the land and the law of
their peculiar condition have laid down. Sir, I know nOr
thing, by experience, of speculation. I have never dealt in
the stock of this bank. I have never bought a share, nor
spld a share, nor been interested in the purchase or sale of
a share. I. have never borrowed a dollar from the bank-
But I claim no credit for forbearance. When I am not here,
endeavouring to serve my constituents, according to the
humble measure of my abilities, I am engaged in the labours
of a profession which do not consist with engagements In
trade, or dealing, or speculating, or borrowing. These are
no part of my business, and . whether I abstain from them
because I think it prudent,-or because I think it right— ^from
motives of policy, or from motives, of a higher nature— ris ¦
altogether indifferent. I choose tp abstain from them, and
no one has any. right to inquire why I do so, I acknowledge
that I should be wanting in consistency of character, and
might be justly exposed to suspicion, if, upon becoming a
bank director, I were to abandon 'my former habits and op-
cupations,-and become a dealer In money and in stock. But,
if you make directors of men whose daily business and oc-

167
cupatlon itis to trade, to buy arjd to sell, to deal in stocks
and In money, (and such men are not proscribed, they are
indeed the very men whp are deemed best qualified to be
directors) — do you expect them thenceforth, to give up tfaeir
occupations, to purify themselves from the love and desire
of galn,iri order that they may be qualified for the due per
formance of the trust, or escape the charge of being/specu
lators and stockjobbers? Itisidietotalk.df.it Nobody.
expects It, nor do I know that it is to be wished. If there
Is any evil experienced; t.he, stockholders have power to
correct it by election, or by byrlaw. But, for the present
purppse, there is a plain practical rule upon this subject,
safe and sure in its application. /Has all' this imputed specu
lation affected prejudicially the interests and management
of the bank? If the, trust has.bpeh betrayed, it the bank
has been mismanaged towards the public, arid the property
of the stockholders sacrificed to subserve the purposes Of
speculation, let condemnation fall with its hea-vriest weight
upon those who have abused the confidence reposed in them.
This Is the .question, if there be any question to discuss,
respecting the management of the bank. To this question
I have endeavoured to draw the attention of the house ; and
Jf;the views I have presented be at all correct, I, think It
has been fully and satisfactorily answered.
Justice to those who have had the direction of the bank
requires a few Words more. You have, it seems to me,
the strongest positive evidence of the sincerity of the di
rectors, and of their confidence in the administration of the
bank. Did they sell out before the fall ^of price took place?
With only one exception I believe, (any memberof the
committee can Correct me ifi am in error,) with one single.
exceptionj thedlreetors, who are charged with speculation,
held, and continued to hold, at that very time, quite as
large, if not a larger quantity of .stock, than they had held
at any antecedent -period ; thus resting their own hopes and
fortunes upon the stability of their measures. Again-r-the

168
fall of price itself was owing to their own acts of manage
ment — acts necessary and proper, but which they.must have
foreseen, would unavoidably depress the market. We know
full well that it is the rate of dividend which chiefly regu
lates the permanent price of every stock. Did they ever'
make an unjustifiable dividend? It is not pretended. The'
first serious impression made upon the marijiLet, was by the.
.reduced divlderid of three and a half pCr cent. In July last
I say reduced', in comparlsori with the former dividends,
which had been four per cent. That affected the stock.
Then Came the change in the character of the branch notes,
which occasioned some uneasiness, and much unfounded
clamour. At the same time there was a rapid reduction of,
discoohts, which had thp double 'effect of lessehing the pros
pect of dividends, and of diminishing the quantity of.mdney
in circulation ; both calculated tp loWer the price of stockl ,.
These were measures necessary and proper for the security
and safety of th« institutldh, riow:approved by every dhe^^-
but they were all measures most obviously unfavourable to •
the market^ They were adopted, and persevered In by the
directors, because they ¦were necessary and proper, thus
giving to the public and the stockholders the surest pledge
of their fidelity to the trust, and of thfelr determination to
prefer it to any interests, of their owri.
Of the officers of the institution, it would be sufficient to
say, that neither the law nor the stockholders restrained
therii from trading, and there is no reason to believe that
they have in any instance neglected 6r betrayed their duty.
In what I have heretofore submitted to the house, I have
fourided myself alraost exclusively upon the docurinCnts fur
nished by the committee. On this point, will the house
permit me ,to say one word from my pwn personal know^
ledge? Sir, I have had full opportunity to observe the con-
. duct of the late president, (Mr. Jones,) and I can Assure the
house that'I believe no institution ever had a more honest,
zealous, ahd devoted officer. He' hak sacrificed his health

169
In its. service,, by incessant and latrorious exertions to pro
mote its prosperity, which seemed, indfeed, to be the only
object of his thoughts and cares. I know not who may be
placed hereafter at the head of the bank,, nor will I pretend
to enter into any comparison of other" qualifications ; but I
am sure that I can wish it nothing better than that all its
future presidents may be as -faithful, as honest, as: Industri
ous, and devoted, asthelr late President
It is time to njome to a ponclusion of what relates to the
manageriient pf the bank. Can I ask more to sum up the
evidence of its fide^lity,. than the statement of the. gentleman
from Virginia, (Mr. Tyler,) that if dissolved it is now able
to pay dollar for dollar?
That there, have been some errors cannot be doubted,
but they have been mere errors, such as all men are liable
to, and they have always been on the right side, Ampng
themi/ however, I do not consider the practice of selling
drafts to be one. It is the right of the bank, admitted to
be so in the report, (page 5.) It is perfectly .fair, and one
'of the mo'st legitimate sources of profit, inasmuch as it Is
expressly indicated' in the charter. Upon what princlplej
I would ask; is it; that what an indivldualmay do without
reproach,, is not to be, done by the bank? Why, having a
fair rriarketable commodity to dispose, of, shall it not sell at
the fair market priee ? Why should it riot in this, respect
be put upon an equal footing with individuals? Until these
questions are, answered, it is unnecessary to say anything
further., A premium or advance is an indemnity for the
remittance of funds, varying a little, according to circlim-
stances. Ought the bank to remit the funds of individuals
at its own expense?. It would be unjust as respects the
bank; it would be objectionable as regards the coriirnunity ;
for it would open the door for favouritism and prirtiality.
A fixed rate (which the report page 5 thinks ouglit always
to be observed) Is plainly impracticable. But of tbiis, I need
say no more. It is now settled upon its just foundation ; it
22

170
is the right of the bank, and does no wrong to any one, a»
no man is obligedi to buy from the bank, or sell to the bank,
but makes the bargain voluntarily and for his own conveni
ence. I am confident, however, 'that what the report says,
in page 5, of the fluctuation from one to five per cent, is
incorrect It must be a mistake.
I forbear to trespass further on the patience ofthe com
mittee upon this part of the subject, and proceed, at once
to the second general ground of inquiry.
Has the charter been violated so as to work a forfeiture?
This single question, would afford ' materials for a very co
pious discussion, much more copious than I am disposed to
undertake, after having already taken up so much, of your
time. I would address myself first to those gentlemen who
hold the opinion that Congress have np constitutional pow
er to charter a bank. Such an opinion, I know, admits of
no compromise, but certainly there is a great difference be
tween the question that arises when it,is proposed to estab
lish a bank, ahd that which presents itself when it Is pro
posed to pull down and destroy an established institution.
The very repeal of a law admits its constitutional validity,
for, if it is unconstitutional it is void of itself;, and therefore
a vote for a repeal can scarcely be regarded as the expres
sion of an opinion that the law is unconstitutionsl. . I lay
no stress at this time upon the repeated recognitions, which
must now be considered as having definitively settled the
construction of the Constitution. Every one can give to
this consideration its due weight. But, I would ask gentle
men to remember, that the charter of this bank recteived all
the constitutional sanctions, wa§ promulgated to the country
and to foreigners as a constitutional l,aw, and has now been ,
two years in force. Great interests are connected with Its
existence; incalculable mischipfsj.public and private, will
follow its repeal, and an^png them, not the least consider
able, will be the wound inflicted upon the character and
credit of the nation. How shall we stand in the estimation

171
of foreigners ? 1 am afraid to fbllow out the Inquiry. Let
every orie reflpct-for himself, and as he values the national
reputation, so let him decide. I cannot, however, at all un
derstand the grounds upon which gentlemen who have con
stitutional objections, can vote for a scire facias. That pro
ceeding distinctly admits the legal existence of the bank,
and sends it to the judiciary to be tried for its life, to de
termine whether it has not forfeited its right to poritiflue
longer to exist ; an admission wholly inconsistent with the
opiriion alluded to. But, of this, every member must judge
for himself.
If Congress had a ppwer to incorporate a bank, and have
exercised that power according to the Constitution, no ar
gument can be necessary to prove that -we have rio right to
repeal the'Charter; This is a settled, established principle,
founded in the riatpre ofthe power, and almost universally
conceded. Chartered rights are sacred things ; they are the
rights of individuals guarantied to theni by the publip au
thority, and of which no lawful authority can deprive them,
but that which the Charter Itself prescribes, or which is im
plied from its nature,'to be exercised in the manner point
ed out by the charter, and accordingto the lawof the land.
Any other mode of proceeding to deprive this legal being
of existence would be an act of lawless, unjust violence, as
much forbidden as to legislate, away the life of a natural
being. That we have, a right to send this corporation to
the judiciary, there to undergo its trial' and receive its
judgment, no one can deny, for so the charter has express
ly provided. It is equally clear, I think, that here we are
to exercise a sound discretion. If we are satisfied that the
charter has been so violated as to work a forfeiture, still
,^he question of expediency is open. We raay deem it for
the public interest to continue its existence, without alter
ation ; to reorganize, if its organization has been impaired ;
to propose changes in its structure ; or to let It go down,
and, if needful, raise up a new Institution. We are not

172
bound^evea in that case, in the case of a clear unequivocal
forfeiture, to send it to trial and condemnation. Is it not
equally plaiti, Jhat we ought not to send it to trial, if we
are satisfied that tliere has been nd forfeiture ? Why ex
pose ourselves to the certain consequence of a failure? It
wUl assuredly not increase the public respect for our con
duct We may lose somewhat in the public estimation.
Why subject the bank to the destructive effect of a pro
tracted criminal proceeding, when no offence known to the
law has been committed ? A gentleman from Virginia, (Mr.
Tyler,) calculating that such a proceeding would not be
terminated in less than eighteen months, says it would give
time to wind up the concerns of the corporation, which he
thinks might now be done most advantageously for the
stockholders. He takes it for granted, then, that the cor
poration would he condemned ; that a scire facias and con
viction are the same thing. But, the officers of the corpo
ration 'will not so consider it ; they are not at liberty so to
consider it ; they must go on and discharge their ordinary
functions in the ordinary way, until its doom shall be fi
nally pronounced, and then, and only then, would they be
justified in commencing the arrangements that are to follow
its dissolution. TiU then, it is a subsisting corporation, en
titled to enjoy all its rights, and bound to perform all its
duties. But, let us suppose a more favourable issue. Let
us suppose it to be acquitted. WUl it pass through the trial
unhurt? This artificial being, though it has not precisely
the sarae sort of susceptibUity . as the natural being, is
nevertheless exquisitely susceptible ; it may be wounded,
dangerously wounded, in its credit. This is its living prin
ciple, the source of all its healthy action, upon the preserva
tion of which, the capacity to perforra its functions mainly
depends. There, it wUl be wounded by fhe mere institu
tion of a criminal proceeding.. It behooves us then carefuUy
to examine the ground before we determine to proceed.
What, I ask, then, is such a violation of the charter as will

173
work a forfeiture? The report- admits that there is a dl,s-
tinction, in this respect, and that there -may fae violations
or,non-compliances which do not 'forfeit^r It must be so.
Every apt that is forbidden by any law yvhich It is bound
to obey, every failure to do what any such law requires,
no matter how minute, or to what cause owing, is a violation
or non-compliance with the charter. It surely will not be
pretended, that every such violation or non-compllahce
amounts to a forfeiture. It is no more true than that every
such act or omission by an individual would m*rit the pun-
ishhientof death.- The act done. may. be void, because it is
illegal ; it may Ipcur a particular penalty, because it is to a
certain extent criminal, but it will not therefore amount to
A forfeiture — the extren^e punishment for extreme pfferice.
What, then, I repeat, is such a violation? In the first place,
it Is obvious, frora the charter itself, (Sect 7. 23.) that it
must be an offenqe of the corporation. The acts or de
faults of officers, servants, or agents, , do not necessarily
work a forfeiture. Neither is it to be supposed that error,
mistake, or even every species of misconduct, will cause a
forfeiture. It eari only be by such departure from, or ne
glect, or, if you please, violation of the fundamental and
vital laws of its organization, as incapacitates - the Corpora
tion to' perform its duty, or does of itself determine its ex
istence. These pffences, if they are so to be termed, can
be reached or redressed fay no other means. If, for instance,
ari election had notbeenheld at the time appointed by the
eighth section, withputthe saving provision of that section,
there could have been no election. at all, and for want of an
integral and vital part of its organization, the corporation
would have ceased to exist The charter itself has made
the distinction.' In, the ninth article of the eleventh section,
the corporation is expressly prohibited from dealing except
in certain enumerated- articles, and among them is public
debt. In the- tenth , article, it is prohibited frpm making
loans to the United States, or tp particular states, beyond a

174
limited amount It would, violate the charter if it were to
offend against either of these articles. What, then. Is the
charter forfeited ? No : The twelfth and thirteenth sections
establish the sanction for these prohibitions, by providing
specific pepalties, to be inflicted, not upon the corporation,
but upon the individual transgressors. In the seventeenth
section, also, the penalties are denounced fpr refusing to
pay specie.
. To sustain the contrary doctrine, the gentleman, from
Virginia has. quoted and relied upon thp 'famous proceed
ing, by quo warranto, against the city of Londori, .in the
time of- Charles the ^2d. It is a bad precedent from bad
tiraes. Sir, the adriilnistration of private justice iri England
between man and- man, has for a long tiriie flowed In a clear
and steady current. You may generally appeal with safety
to the precedents it affords. But when you come to exa
mine the proceedings in crown causes, you will err most
lampntably, unless you are aided by the light of coterapo
raneous history. Is. the gentleman from Virginia .acquaint
ed with the character of the precedent he has quoted, for^
our imitation' and adoption? I will take the liberty to refer
faira^ to the historian for ,an account of it. It occurred in the
year .1683, at a time when the Royal prerogative, already
most alarmingly extended, was abusing the power it had
derived from the circumstances that atterided and followed
the restoration, to obtain an unlimited ascendancy. , To
break dowri and crush the spirit of the city of London was
a favourite and importarit part of this system. The charges
made against the city were two. The markets had been
destroyed by the fire of 1666, and new ones rebuOt, with
many Conveniences: To defray the expense, a sriiall tax
had been assessed upon goods brought to market This was
the foundation of the first charge. The second, and the real.
ground, was, that the city of London, always on the side
of the liberties of the people, and opposed to the arbitrary,
extension of the prerogative of the crown, had addressed.

175
the King, against the prorogation of Parliament. " The of
fice of judge was at that time held during pleasure; and it
was impossible that any cause, where the court bent its
force, could ever be carried against it." If the gentleriian
wishes to know how the pleasure of the crown was signified
in the instance referred to;, he may find it in the book he
has used, at -page — to the following effect: "Memoran
dum. That when the demurrer in this case was joined, viz.
Mie. Term. 34 Car. 2. Mr. ^ Serjeant Pemb,erton was
Chief Justice of the King's Bench. Buf, before .Hilary
Term, that it came to be argued, he was removed, and
ihade Chief Justice of the Common Bench, and Sir Edward
Saundersj wh6 had been counsel for the King in drawing
and ddvising the pleadings, vf as made Chief Justice, of trie-
King's Bench.", The. bloody Jefferies was the next Chief
Just-ice. Does any gentleman still think this a' precedent to
be offered to our imitation ? I will then beg leave to tell
him' further, that this decislori took place in the very year ,
whose annals are stained with the blood of Russell and of
Sidney. It is one of the- dark ^nd, atrocious offences, under
the forras of justice, cpramitted by a dependent and cor
rupted judiciary, at the instigation of the crown, which
history has long since consigned to distinguished infamy.
It is one of a series of arbitrary and oppressive acts, which,
rousing the spirit of a brave and irijured periple, finally ex
pelled the Stuarts from the throne of England, and caused
the revolution of 1688, The- corporation of London was
of'course condemned, and the King availed -himself ofthe
decision to grant a new charter, which he took care to adapt
to his own views, of repressing the spirit of London, and
curtailing its liberties. All the corporations of England—^
all, guUty or innocent, conviriced that if the most powerful
body of the kingdom hud sunk under a-contest with a cor
rupted judiciary, executing the arbitrary wishes of the
eroWn, resistance on their part would-be vain, came in,'
surrendered their charters, the seCurity of their rights and

176
liberties, and accepted such new charters ' as the crown
would condescend to give, paying for the privilege of being
robbed of their rights such sums of money as the crown
thought proper to exact The revolution gave independence
to the judges. One of the first acts df the go-vernment that
succeeded was to declare this decision illegal and void.
(2 W. & M. s. 1. c. 8.) By the judiciary it was never re-».
¦ spected, but in all questions afterwards arisirig,' the old
charter was considered as having always-continued in force.
What is the language of modern and sound authority in
England ? "A judgment of ouster against mayor and alder
men does not dissolve a corporation.'' God forbid, says ah ,
English judge, that the rights of the innocent should be
lost and destroyed by the offence of individualsi "When
a corporation exists capable of dispharging Its functions, .the
crown cannot obtrude a new charter -upon therii." Thus
repudiated and reprobated in England, thus, condemned b^,
its history, as well as by its association, are wetP adopt
this precedent? ' The violation of charters, has ever been
deemed an enormous grievance'. It was onepf our com
plaints against England, and thought worthy to be Intro--
dUced Into the Declaration of Independence, where . it
stands enumerated among the solemncauses that led tp^ the
separation. ' ' , *'
I would beg leave to add further, before I examine the
particular offences imputed, that, where a violation has -
taken place, I cannot conceive that it will. work a forfeiture,
if there be a specific remedy, redress, or penalty. A for-*
feiture in that case is unnecessary. / ¦<
"I shall touch, very briefly upon the several imputed oi-
fehces contained in the report, not only because I have
already trespassed too long, but because the principles 1
have'^ubmltted go far to settle them; and also, because tbey
liaye already "heen fully and satisfactorily answered by a
member of the coinmittee (Mr. Lowndes'. )
The first of .these charges relates to the two miUions of

177
public debt purchased hy the bank for the Commissioners
of the Sinking Fund. I think It clear, that, in the question
with the Treasury, the bank was in the right, and the ob
vious mode of. correcting the error that has occurred,Wduld
be to' pay to' the bank the §54,000 lost by passing the stock
to'the commissioners at par. But, no one, I think, after a
moment's refieetioh, can hesitate to say, that there has been
no violation of the charter, and eVery ope will admit that
if there had been, the governnient could not coraplain,
having beeh a party, with full kno-wledge, to the transac-
tioh, and enjoyed all the benefit of it. The Object, of the
charter was to prevent the bank from purchasing to keep,
or td sell, that is to say, purchasirig for its own use. It
purchased in this instance for the Treasury :, it passed the'
stock Irinrie'diately to the commissippei'S, and aU the pepu-
llarity of the casfe consists ip the simple circuiristariCe, that
It received from the goverriment '54,000 dollars less than It
paid. It is heedless tO spend tiriie on this item, for if there'
had been a violation, there is a remedy for it" by the charter,
to^he enfoi-ced under the charter, and not by' destroying the
charter. The second Imputed viola^ipn Is wfaat, relates to. thp non
payment of the coin part of the second instalment. There
is some apparerit cpnfusion upori tljis subject in the repprt,
.and there Is one-plain mistake. It 'Will be necessary to as
certain the facts'- accurately, before, we attenipt to reason
upon theni. In page 7 of the report it is stated, "that the
amount of specie in the bapk in "February, 1817, was
§1,'724,109 ; §324,000 more than the cPin part'of the first
Iristalment, 'and which mky fairly be 'presiimed tb haVe been
received fPr the second instalment" The iriferbnce is,.tMt
drily $324,600 iri'coiri had beeri received for thes second in-
stalmeiit This' seems to be cdritradicted by the statement .
ih page 6. " Thfe" c'diilinittee there say, '^' the loans were td
rife' c'onfihed'to 'aidkhe pay*rii,fe'nt of the cbin part of the seCdrid
iristklm'elity'oh 'thfe sjiates which had'beeh subscribea'af the
25

178
places where offices were then in operation — New- York,
]^oston, and Baltimore." They then add, that the total
amount of these loans, at Philadelphia and Baltimore, was
§338,250 ; that at New- York and Boston they were "to a
very trifling amount, if any;" and that, in other p^ts of
the Union, the coin part of the instalment was paid in coin.
This view of the committee would prove, that all thp coin
part of the second instalraerit had been paid in coin, except
ing about §338,250. We faave, however, the clearest proof
of the real state of the fact in table V, among the docu
ments. It appears from that table, that, ih February, 1817, there
were in the vaults of the bank in PhUadelphia, Boston,
New- York, and Baltimore, in specie, exactly what the
coramittee state— - . . . §1,724,109 00
But there were at the same time due from
the commissioners for receiving subscriptions,
§8,559,764 95, the coin part of which must
have been received in coin, and would be
rather more than - - - - - 2,000,000 OO

Making together - - - - §3,724,109 00
The total amount in coin required for the
second and third instalment, was - 4,200,000 00

So that the total deficiency arising^ from
discounts at PhUadelphia, Boston, New- York,'
and Baltimore, did not e;xceed - - §475,891 00
Of which there were in Philadelphia and
Baltimore §338,250.
It thus appears that the ampunt Is much less than seems
to have been supposed ; that it could not have ocpasioned
the necessity of importation "to supply the deficiency the
evasion had occasioned ;" that It could not have injured the
punctual stdbkholders, nor materially affected the operations
of the bank. On the contrary, it may, I think, be assumed
as probable, that tbe mere knowledge of the fact, that tbis

179
accommodation might be obtained, kept down the price of
specie,-and really benefited the stockholders, as well as
contributed to' bring about the resumption of specie pay
ments. ' ' :
But, Small as It is, tfaere is a much stronger ground of
justification. I allude not now to the circumstance, that an
inquiry Was Instituted by Congress at the time of these
'fransactlohsj ' and they not only escaped censure, but ap
peared to be approved. That would, and ought to be, an
answer here^ for Cohgress, might then, by interposing, have
arrested the proceeding.- But the necessity, which then jus
tified it in'the sight of Congress, still affords il a justifica
tion. The bank was boiind to go Into operation on or before
the first Monday in April, 181*7. It was the wish pf the
government, founded upon the exigencies ofthe publicj
that it should coraraence much sooner ; and, yielding to that
wish, it did coriimence, before' the second instalraent was
payable. What- Were Its operations? Receiving deposltes,
discounting,, issuing paper — eaCfa of which, to a certain
extent, disabled it to enforce, the precise literal terms of
subscrlptiori. They could not refuse to discount for a stock
holder, merely because he was, a" stockholder ; they could
not refuse to receive their own notes, or checks upon the
bank, as equivalent to coin. That would have been absurd,
as the'y were bound to pay coin for them, and would, be
sides, have been a substantive Violation of charter. They
might have refused the notes of state banks. Yes, they
might, but what would have been the consequence? They,
must have •v^iolated the compact that had been entered into,
and, thrown every thirig irito confusion. lam discussing
the matter as if it were established that they did receive
thfe notes of state banks. It does not appear whether they
did dr not And, after all, what harm has been done? Is
the bank in a worSe condition, or the public injured? It
cannot be pretended.
The third item of coraplaint is tod small, in itsejf, to
merit much attention. It appears, (Documents, page 114)

180
that dividends to the amount of § 1460, were paid to four
stockholders, who had been in default when the dividends
were declared. There is an unintentional ambiguity in the
mode of stating the charge, in the report, which might in
duce a belief that the instalment had not been paid at the
time of paying the dividend. From the documents It will
be seen, that the Instalment was paid, and that Interest was
charged upon it from fhe tirae when it became payable.
The utmost loss that could have been incurred, would have
been the difference -between four per cent and three per
cent for six months ; equal to three hundred and sixty-five
doUars. It was not, perhaps, so much ; for the interest was
probably charged up to the time of paying the dividend,
which was more than six months. Whether these payments
were made fay mistake, or whether there were any peculiar
circumstances tojustify them, does not seem to have been
inquired into, and cannot be ascertained. But every one
must be satisfied, that, whether the payment was intentional,
or whether it was by mistake^ — whether it was right, or
whether it was wrong — the consequences cannot extend
beyond those who were conperned in it The raoney might
perhaps be recovered back, or the officer be charged with It
as a wrongful payment It can never forfeit the charter.
The only remaining article is that which regards the
elections— particularly the first This charge is, in substance,
neither more nor less than that votes were received which
the coraraittee believe to have been illegal, and that the
judges of the election, the directors and officers of the bank,
«' perfectly weU knew the facts," which, in the opinion of
the committee, raade them illegal. .As there were no di
rectors tUI after the first election, I do not see how they
can be implicated in the charge, so far, at least, as relates
to that election. But waiving that, and waiving, too, the
inquiry whether the judges had any right to refuse the
votes, (a very doubtful raatter, to say the least of it) let us
exaraine the complaint a little more closely, with a view,
ZLOt to its foundation In fact, but to its legal results. I have

181
peyer understood, nor dp I Jibelieyp, that any number of
illegal votes will majie an election vpid.. There are circura
stances that wilJ undoubtedly avoid an election. If an armed
force, pf soldiers, or others, were to surround the polls, and
by violence, or the menace of violence, prevent the electors
frora voting,, or otherwise Interfere with tlie free exercise
of.^hplr frahchlge, the election dught to be |ield void- But
the mere circumstance of illegal votes being received, Is of
no imporfe^nce, unless the election Is contested. And what
is thpn the. rule? The chairman of the comniittee of elec
tions will answer that question. Where the election is by
ballot, the illegal votes are all deducted from the majority.
Suppose. there i^ still a raajority, is the election void? No:
The highest on tbe return is the person elected. Suppose
there Was no opposing* candidate, is the election questiona
ble? I believe, we haVe never, heard of such a thing. Again,
sir — SupposlB thp election not Jo be contested : the returned
member takes his seat, and holds it till his term of service
has expik-ed. ,Js his right afterwards questionable, or the
Validity, of the acts hehas done? I have never so under
stood it These are the ordinary rules applicable to such
cases^ How .do they apply here ? lUegal votes, it is said,
were received. Was there any opposition, or were all the
votes, legal and illegal, given for the same ticket? Was
the election contested? Has not the time for contesting it
gone by? Supposing it still open to content, 'can any one
inform us how many legal and how many illegal votes were
given; or what wOuld be the ^tate of the poU if the illegal
votes were deducted from the majority ? These are raatters
necessary to be ascertained in the first instance, and until
they are ascertained, at all events the election is good, and
the acts done, under it valid. Even where an election is con
tested, the returned candidate takes his seat, and holds it,
with allits rights,, voting and acting, with dtJiers, until the
contest is decided> But, again — Was it ever heard that the
mere fact of receiving illegal votes at the election of corpo-
eatlon officers, was a forfeiture of the charter? Every cor-,.

182
poration In the United States might tremble if that wero
the law. No ; you may invalidate the election before the
proppr tribunal — you may set it aside. The judiciary may
inqufre into It — raay expel those who have been Introduced
by Illegal means — may introduce those who have been by
Illegal means kept out These are the appropriate and all-
sufficient remedies, which we have frequently seen em
ployed, and eraployed With effect. They apply directly to
the evil where it is found ; correct that evil, but leave the
innocent corporation, and the innocent corporators, in the
enjoyraent of their rights, which these reraedies are intend
ed to preserve, and not to destroy.
I had^ intended to have noticed the propositions brought
forward by the chairraan of the comraittee. It would be
unpardonable to consume more , of the tirade Of the house.
A single reraark upon them, and I have done. Among those
propositions there are several that would be highly advan
tageous to the bank. If they were offered to its free accept
ance, perhaps they would be accepted. But, under the
threat of a Scire facias, they ought not to receive a moihent's
consideration, ' -

Statement of Public Deposltes, from January, 1817, /o
December, 1818.

PUBLIC

DEPOSITES.

31st January IS 17,

," -

§ 1,147,772 97

March. "

- -

11,615,017 62

SOthApril "

-

1,1,345,796 78

29th July "

-

24,746,641 26

Slst October "

-

7,743,899 74

9th.July 1818,

-

7,967,775 14

1st Dec'r "

-

6,069,975 15

PUBLIC DEBT BEDEEMEr

(,

31st July 1817,

— m

§13,398,438 02

A StatemtrU of the^ annual gain or loss, by Exchange, in relation io the.paymmt cfthe Dutch Loans.

Years. 1791
1792 17931794
1795
1796179717981799 1800
.1801 1803 1803
180418051806 1807
18081809

axis OS BKMITTAirCES.-

From-the Treasury,

$ 4,912
10,956

581
31,048
74,061 37,224 5,62?
10,151
128,814 48,897 10,69t 1,853

364,82^ 42,874 1,500

$ 409,197 20

To the Treasury.

$ 42,717 156

*42,874

59

From Amsterdam
to Antwerp-.

1,188 3li585
763

^1,500

32

toss on Eschange,

t 13,49410 13,159

11,96354,096

10,662

62

70

BEHABKS.

It will be perceived, by comparing
this statement withlthe statement of
the. operations qf the Commissioners of
the Sinking Fund, that there is a varia
tion in the amounts as annually stated.
To aeconnt for this, it may be observ
ed, that the statement of the operations
of th,e Commissioners of the' Sinking
Fund is made upon bills, actually re- ^
mitted, andthe statement in relation to ^
the payment of the Dutch loan, upon ^
bills actually received.
Treasury Department.
Register's Office, Jan. 26, 1819.
JOSEPH NOURSE.

Total gain
Do. loss
Nett gain

$409,197 20
103,377 06
$305,820 14

.CD W

./? Statement, <y the annual gain or loss, by Exchange, under the operations of the Commis-
sioners of the Sinking Fund.

Years. I^ahl.on Exchmge. Loss on Exchange.

.1802 ifiD3„
¦1*8(M* 1805.1806 1807li08,1809 1810
1811.181S 1813
iai41815- 1816
lair

J- 1-1,200
45,049
117,137 35,697 9,427

56,72691,532
92,24919,827

3,512

S 482,361 129,640

$ 352,720

59

54

$ 54,193 72
7.5,446,94

$ 129,640

66

nxKAnsa.

See Report Coitimissioneips

Sinking Fund

, 3d February, 1804

Do.

«« f

t «

Do.

4th '
' 1805
Statement D.
Do.
C( 1
1806
' Dk
Do.
(( (
1807
' D.
Do.
(( <
1803
' D.
Do,
3d '
1809
( tc
Do.
2d '
1810
( <l
Do.
1st <
• 1811
c <t
Do.
,
5tK <
1813
( u
Do.
4th >
• 1814
C «(
Do.
6th '
1815
( <(
Do.
tt , <
• ¦ 1816
1 ((
Do.
<( f
' 1817
1 (1
Do.
Do.
1817
1818
< .DD.
' n.
Treapury Department,
Register's Office, Japuary 26, 1819
JOSEPH NOURSE..
9?
SPEECH,

ON THE MISSOURI QUESTION, DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES, ON THE
STH AND 9TH OF FEBRUARY, 1820.
This speech was delivered while the House of Repreaentalives w;as in com
mittee of tlie whole, on the bill for the admission of Missouri into the
union.. The debate in committee commenced on the 26th January, 1820,
on the ¦ following amendment, proposed by Mr. Taylor of New York, to
the bill : " And shall ordain and establish that there shall be neither slavery
nor involuntary servitude in the said state, otherwise than in the punish
ment of crimes whereof the party shall have been duly convicted. Pro
vided always, that any person escaping into the same, from whom labour
' • or service is lawfully claimed in any other state, such fugitive may be law-
fiilly reclaimed and conveyed to the person claiming his or her labour or
service as aforesa.id. And,, .provided also, that the said provision shall not
. be construed tq alter the condition or civij rights of any person now held to
service or labour in the said territory."

MK, CHAIRMAN, The important question now before the committee,
has already engaged the best talents, and commanded the
deepest attention ofthe nation. What the people strongly
feel, it is natural that they should freely express ; and
¦whether this is done by pamphlet^ and essays, by the re
solutions of meetings of citizens, or by the votes of state
legislatures, it Is equally legitima.te, and entitled to respect,
as the voice of the public, upon a great and interesting
public measure. The' free expression of ,6pinion, is one of
the rights guaranteed by the constitution, and in a govern
ment like ours, it is an invaluable right, " It has not, there
fore, been without some surprize and concern, that I have
heard it complained of, and even censured in this, debate.

186
One membei: 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
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 factious 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, our dissentions and conflicts,
are nothing, absolutely nothing, in the" comparison : and I
. cannot 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 consi
deration of party interests and party motives.
Another member, (Mr. M'Lane) taking Indeed a more
liberal ground, has warned us against ambitious and 'de
signing 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 de
struction 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 cir
cumstances, and a long train of preparation. Men do not
produce them : they are brought on by corruption — ^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
Hot by vigorously maintaining great moral and political
principles, in their purity, that we incur the danger... If
gentlemen are sincerely desirous to perpetuate the bless
ings of that free constitution under which we live, I would
advise them to apply their exertions to the preservation of
public and private virtue, upon which its existence, I had
almost said, entirely depends. : As long as this Is preserved,
vve have nothing to fear. When this shall be lost, when

187
luxury and vice and corruption, shall have usurped Its '
place, then, indeed, a government resting upon the people
for Its support, miist totter and decay, or yield to the de
signs of ambitious and aspiring men. , -
Another member, the gentleman to whom the committee
lately listened with so much attention, (Mr. Clay,) after
depicting forcibly and eloquently, what he deemed the
probable consequences of the proposed amendment, ap
pealed emphatically to Jfennsylvania ; " the unambitious
Pennsylvania, the keystone of the federal arch," whether
she would concur in a measure calculated tp disturb the
peace of the union. Sir, this wa^ a single arch ; it is ra
pidly 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 difiicult
to tell. Pennsylvania may indeed be styled " unambitious,"
fpr she has not been anxious for what are commonly deem
ed honours 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 Interests, — ^under every vicissitude, and
In every exigency. Bu^ 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 sis
ter states. — It Is this principle, and this, alone, that now
governs her conduct. She holds it too sacred to suffer it to
be debased by association with any party or factious views,
and she will pursue it with the singleness of heart, and with
the firm but unoffending temper which belong to a con
scientious discharge of duty, and which, I hope I may say,
have characterized her conduct in all her relations.. If any
one desire to know what this principle is, he shall hear it in

188
the Jahguage of Pennsylvania herself, as contained in the
preamble to her act of abolition, passed in the year 1780.
I read It not without feelings of . sincere satisfaction, as
abridged by a foreign writer, with his introductory remark.
(2 Belsham, 23, Memoirs of Geo. 3.)
" It affords a grateful relief from the sensations which
oppress the mind in listening to the tale of human folly and
wretchedness, to revert to an act of the most exalted
philanthropy passed about this period by the legislature of
Pennsylvania, to the following purport :" " When we con
template our abhorrence of that condition, to which the
arms and tyranny of Great Britian were exerted to reduce
us, when we look back on the variety of dangers to which
we have been exposed, and deliverances wrought, when
even hope and fortitude have become unequal to the con
flict, we conceive it to be our duty, and rejoice that it is In
our power, to extend a portion of that freedom to others
which hath been extended to us, to add one more Step to
universal civilization, .by removing, as much as possible,
the sorrows of those who have lived in undeserved' bondage.
Weaned by a long course of experience from those narrow
prejudices and partialities we had imbibed, we conceive
ourselves at this particular period, called upon, by the
blessings we have received, to manifest the sincerity of
our profession. In justice, therefore, to persons who having
no prospect before them, whereon they may rest their
sorrows and their hopes, have no reasonable inducement
to render that service to society which otherwise they
might; and also in grateful commemoration of our own
happy deliverance from that state of unconditional sub
mission to which we were doomed by the tyranny of
Britian. Be it enacted, that no child born hereafter shall
be a slave, &c." In this manner did Pennsylvania
express her thankfulness for the deliverance that had been
wrought for her, and 1 am confident she will never incur
the sin aiid the danger of Ingratitude.

189
Stedfastly as Pennsylvania holds the position here taken,
she will not officiously obtrude her opinions upon her
.sister states. One of the'grounds of her rejoicing, and one
of the causes of her gratitude, was, that "she had it in
her power to abolish slavery." She will not in thi§ respect
presume to judge for others, though she will rejoice If they
ioo should have the power and feel the inclination.' But,
whenever the question presents ifself, in acase where she
has a right to judge, I trust she will be true to'her own
pnnciples, -and do her duty." Such I take to be the case
now before the committee.
Thb proposed amendment presents for consideration
three questions : that ofthe constitutional power of congress,
that which arises out of the treaty of cession, and, finally,
that which.' is termed the question of expediency. I beg
the indulgence of the committee while I endeavour to
examine them in the order stated. ^
1. We are about to lay the foundation of a new state,
beyond the Mississippi, and to admit 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 forniatlon, which shall establish a fundamental princi
ple of her government, not to be changed without the con
sent of both parties ; and this principle is, that every human
being born or hereafter brought within the State, shall be
free. The only questions under the constitution, seem to me
to be, whether the parties are competent to make a com
pact, and whether they can make such a compact ? If
they cannot. It must be either, for want of power in the
parties to contract, or from the nature of the subject.
It cannot, at this time of day, be denied, that the United
States have poWer to contract witha state, nor that a state
has power to contract with the United States. It has
been the uniform and undisputed practice, both before and
since the adoption of the constitution. There are numer-

190
ous instances of cessions of territory, or claims to territory,
by states, to the Union. By New York in 1781 ; by Virginia
in 1784 and in 1788; by Massachusetts in 1785 ; by Con
necticut in 1786; by South Carolina in 1787; by North
Carolina in 1790; and by Georgia in 1802. The last men
tioned cession is the more remarkable, because it was made
by a formal argeement between the United States and Geor
gia, in which the stipulations on each side are stated in the
same manner and with the hke solenmlty, as in contracts
with individuals. No doubt they were considered to be,
and really are, of equal eflScacy.
There is one instance, of a cession of territory by the
United States to a state, that to Pennsylvania, In September
1788, In which also there are mutual stipulations.
Each of these instances, is a case of mutual compact,
by which there was a surrender of a portion of power and
sovereignty, on the part ofthe respective states ; by which,
too, there were terms mutually agreed upon. The most
striking is that from Virgiuia, which I shall have occasion
to refer hereafter, and that from Georgia, because they
both contain conditions operating as a restraint upon the
legislative authority of the United States, binding and
adhering to the ceded territory, and fixing the terms and
conditions of its future gpvernment So, when the United
States, soon after the state of Louisiana was admitted into
the Union, enlarged the territory of the state by a cession,
it was done upon conditions, which thenceforth became
obligatory upon the state.
These instances are sufficient to show that the United
States, and a state, are competent to make a binding com
pact. Indeed it is impossible that any man should doubt
it The states have capacity to contract with each other,
so far as they are not restrained by the constitution. In
1785 a compact was made between Pennsylvania and
Virginia. There was a compact between Pennsylvania and
New-Jersey, and between South Carolina and Georgia.

191
The only restraint in the constitution (art. 1. sec. 10.
clause 2.) is that which prohibits states from entering into
any agreement or compact with each other, or with a
foreign power, without the consent of congress ; and this
prohibition, from its very nature admits, that they may
enter' Into such compacts or agreements with the United
States. The states have a capacity to contract even with indl^
viduals, and In so doing tp part with a portion of their
legislative power. This is the case wherever, a charter
of incorporation Is granted, by which rights of property
become vested. During the period of the charter, the
subject is beyond the control of the legislative authority,
which is so far suspended or extinguished by the grant.
The United States have done the same thing, and with'the
like effect.
If It be competent to (he United States to contract with
an old State, it seems to follow of course, that it has a com
petency to contract with a new one. The admission of
the state Is itself a compact, &s the constitution of the
United States was a compact between the existing states,
and it would be ditficuU to assign any good reason, why
upon the admission of a new state to a participation in the
privileges and benefits of the Union, such terms might not
be proposed and insisted upon as the general welfare
should seem to require. As the stipulation, whatever It
may be, derives its binding efficacy from the assent of the
state, which its sovereignty, or qualified sovereignty, ena
bles it to give, a new state is as competent as an old one.
Indeed, the possession and the exercise of this power are
necessary to enable the United States to execute the con
tracts they may enter into, with any state of the Union,
upon receiving from it a cession of territory, wherever
such cession is accompanied, as It usually has been, with
terms upon the part of the ceding state, applying to and
intended to bind the territory ceded.

192
Accordingly, no new state (unless formed out of an old
one) has ever been admitted into ihe Union, hut upon terms
agreed upon by compact, and irrevocable without the
consent of all the parties. The states formed out of the
North-West Territory, (Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois,) have
heen made subject, as a fundamental law of their govern
ment, to the terms of the ordinance of 1787, including the
very condition now; proposed for Missouri. The states of
Mississippi and Alabama, formed out of the territory ceded
by Georgia, have been suhjected to all the provisions of the
ordinance, except the one which regards slavery, and that
was expressly excluded by the terms of the cession. The
state of Louisiana, the only one yet formed out of the ter
ritory acquired from France, has been in • like manner
admitted upon terms; different it is true, from those which
have been required from the other states, but still such
terms as congress thought applicable to her situation, and
such as are sufficient to demonstrate the extent of the
authority possessed by the United States. Even in the
bill now under consideration, certain propositions, as they
are styled, are offered to the free acceptance of Missouri,
but if accepted, they are to be forever binding upon her.
Thus, it appears, that a nev* state may contract ; and it
is essential that it should be so, for her own sake as well
as for tbe sake of the union. It remains, then, to inquire,
whether the stipulation proposed in the amendment, is, on
account of the nature of the subject, such an one as it is
heyond the power of a state to enter into? It has already
been remarked, that a state, at the moment of its forma
tion, is as entirely sovereign, and as capable of making a
binding contract, as at any future period. The real ques
tion, therefore, is, whether it is beyond the power of any
state in this union, for any consideration whatever, to bind
itself by a compact with a state, or with the United States,
to prohibit slavery within Its borders'? To suppose so,
seems to Impute a want of sovereign power, which could

193
only arise from Its being parted with by the constitution,
and this I think can scarcely be affirmed. But I do not
mean to anticipate,- as my object at present is to follow the
practicepf the government.
In this view, the ordinance of 1787, respecting the Norths-
West Territory, and the history of the states formed under
it, are eminently deserving of consideration and respect.
This ordinance was framed upon great deliberation. It
was intended to regulate thfe government of the territory ;
to provide for its divisipn into states, and for their admission
Into the union ; and to establish certain great principles,
which should become the fundamental law of the states to
be formed. In its territorial condition, itwas subject to
the exclusive 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 became peopled, should be divided into
states, and that these states should be admitted into the
union, " upon an equal footing, in all respects, 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 re
publics, their laws and constitutions are erected ; to fix
and establish those principles as the basis of all laws, con
stitutions and governments, which forever hereafter shall
be formed. in the said territory; to provide, also, for the
establishment of states, and permanent government there
in, and for their admission to a share in the federal councils
on an equal footing with the original states, at as early
periods as may be consistent with the general interest.
It is hereby ordained and declared, that the following arti
cles 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
25

194
consent." Then follow the several articles, of which the
sixth declares, " that there shall be neither slavery nor
involuntary servitude, &c." The fifth article provides ex
pressly, that " the constitution and government (of the
states) so to be formed; should be republican, and in con
formity to the principles contained in these articles." When
the slates of Ohio, Indiana, and lUinois, respectively, ap
plied for admission, they were admitted upon the express
condition that their constitutions should be republican, and
in conformity to the ordinance of 1787. They assented 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 an 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
he any thing in our legislative history, which is entitled to
our affection for the motives in which it originated ; to our
veneration for the authority by which it is supported ; to
our respect for the .principles embodied in it, it is the or
dinance of 1787. But the charge of usurpation is in
every sense inapplicable, for the efficacy of the contract
arises from the assent ofthe state to the conditions proposed
as the terms of her admission.
But this ordinance Is entitled to still higher consideration.
It was a solemn compact between the existing states, and it
cannot be doubted, that its adoption had a great influence
In bringing about the good understanding that finally pre
vailed in the convention, upon several points which had
been attended with the greatest difficulty. It passed on
the 13th July, 1787, while the convention that framed the
constitution was in session. From the minutes of that
body, latetypublished, 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

195
cerned all the territories then belonging to the United
States, and was therefore eminently calculated to quiet the
minds of the advocates of freedom ; to remove their objec
tions to the principle of slave representation, and to secure
their assent to the instrument which contained that prin
ciple, by limiting its operation to the existing states. It is
not to be questioned, that this ordinance, unanimously
adopted, and, tis it were, fixing an unchaiigeable basis by
common consent, had a most powerful influence in bringing
about the adoption of the constitution. It is a part of the
groundwork of the constitution itself; one of the prelimi
nary measures upon which it was founded. lience the
unusual solemnity of the terfns in which it is conceived, so
different from the ordinary forms of legislation, arid which
give to it the character of a binding and irrevocable cove
nant. Such, then, is the power that has always been exercised
by congress, upon the admission of new states Into the
union, and exercised without dispute. Whence was It
derived? It was exercised, as we have seen, immedi
ately before the adoption of the constitution, while that
instrument was under consideration, and recognized imme
diately after, by the act of the first congress, supplementary
to the ordinance. Nothing can be more clear, than that if
the ordinance of 1787 was Inconsistent with the constitu
tion, it was repealed by that .instrument. If the conven
tion had meant to repeal it, they would have done so. It
was directly in their view, and embraced a subject which
was earnestly and carefully treated by that body. And yet,
immediately after, when the same men who had framed
the constitution, and knew its Intention, were many of them
members of congress, the supplement to the ordinance was
adopted. That was not a time, you may be assured, for
stretching the federal power. The greatest jealousy pre
vailed, and the friends of the constitution were obliged to
Observe the utmost' caution, while It was slowly winning its

196
way to the public favour, refnting the suggestions of its
enemies, and settling down, gradually but firmly, upon the
solid foundation of ascertained public benefit.
In what part of the constitution is this power conferred ?
It Is conferred by that provision which authorizes congress
to admit new states into the union ; and to me It seems
perfectly plam, that we need look no further for it There
are other parts of the constitution which have a bearing
upon the question, because they apply to the subject upon
which it is proposed to exercise the power, and may very
well be used for the purpose of fllustration or of argument.
This use of them affords no just occasion for the remark,
which has been so triumphantly made, that the friends of
the restriction differ among themselves, as to (he part of
the constitution from which the power to impose it is de
rived. They do not differ. But, as upon every other
question of constitutional power, they naturally resort for
information to all the provisions of the constitution, which
have relation to the matter in discussion.
The power to admit new states is given to congress in
general terms, without restriction ori^ualification, and upon
every just principle of construction, must be understood to
confer whatever authority is necessary for carrying the
power into effect, and every authority which in practice
had become Incident to the principal power, or was deemed
to make a part of it.
Of late it has been the fashion to insist upon a liberal
construction of the constitution, and its most extensive
efficacy has heen found in the implied powers it is supposed
to confer. All powers are implied that are necessary for
the execution of the enumerated powers, and the necessity
need not he absolute ; a modified necessity or high degree
of expediency Is sufficient Whence the authority to in
corporate a bank ? Whence the authority to apply the
pubhc tr^sure to the Improvement of the country hy roads
and canals? Whence the authority to encourage domestic

197
industry hy bounties and prohibitions? Whence the
authority to purchase and to govern the territory now in
question ? Is it to be found in the' letter of the constitu
tion? They all rest Upon this single position, that an ori
ginal power having been granted, every other power is
implied which is necessary or useful for carrying that povyer
into execulion^and this is an inherent essential principle
of the constitution, altogether independent of its express
words. But the power In question rests upon stronger ground
than this. The constitution of the United States, though
in form the work of the people (who made it their own by
adoption) was a compact between states. It was made
by delegates chosen by the slates. The votes in the con
vention were given by states. It was submitted to the
states for their ratification: and, its existence depended
upon the .sanction of a certain number of the states.
These states were sovereign, but confederated by a slight
and insufficient union, incapable from its weakness of pro
viding for the common welfare. Their sovereignty eictend-
ed to every thing within, their hmits, and to every thing
else; but the few powers (if they deserve to be so denomi
nated) which were conceded lo the congress of the union.
Nevertheless It was a confederation, which -comprehended
all who were parties to it, and excluded all others.- Was -
there a power in this confederacy to admit new members ?
It cannot be doubted. To whom was that power confided.
The express provision in the articles of confederation,
which has been quoted and relied upon in opposition to the
power contended ,for, has no relation to the subject of new
states, to be formed and admitted from the territory of the
United States. It was an invitation to Canada and the
other British colonies In America to join us in resistance to
the common enemy, and if they had accepted the invitation,
they would have come into the confederation upon the
terms only of making common cause with us. But there

198
was a power, Independently of this provision, to admit new
members. That is clear from Its exercise — and that
power was exercised by the states In congress. When
Virginia, in 1786, ceded to the United States her claim to
the North West Territory, it was upon condition that the
territory should be formed into states, and that these states
should be admitted upon an equal footing with the original
states. Congress accepted the cession upon that condition,
and proceeded to fulfil it by the ordinance of 1787.
The extent of the power, the mode of its exercise, and
the incidents belonging to it, were also' determined by the
practice of our Government. Among these Incidents was
that of making terms, conditions or compacts, with the
states admitted : and so inseparably incident was this
deemed to be, that when Virginia stipulated for the admis
sion of the' states upon an equal footing with the original
states, that stipulation was understood to be fully complied
with, by admitting them upon terms. It is not at all ma
terial to the present purpose, to inquire, whether the
ordinance of 1787 was or was not an usurpation. If there
'•V
was any authority usurped. It was that of admitting the
states, the principal power Itself, not the Incidents. It Is
sufficient that in point of fact, the power of admitting new
slates was exercised, and was undei'stood from its exercise
to include in it the power of proposing terms, conditions or
stipulations, and, among them the very condition now in
question. When the power of admitting new states into the union,
was vested by the constitution, without limitationj In the
congress of the United States, was it not Intended to carry
with it whatever In practice had been established to be an
Incident of the power, or a part of the power ? Where was
the residue lodged? Not with the states; for the states
as such, have no longer a voice in the union, except for the
purpose of amending the constitution. Not with the
people ; for the people have no voice, but through their

199
representatives in congress. The matter resolves itself at
last into this single question : Did the people of the United
States, when they framed their constitution, mean to give
up and forever relinquish the power of proposing terms, or
did they deposit it with their own immediate agents,
chosen by themselves ? They had always found terms of
some sort beneficial and necessary, and they have been
necessary and expedient in every instance since the consti
tution was formed, so that, with the exception of Vermont,
not a single state has ever been admitted into the union
but upon conditions agreed to by compact. Who are the
congress of the United States ; by whom are they chosen ;
vvho do they represent? The people of the existing states.
Who is it claims to be admitted into the confederacy, and
to participate in the benefits of the union ? An alien, as
yet, one who has no right of admission, whom the people
of these United States, as a political association, may at
their pleasure reject Can it be supposed, that by framing
a constitution of government for themselves, the people of
the United States meant to destroy forever their own in
herent right of prescribing terms and conditions of admis
sion ? And yet this Is the obvious result of the argument,
for as it denies the power to congress, and it cannot be '
exercised by the states or the people, it is forever gone.
In what part of the constitution do you find any coun
tenance for such a conclusion ? There are limits, it is true,
to the powers of congress, but those limits are the boun
daries which separate the rights of the union from those of
the states and the people. Is there any power denied to
congress which is not reserved to the states or the people ?
Was any power intended to be denied to them, in its nature
tit aijd proper to he exercised, but which could not be
exercised by the states or the people ?
Besides, If this power was, In its exercise, to be merely
ministerial, why was It confided to congress, the highest
legislative authority of the nation, entrusted with the care

200
of all its most important concerns ? It is derogatory to the
character of congress, and altogether inconsistent with the
general tteno'r of its high duties; to suppose, that it shall be
required to perform an. office so humiliating. One gentle
man tells us, that Missouri has a right to be admitted, and
Vill assert her right. What is this but to say, she will
knock at the door, because it is civil to do so, but if it be
not immediately opened, she will break it down and come
in by force. Anolher gentleman has told us of a citizen of
Missouri, who said, that rather than submit to the restric
tion, he would shoulder his musket against the United
States. Such intimations have no other "effect than to
create a very reasonable doubt vvhether Missouri is yet fit
to be admitted. Admission presupposes the existence in
the new territory of principles and feelings somewhat like
those which govern other parts of this union, and those are
feelings of submission and respect for the constitution 'and
laws, and the authority exercised under them. If we have
no right to impose the condition, there is an end of the
question : but If we have a right, and it is deemed expedi
ent to exercise it, I trust the congress of the United States
are not to be frightened from their purpose by threats like
these. What becomes of the union, which gentlemen
express so much anxiety to preserve, if it cannot assert and
maintain its rightful authority, even against a territory,
without the original limits of the United States, only very
lately acquired, and with a population who have scarcely
had time to become acquainted with each other ? Such
an union could hardly be worth preserving. Why, sir,
when Virginia brought her eldest daughter Kentucky,
trained up in the habits and affections of h'er parent to an
age when she was fit to be introduced Into the society of
the union, and offered her as an associate fit to be received,
congress, it is admitted, had a right to receive or to reject
her. But when a state, formed out of an alien territory, and
having had no paternity but that of congress, offers herself

^ " 201
for admission, she may demand and Insist upon being re
ceived. And does Missouri deem so lightly of the privilege
of belonging to this union, that she would rather forego it
than make a slight sacrifice of a seeming ady^antage, or
that she would hazard it for the sake of .asserting her own
opinion in opposition to that of congress 1 I cannot believe,^
that upon reflection she will adopt any such course. If
she should, it will be lime enough then to consider how
the authority of the union is to be maintained.
I have said that it is derogatory to the authority of con
gress, and wholly, inconsistent with the tenor of its high
duties and capacities, to suppose that it is merely to per
form the humble ministerial office of opening the door, upon
demand, for the admission of a state, without any discre
tion whatever. No mstance can be found, where the
constitution has assigned to the legislative power the per
formance of such a duty. Thua construed, it is not a power
at all. The cases that have been put are in no respect
analogous. The power of congress, upon the death of the
President and Vice President, to declare what officer shall
act as President of the United States, is a very high power,
involving in its exercise much discretion, a discretion com
mensurate with the various and important trusts confided
to the chief magistrate. It can with no propriety be said
to be ministerial, and its being deposited with congress, is
the strongest proof of the confidence reposed in that body-
The office of counting the ballots, upon the election of pre
sident and vice president, simple as it may seem, and easy
as in ordinary cases it is, is nevertheless an office of impor
tant trust, and including some judicial discretion, as well as
a most serious responsibility. It Is a fit office to be exe
cuted by the highest body in the nation. The power of
impeachment is not a ministerial, but a judicial power, and
It belongs not to congress, but to a single branch. The
same remark applies, with equal force, to the right which
each branch possesses of judging of the elections and re-
26

202
turns of its members, a judicial power, incident to every
body composed of elected delegates, and one of its inherent
privileges. In all these cases, hovvever, it may not he amiss
to observe, that the constitution gives only the principal
power. The incidental powers, such as sending for persons
and papers, enforcing the attendance of witnesses, and the
hke, are implied from the principal grant.
That construction which supposes that congress have a
power indeed to admit or to reject, but simply to admit or
to reject, seems to me (though it might be sufficient for the
present case) to reflect upon the wisdom of the framers of
the constitution. The objection to the admission of a state
may arise from something not in its nature insuperable, but
which might be removed by compact or by accepting a
condition. Would it not be worse than Idle to say, that in
such a case, the state must be rejected, for want of a power
on the one side to propose, and on the other to agree to
certain terms of compact? In truth, as will be shown
more fully hereafter, such a discretion in congress is essen
tially necessary to the just exercise of the power of admis
sion, not only on account of the union, but also of the states
to be admitted.
The gentleman from Delaware has indeed argued, that
the power given is to " admit" not to " form or create-" a
state, and therefore congress have no power to interfere in
the formation. This only brings us back to the inquiry,
what Is meant by the word " admit?" It has always been
miderstood that congress have a right, and are in duty
bound, to superintend the formation of a state, and to see
that it is properly formed. The terms of the very bill now
on your table (following the usual phraseology) " authorize'
the people of Missouri to form a constitution of state go
vernment preparatory to their admission.
But, antecedently to the constitution Itself, the states
then existing had prescribed certain terms or conditions to
the states to be formed out of the N. W. Territory. If con-

203
gress have no power but to admit or to reject, the territory
was by the constitution liberated from those conditions, for
want of authority to impose them. There might be a
questjon indeed, whether the territory has not reverted to
the states which ceded it, in consequence of the incapacity
of congress to fulfil the stipulations.
I beg leave then to return to the question — the incidents
to this power being quite as important' as the power itself,
the power being worse than worthless without them, did
the people of the United Slates, in framing a constitution
of government for themselves, intend to destroy the power,
by stripping it of the incidents that gave it all its value?
Did they mean to prevent its apphcation to the cases to
which they had themselves applied it ? And for what
purpose ? Better, far better would it have been, that no
power at all should have been given to congress, than that
they should thus be required, either blindly to admit, or
sullenly to reject. The design of the constitution was not
to abridge, but to enlarge and strengthen the ppwers of the
federal government, and it would be strangely inconsistent
with the general plan, to suppose, that in a matter which
is properly of national concern, it had denied to congress a
portion of power which had been actually and beneficially
exercised under the confederation. We should naturally
expect to find it where it was deposited before. I think it
is accordingly there deposited, with all Its established
Incidents, among which is that now Iri question.
' This power is not now asserted for the first time under
the constitution. It has always been exercised by congress.
There never has been a state admitted, except Vermont,
without conditions which surrendered a portion of legisla
tive authority more or less extensive. Kentucky entered
into stipulations with Virginia, and among them was one by
which she bound herself for five years, not to tax the lands
of non-residents higher than those of residents, and never
to tax the lands of non-residents who should reside in Vir-

204
ginia, higher than those of residents. ¦ This is a perpetual
restraint upon her power of legislation, but it Is no diminu
tion of her sovereignty. The states of Ohio, Indiana, and
ininois, by compact with the United States, are under a
perpetual incapacity to permit slavery within their limitg.
This Is no derogation from their just sovereignly, nor does
any man imagine that it impairs their character or I|^ssens
their weight In the union. Alabama, Mississippi, and
Louisiana, too, have come In upon conditions imposed by
congress at the time of their admission. In every such
instance, the states have been deeniied to be, and have In
fact been, admitted upon an equal footing with the original
states. The uniform exertion of this authority for such a
length of time, is not to be regarded merely as furnishing
us with so many precedents, entitled to more or 'less
consideration according to circumstances. There must be
a time after which the practical construction of 'the consti
tution, universally understood, and adopted and acquiesced
in by the people, especially in matters of great public
concern, is to be deemed the true construction, and placed
beyond the reach of dispute or controversy. Shall we now
undo all that has been done for above thirty years, and
done with the common consent ? Shall we reject as erro
neous the Interpretation that has been without exception
put lipon the constitution from the time of its adoption?
It is due to the constitution itself, that it should not be
be exposed to treatment which must weaken its claim to
the public confidence and respect It Is due to the people,
whose constitution It is, that what It has always been
understood In practice to be, it shall continue to be, until
they may think proper to change Its provisions.
But here we are met by an objection, which seems to be
considered by those who, present it, as of great force. If
one condition may be proposed, why not- another, and
another^ without limit, to the: entire annihilation of all the
rights of the state ? This argument, though pressed with

205
a sort of triumph, as if it were completely unanswerable,
can scarcely be said to be even plausible. The possible
abuse of power can never be urged to show that a power
does not exist, or that it is not upon the whole salutary and
proper ; for if admitted at all, it proves by far too muCh, as it
is equally available against every grant of power. In the
formationof government, the first Inquiry must be, what au
thority is fit and necessary fobe delegated, and then weare
toinquire to whom it shall be confided, and what security
can be provided against its faithless exercise ? All authority
Is. exposed to the danger of abuse, for itis administered by
men. " Goverriment has been said, by a once celebrated
popular writer, to be itself an evil, inasmuch as its necessity
arises .from the vices and weakness of our nature. But the
constitution has provided with the greatest care against the
abuse of power, by making every public agent in some way
accountable for his conduct, and by conferring the highest
powers .upon those who are immediately responsible to the
people ; and as long as the people shall continue to be, faith
ful to theipselves, so long the check will continue to be
effectual. This is the great security, and it depends upon
the virtue and intelligence of the people. No government
ever afforded the same degree of protection, with so little
burthen, and if we had not been most vehemently censured
abroad for speaking well of ourselves, I would add, that
there is probably no other people upon ea,rth who could, be
kept quiet by so light a pressure. The government and
the people are suited to each other. Long may they con-
tihue so.
The congress of the United States, the immediate repre
sentatives of the people, and immediately accountable to
the people, are the fit depositories of such a power as that
now claimed, for It concerns the general welfare. They
have no motive to abuse it ; and if they were so inclined,
they cannot abuse it, hecause they have no power to Im
pose the condition. The state may, at her pleasure, reject

206
the offer, and remain in her territorial condition, where she
will be subject to the unqualified power of congress.
It must be manifest to every one who, bas reflected upon
the subject, that there are terms which are obviously salu
tary and proper, and necessary to be proposed upon thcj
admission of a state. When Louisiana asked to come into*
the union, did any one doubt, that it was right to require,
that her legislative ahd judicial proceedings should no lon
ger be carried on in a language unintelligible to the other
citizens of the United States, without the aid of an inter
preter ? There are terms, too, which would be manifestly
improper, and there are terms, I freely acknowleilge, which
would be incompatible with the constitution. There must
be a discretion somewhere, to judge between the two first
classes. Our government would be incomplete without It.
Where can the power be so safely lodged as with the con
gress ofthe United States, to decide what terms the general
interests require to be proposed? They have never yet
abused it, and I think there is no danger that they ever
wiH. But where do the opponents of the amendment pro
pose to lodge the power ? Leave the state free, it Is said ;
let her adopt such a plan of government as best suits her
own circumstances. And is there no danger to be appre
hended from that quarter ? Supposing her to be compe
tent to judge what is best for herself, or most for her own
advantage, (of which, if she desire slaves, I must be per
mitted to doubt,) yet, as she claims to become a member of
this union, the general interests are involved in her deci
sion, and her views may not be those which best comport
with the pubhc welfare. Of that she is not in any sense
as competent to judge as those who are entrusted with the
care of the concerns of the whole.
Is it too much then to say, that the right to judge of
terms which are not incompatible with the constitution,
belongs to the union, and to congress as the admitting
power 1 It is essential that it should be so, for the sake

207
even of the 'State applying for admission. I have immedi
ately at hand an illustration, and if L mistake not, a most
cogent argument, to which I invite the particular attention
of the delegate from Missouri. I feel nothing but good will
for that gentleman, andnothing but good will for his con-
stitutents, whom he represents here with so much zeal
and ability ; and I submit this matter for his and their
consideration. It is not to be denied that congress have
the power to fix the limits of th'e state, and that they are
not obliged to give her all the territory comprehended in
the boundaries stated in the bill. This is entirely within
their control. Suppose congress should be of opinion, that
If Missouri is to be a slave state, her northern boundary
ought to be the river, cutting off the large and fertile tract
of country that lies beyond it : but, if she, will adopt the
proposition of the amendment, she ought to have for her
domain the whole territory within her present limits. Might
not congress propose to her the alternative, take the re
striction and you shall have all the territory ; reject the
restriction and you shall not go beyond the river ? Some
thing of this kind is very likely to happen, and it may here- "
after appear that Missouri is contending for a principle
that will operate much to her disadvantage. For my own
part — and I speak only for myself — I most freely and sin
cerely declare, that if the restriction be not agreed to, I
will vote for reducing Missouri lo the smallest limits ihat
are consistent with the character of a state. If the re
striction be agreed to, I will vote for giving her such boun
daries as will secure her grandeur and comparative impor
tance. From the view which I have now endeavoured to take,
it will follow, that whoever objects to any condition propos
ed, as beyond the power of congress, must fail unless he
show, that the particular condition is incompatible with
^ the constitution of the United States : that it is such a con
dition as the state has not a power to assent to. 1 am very

208
sensible that the question which arises here, is Interesting
and Important, and that it is dehcate, though otherwise I
think not difficult No one w ho has a feeling of regard for
his country, can be indifferent to the sensation it occasions
In this house, nor perceive, without some emotion, the line
of division It marks. Yet it is a question that is before us ;
It is a question we must meet, and while we owe it to our
country to meet it fully and fairly, we owe it to each other
to meet it with mutual respect and forbearance. I will
concede even more : — we are not to entertain, much less to
express a thought hostile to the rights of the Inhabitants of
those states where slavery exists ; and in any thing I may
say, I hope il will always be understood, that I consider
those rights entitled to the protection of all the power of
the country, without reference to any other consideration
than that they are acknowledged by the Constitution.
Among the many evils of slavery, it Is one, that where It
exists. It can scarcely be freely discussed, and yet there
may be occasions when its free discussion is of the great
est^ importance. The same kind of difficulty existed at
the formation of the Constitution. It was not removed by
crimination, or suspicion, or threats ; it was adjusted upon
the basis of an existing state of things !
Is this condition, then, incompatible with the constitution
of the United States — so incompatible that a state cannot
assent to it ? For if a state might voluntarily surrender it,
congress may require' its surrender as the term of admission.
With what part of the constitution is it incompatible ? It
interferes with no express provision of that instrument It
must then he implied. What an implication ! Instead,
however, of pointing out the parts of the constitution from
which this ImpUcation can be made, state rights are Im
mediately sounded in our ears — state rights are invaided
and violated. Sir, " state rights" is a phrase of potent effi
cacy, and, properly understood, of sacred r^ard.* But
what are state rights 1 They are ample — they are invi-

209
olable; they are the sure foundation and the lasting
security of our liberties,, and, I hope I may add, they are
in no danger from the present proposition. But, I must be
permitted to say, there are rights of the states who were
parties to the constitution, and rights of states afterwards
to be admitted into the confederacy. Will it be contended
that they are in all respects identically the same, or that a
new state is not upon an equal footing with the original
states, unless it possesses precisely the same powers ? A
moment's attention will show that it cannot Before the
confederation, the thirteen states who composed it were in
all respects sovereign and independent states, possessing all
the attributes of sovereignty. The confederation was of
sovereign and independent states, united only for certain
purposes of common concern, In the management of which
they acted as states. When, In the course of events, these
states came to form a more intimate union, they presented
to the convention points in which they agreed, and points
In which they differed., They were respectively sovereigns
of all the soil within their limits, and proprietors of all the
vacant land. They were sovereigns for all the purposes of
foreign as well as domestic legislation ; and no new con
federate could be admitted but by common consent, and
upon such terms as the existing states might think fit to
prescribe. There were, too, accidental diversities among
them, of which I need only mention one, the existence of
negro slavery In some of the states, permitted by their laws
and incorporated into their institutions.
With respect to the existing states, it may truly be
affirmed, that they were left In the possession of every
power and right, which was nol conceded by theni to the
union. They derived no right or power from the constitu
tion, they .only retained what they before possessed, with
out inquiry into the nature of its origin. The, extent of
this reserved possession is more easily understood than
defined. It is, sufficient for the present purpose to say, that
27'

210
It comprehended all the power of slavery, as an existing
state, or condition which they did not choose to renounce
or relinquish, and pferhaps had it not in their power to ex
tirpate, if they had so desired. The constitution was thus
the creature of the states ; the work of their own hands.
But what is a new state ? It Is the creature of the consti
tution, deriving from the constitution its exbtence and all
its rights, and possessing no power but what is Imparted to
it by the constitution. If it have a power to establish sla
very, it derives that power from the constitution, and the
constitution becomes stained ivith the sin of having originat
ed a state of slavery. What a reflection would this be
upon that instrument ! How is it calculated to diminish
the sacred regard that has been felt for it here and abroad !
Up to the present moment, no such charge can be made
against the constitution. With respect to the existing
states, it only tolerated what it could not remove; and In
the case of Louisana, it submitted to circumstances equally
uncontrollable. But, (and I say it with pride and with
pleasure,) it never yet has conferred a power to establish
the condition of slavery, and I warn those who are entrust
ed with its administration to beware how they claim for it
the exertion of a capacity so odious.
But we are told that every thing is implied In the use of
the word "state" — that the constitution, when it speaks of
the admission of new " states" into the union, necessarily
means that they should possess certain faculties and powers,
of which it is also contended, that the precise definition Is
to be found in the faculties and powers possessed by the
original states — -1 admit, unhesitatingly, that there are
rights so inherent and essential, and, if you please, inalien
able, that a state cannot surrender them, nor exist as a
member of this union without them. But, Is it essential,
by the principles of our constitution, to the character of a
member of this union, (a newly admitted member, espe
cially,) that it should possess all the powers, or even all the

211
rights, that belonged to the original states? It must then
be the sovereign of all the territory within Its hmits, which
has never been the case in a single instance of a state
newly formed out of the territory of the United States. It
cannot be the case, for, by the practice of the Government
the admission is made to depend upon the number of the
inhabitants, and not upon the appropriation of the land.
The unappropriated lands belong to the United States.-^
Even its hmits are settled by Congress. — It must; too, have
an unlimited right of taxation — and it must have an inde
pendent and absolute power, extending to every thing
within its limits — for all these powers belonged to the
original states. Then, sir, not a single new state, (excep
ting Vermont,) has been properly admitted into the union,
and the practice of the government, from its first foundation,
has been one tissue of error and usurpation.
In every instance, some restriction or curtailment of
legislative authority, more or less extensive, has been
imposed and assented, to, with universal approbation. In
the case of Kentucky, as we have seen, Virginia stipulated,
among other things, that for a limited time the lands of
non-residents should not be taxed higher than those of
residents, and that the lands of non-residents residing in
Virginia, should never be taxed higher than those of resi
dents. This Is a palpable restraint upon the exercise of a
legislative authority, which every one of the existing states
possesses without restriction, and yet It never has been
supposed to place Kentucky In a condition of inferiority to
her sister states. I will not tire the patience of the commit
tee, by going through the other instances, 'which have been
already very fully brought into view. Enough has been
said to show, that it has never been thought requisite, that
a new state should possess the same identical powers which
confessedly belonged to the original states, and that such
identity is not necessary to a perfect political. equality.
To come nearer to the question, J. beg leave to ask. Is It

212
essential, by the principles of our constitution, to the cha
racter of a state, that it should have the power of originat
ing, establishing, or perpetuating the condition of slavery
within Its limits ? ¦
I request gentlemen to pause before they answer this
ques,tion, and to look it fairly in the face, for it must be
met. Is it essential to the character of a free republican
state, that It should have the power of originating, estab
lishing, or perpetuating a system of slavery — so essential,
that it is not a free republican state without the power,
nor qualified to be a member of this confederacy ?
Can it be possible, that a constitution framed to secure,
to preserve, and to extend the blessings of liberty, itself
rests upon a principle so impolitic and so indefensible as
this ? I should very much fear, that we neither expect the
favour of Heaven nor the approbation of men for a consti
tution so constructed — whose professions were so entirely
at variance with its principles. Can it be pretended, will
any one be hardy enough to assert, that this power belongs
to the rights of self-government, or of a just sovereignty, or
that it is to be arranged in the same class with the autho
rity exercised by every well constituted society, in regulat
ing the domestic relations ? Where slavery exists, it may
be, (as was said by a gentleman from Virginia,) that slaves
were regarded as In a state of perpetual minority. It
might with equal propriety be said, at once, that they are
regarded as in a slate of perpetual subjection — it amounts
to the same thing ; for surely no man will seriously affirm,
that this decree of perpetual minority, has its source in the
same feelings and views, which in all civilized nations, have
led to the enactment of laws for the protection of Infancy
against its own folly and iihprudence. The one originates
In parental affection, anxiously providing for the welfare of
its offspring, during the period when by nature the judg
ment Is weak and the passions strong ; and every incapacity
which the laws have established, is meant as a shield for

213
infancy against danger to itself. The Other, has it any
view to the comfort or well-being of this perpetual minor ?
I will not pursue the inquiry, lest I should wound the feel
ings of some who hear me, and whom 1 would not willingly
offend. Where slavery exists, you may call It what
you please — you have a perfect right to do so, and to
regulate it by such laws as you deem best — but in a dis
cussion like the present, it seems to me an utter perversion
of language to style it a minority, as it would be an utter
perversion of sentiment, to suppose that it has any resem
blance to the endearing relation out of which the laws for
the government of infancy have grown.
How is, this power essential to the character of a free'
republican state? Suppose this evil were now happily
extirpated, is there any moral or political cbmpetency under
the constitution to restore it among us ? Has any' one ever
seriously contended for such a pow^er ? No : it certainly
could not be re-established,' without the consent of congress,
and yet, 1 think it will scarcely be asserted, that the states
would not still possess all the essential powers of self-
government, and a just sovereignty ; that they would not
be as free, as Independent, as happy, and at least as
powerful as they now are.
Upon what footing then, do the original states stand In
this , respect ? Did the constitution either give or reserve to
them the right of originating or establishing a state of sla
very ? — Have they now, or have they ever had such a
right? Is-there a right, in any of them, to reduce a free
man to, a state of slavery except as a punishment for crimes
of which he has been legally convicted, and not extending
to his offspring ! The great principles of the constitution are
all at variance with such a doctrine. It is plain enough
how the convention considered the matter,- and how it was
considered by the states., individually and collectively.
They regarded it then, sis they regard it now, as an unfor
tunately existing evil, of which it was impossible to rid them-

214
selves, and which therefore they must manage In the man
ner most conduslve to their safety: an accidental and de
plorable state of things, not to be terminated by any means
which human wisdom was then able to devise. It was
upon this footing, that vvhich is called the compromise took
place — it was a compromise with an afflicting necessity,
and mark well the manner of it ! It was a silent compact
between the existing states, upon a subject which they all
felt was beyond their power to deal with. That silence
— that most emphatic and Impressive silence of the consti
tution, is the sure indication of the feelings which prevailed
in the convention. What could they .say ? They would
not utter the word slave or slavery, and whenever they
found occasion to make any provision on the subject, they
had recourse to other language, as if the very terms were
hateful and offensive, and unfit to be employed in that in
strument. What could they do ? They could only indulge
a hope, that a time would come when this evil might be
eradicated, and in the mean time they bore their testimony
against it by that expressive silence, of which no one could
mistake or misunderstand the meaning.
That compact, not of words, but of silence, had the pre
cise effect, while it avoided a recognition of the legitimate
origin of the evil, of leaving every one of the then existing
states in possession of the power which it actually exercised,
except so far as it was parted with to the union. Tbe am
biguity in the constitution, if any there be, arises altogether
from this well meant mode of treating the subject. What
the framers of that Instrument intended should signify their
detestation of slavery, has furnished an argument in favour
of its extension. For, as silence left the existing states In
possession of the power, so silence is interpreted, in the ad
mission of new states, to confer the power ; and this rule cf
construction throws upon congress the necessity of an ac
tive exertion of authority for Its restraint, for which gen
tlemen insist we must show a positive grant — But, with

215
respect to the existing states, it was a poWer paramount
to the 'constitution itself, and which no state surrendered ;
a power, however, and a necessity, too, confined to her own
limits. Can this be affirmed with truth of any state newly admit
ted into the union? Can it be said to stand upon the same
footing as the original States, either as to paraniount pow
er, and existing conditiop, or, the case of necessity? Up to
the moment of admission. It Is subject entirely and exclu
sively to the government of congress, as a part of the Ter
ritory of the union. — It presents itself to congress, as a
Territory, asking to become a state, but bringing with it
no state rights — no state powers — nothing to be reserved,
hut every thing to be received. It presents itself free from
the coridition of slavery, or subject to it in so slight a de
gree as to be easily manageable, and affording no just
ground for its continuance. Unless, therefore, it can be
shown, that It is so essential to the completion of a free
republican state of this union, to have the power of origi
nating or perpetuating slavery, that it cannot be free and
republican without it, the argument must fail altogether.
Besides, Sir, how can the rights of the new states be affect
ed ;— it has the choice of coming in upon the terms, or not
coming in at all.
lam aware, it niay be said, that the compact between
the existing states, ought to be considered as a mutual stip
ulation,- with each , other, that new' states should in this
respect be left free to choose for themselves. It Is no where
said so, and to me It seems worse than idle to suppose, that
there is a dormant abstract principle in the constitution, in
favour of slavery, •, to spring up ,only as a barrier against
what is, and always has been conceded to be right and just.
Show me the. value of it, In practice, and I am then pre
pared to listen tb-the deduction ; but, as long as the argu
ment terminates only in evil, or which is the same thing,
in preventing a good, so long exactly it Is Impossible for it

216
to find its way to 'the hearts or the understanding of men.
When, not long ago, it was affirmed in this house, that the
constitution gave to congress a power to make certain pub
lic improvements — to open the channels for wealth and
trade to flow from one quarter ofthe country to another —
to approximate them to each other, to connect them by the
ties of Interest and mutual dependence and mutual regard,
I listened with attention and pleasure, for I expected to
find a power so beneficent So, sir, if 1 am told that there
Is a power in the constitution to arrest the march of sla
very, to extend the- sphere of freedom, personal as well as
political, that too, I expect to find. Bijt, when I am told,
that there is a silent, dormant principle in the constitution ;
a sullen power that forbids us to check the extension of
slavery, I confess to you, that I Involuntarily shrink from
the process of reasoning by which it Is deduced, and revolt
involuntarily from the conclusion. If it be apparent, I must
and I will submit to it ; but if it be not clear, I am not dis
posed to search for it, either among the high attributes of
sovereign power, or the more frequent refuge of state
rights. But, I admit that this assertion Is true, as to every right
ful and essential power, which belongs inseparably to re
publican self-government, or is necessary to place a state
upon an equal political footing with her sLster states, and
render her worthy to be a member of the confederacy. As
to the rights of self-government, I have nothing more to
say. It only remains to enquire, whether the proposed
restriction disturbs or interferes with any of the great poli
tical rights of the state, or is calculated to lessen her weight
and influence in the scale of tbe union ? The great and
important right of every state, Is. that which regards her
representation in the national councils. Is that impaired
hy the restriction ? The compromise of the constitution,
in the article of representation, was founded upon a simple,
and now well established principle, applied to preserve the

217
balance of the existing states. It was not, that property
was to be represented — for then, every kind of property
ought to have been estimated in fixing the ratio — but that
this particular kind of property, occupied the place and
consumed the food of a free, population, and to that extent
lessened the comparative numbers of the state, not for a
time only, but forever. If the free population had fur
nished the Ta.tio, hovv many representatives would Virginia
now have ? To preserve the balance of fhe states, then
and thereafter, the rule of three-fifths was adopted, and
.with this rule, the constitution considers that there' Is a fair
political equality between the free states and the- slave
states. Can it be said, that the political rights ofthe state
are in this leading and all-important point impaired by the
restriction? In point of fact her influence and power are
' increased, for the free population will increase more rapidly
than the slave population, and she is entitled to a repre
sentation for the whole number, instead of being limited, as
to a part, to three-fifths. Whoever will take the trouble
to examine the comparative increase of the two descrip
tions of states, will be satisfied of this, and I have no desire
to obtain for the free states the advantage hinted at by a
member who has opposed the amendment, of infusing Into
the states to be formed, a debilitating disease, which will
jstint their growth and lessen their political weight In the
union. The political right of a state, secured by the con
stitution, is, if there are slaves, to apply to them the rule of
three-fifths, and that right, I admit, cannot be infringed;-^
But it is not necessary to the enjoyment of the full henefit
of the principle of representation, nor fairly to be deduced
from it as a part ofthe cpmpromise, that a new state should
be permitted to have slaves.
I may be allowed again to ask, what are the political
rights of a state in regard to the union ? They are the
political rights of the free inhabitants, the only condition
known to the constitution. Slaves have no political rights.
28

218
They a^e acquired hy force, and they are held hy force ;
and If It be lawful to hcfld them at all, it is also lawful to
use any degree of force that Is necessary to hold them in
quiet subjection. Every law of a slave holding state,
which provides particularly for this condition of men, by
peculiar exertions- of authority, by an unusual discipline,
or by unusual terrors and punishments, having no view to
their own benefit, but only to the safety of their masters, Is
an exertion of force, necessary (where the condition exists)
for the security of society, not to be mentioned reproach
fully, much less to be interfered with, hut still a mere exer
tion offeree demonstrating ihat slaves have no political
rights. They add nolhing to the mass of rights. I would
not be understood to question the power of the states where
this condition exists. Whether it is a power reserved, or a
power acquired, it is, as to them, recognized by the consti
tution, and entitled to the support and protection of the
whole strength of the union. We may have our wishes
and our feelings on the subject — it is for them alone to
decide, how long this state of things shall continue. If ever
the. time should come, when they shall be able and willing
to rid themselves of the evil, it will, be hailed with unaf
fected delight Till then, while this constitution endures,
we have no right to ascend beyond its provisions, and we
are bound to carry them fully into effect. The state which
I have the honour to represent, has been as ardent and
sincere in the cause of emancipation as any state Iri this
union. But she has never lost sight of her obligations to
her sister states. Her laws and her judicial decisions will
he found to be in strict conformity with the constitution,
and so they will continue to be.
If the members of the convention meant to frame a com
pact between the states, to the effect which has been men
tioned, that is to say, that every new state should, in this
respect, be left entirely free, we might reasonably expect
to find it somewhere in the constitution. It could not have

219
been forgotten or overlooked — it was a subject in itself of
too much interest and importance : and, besides, the ordi
nance of 1787, was adopted, while the convention was sit
ting that framed the constitution, and that ordinance pro
vided for the admission of states, with a perpetual inhibition
of slavery. Under the confederation, it had been assumed
as a power belonging to congress, and exercised as a power
fit to be exercised by congressi . It is iricredible, that the
constitution should have designed to , disaffirm all this, and
yet have said nothing about it, but conferred without limi
tation the very power to which it had become an establish
ed incident.
, Can any good reason be assigned why the existing states
should have entered into such a. compact? It was not
necessary to the compromise, which regarded only the ac
tual condition of the states, and which meant to preserve
to each of them, nothing more than the ppwer within its
limits. The constitution was not formed for a day or a
year, bul for a succession of time, I hope for ages ; and it
might easily have been foreseen, that cases would probably
occur, in which the exercise of such a power by the go
vernment would be of the utmost , importance. Suppose
the case of a distant or a frontier state applying for admis
sion. If you permit her to have^this kind of populatipn,
you are bound by the coHstitution to protect her with all
the means of the union, against the insurrection of the
enemy within her bosppi, and against the inroads of any
foreign nation. You are bound, even to secure to her the
enjoyment of this very property,- and if a neighbouring
povyer, should by force or seduction, carry off her slaves, it
w.ould become a cause of national quarrel and of war.
Our own recent history gives us an example of something
of this sort What was the Seminole war ? The runaway
slaves of Georgia, combining with outlaws and Indians in
Florida, carried on hostilities upon the borders of Georgia,
and that state (as she had u right to do) called upon the

220
United States for protection. It was granted, and hence
the Seminole war. If a new state, circumstanced as I have
supposed, should apply for admission into the union, vvould
it not be reasonable, nay would it not be essentially just
and necessary,, to require her first to stipulate, that she
would not Introduce that source of weakness and that
cause of quarrel, which might be so expensive and bur-
thensome to the union ? It ought not to be a concern of
the state alone, because it may become a charge to the
nation. I think I may safely affirm that this is the practical,
established construction of the constitution, used and ap
proved from its adoption fo the present day. But permit
me for a moment fo examine the spirit of that instrument
If, as is clearly shown, the toleration of slavery by the
constitution, and the corresponding provisions, were owing
tb an incidental, existing and uncontrollable necessity, then
it is plainly the spirit of the compact, fhat the power should
never be permitted to a new state, but where the same
Imperious circumstances exist to demand it, as in the case
ofthe original states. Such was fhe fact in the instance of
Louisiana. — What, then, is if, that congress are to do upon
such an occasion ? To impose conditions, arbitrarily ? No.
To judge of the circumstances, regarding in due proportion
the interests of the state and the union. If that deplora
ble necessity exist, they permit in silence, what (like the
framers of the constitution) they will not in terms avow.
If not, they adjudicate by' the restriction, which it is then
their moral and constitutional duty to impose.
This is fhe true, it is the necessary, and only just con
struction of the constitution — fhe only one thaf is consistent
either with the professions we have always been in the
habit of making, or with fhe hope thaf was certainly once
very much cherished, that a mode might some day be de
vised of abolishing this great evil. We may assert as we
will, that we are not in favour of slavery ; as long as if

221
shall be seriously insisted, that by the constitution of our
country, every new state has the inherent and inalienable
right of establishing'dc^mestic servitude, so long our profes
sions will be disbelieved, and we ourselves, as well as fhat
venerated instrument, be charged with hypocrisy. Sup
pose, sir, that fhe existing states were in a course of aboli
tion, would it be permitted fo a new state, governed by
some selfish or ill judged views of interest, fo revive . fhe
condition of slavery, and thus to control and defeat the
policy of all the others ? Ought if to be in fhe power of
any new state, to enlarge fhe region of slavery, and thus to
increase fhe difficulties, already sufficiently great, presented
by this very difficult and embarrassing subject ,? Can it
be, that we sincerely believe it fo be. an evil, and yet will
gravely insist that if is a right of every new state, to do
what ? I was going to say, enjoy, this evil, but fhat Would
be a perversion of terms — afflicf and injure herself, and her
associates too, by admitting it within her limits ? If it be
a good, fhe argument is intelligible : If it be even doubtful,
there is still some scope for choice ; but if if be an acknow
ledged evil, it seems fo me extravagant, if not absurd, fo
contend fhat there is a right to have it, and that a prohi
bition restrains or impairs fhe jusf liberty of a new state.
This construction too is plainly indicated by af least one
provision of the constitution, I mean fhe 9fh section of fhe
first article.. " The migration or importation of such per
sons as ariy-of fhe sfafes now existing shall think proper fo
admit shall hot be prohibited by congress prior fo fhe year
1808." Why is this restraint upori the power pf corigress,
confined fo the states " noau existing ?" If was to give fo
congress the power, immediately, to prevent fhe infroduc-
fion of slavery into, fhe states fo be formed. I do not
doubt that ifhad a particular reference to the ordinance of
1787, and was meant fo guard against fhe inference, thaf
congress had not fhe authority to complete the work the
ordinance had begun. For if fhe restraint had been gene-

222
ral, comprehending the states to be formed, as well as those
existing, congress could not within fhe twenty years have
prohibited the "migration or importation" of slaves, into
the states fo be admitted info the North West Territory ;
and then, one of two consequences must have followed,
either congress would have refused fo admit fhe states
within the twenty years, which would not have been con
sistent with the engagements entered Info, or they must
have admitted them with fhe power of receiving slaves,
which vvould have been contrary to fhe provisions of fhe
ordinance. It is therefore, I say, that this section of fhe
constitution hada plain reference to the ordinance; and
while if evinces in fhe clearest manner, a constitutional
distinction between the existing sfafes, and states fo be ad-
miffed, upon fhe very subject now In question, and plainly
Intimates a design to give a control fo congress over the
¦ introduction of slavery into states to be formed ; it also
seems to me to afford a constitutional sanction fo the
ordinance ifself.
The view which I have thus, I fear af too great expense
of time and patience to the committee, endeavoured fo
present, Is fo my mind so conclusive, fhat I should hope if
would be unnecessary fo detain them longer. But, there
has been all along an assumption, by those who are opposed
to the amendment, which I think extremely questionable,
if it be not wholly unfounded. If is assumed, fhat the condi
tion proposed by fhe amendment, will produce an inequality
between fhe state to be admitted, and the existing states.
If is not material (the inequality being of no consequence,)
but I mistake if I may not safely deny that if will occasion
any inequality at all. Sir, has- any stafe in this union a
constitutional capacity to originate or establish a state of
slavery ? To be niore precise. — If a state, (Pennsylvania,
for example,) has once abolished slavery, has It a power,
without the consent, and against the- will of congress, to
restore that condition ? This is an interesting, hut I think

223
it is not a difficult question, and certainly it Is not a daja-
gerous one to discuss. No state, that has once abolished
slavery, will, I believe, ever desire to restore it. And' here,
Sir, 1 Invoke fo my aid the gr^at principles of the constitu
tion, and fhe great truths of the Declaration of Independece.
I invoke, too, the principle of fhe compromise, founded as it
was upon an existing state of things, and recognizing no
rights but what necessity conferred.
The reduction of a fellow creature fo slavery, fo a state
where nothing is his own buf his sorrows and his sufferings,
is, if' you please, an act of sovereign power, that is of sove
reign force, which obeys no law but its own.will, and knows
no limits but the nieasure of its strength. If these states
were sovereign, they too like other sovereigns might
exert a lawless power. It vyould nevertheless be morally
wrong. But, they are sovereignties, qualified bythe grants
of power fo fhe union, arid by fhe great political principles
upon which all our institutions repose. The sanction of
these principles is now added fo fhe force of moral obliga
tion ; and the beautiful feature of our government, that
which entitles It to the respect of strangers, and fo our
affection, that which distinguishes It from all the govern- '
ments that have ever existed, is to be found in this sirigle
truth. Such is its structure, that It can do no lawless vio
lence, and wherieVer we speak of sovereignty, we mean a
rightful moral sovereignty, aud not a power to do whatever
if has strength to accomplish.
Whence, then, can ^ state derive such a right, I mean a
right to originate or re-establish slavery ? If cannot, by
force, reduce freemen to the condition of slaves. This no
one would undertake to maintain. It cannot draw them
from abroad, for congress .have the unquestionable power
to prohibit importation. Can if receive them from other
states of this union ? The supposition Imputes fo fhe consti
tution the greatest weakness, and is wholly inconsistent with
the hope entertained by the great men who framed it, that

224
this evil might some day be abolished. I think this channel
is stopped, as if ought to be, by the power of congress to
prevent importation and migration. Importation, we all
understand fo include slaves brought in from abroad, from
any foreign territory, whether by land or by wafer ; and
we all agree, thaf If is sufficient fo comprehend in its inter-
dicfj every bringing in of slaves from abroad. The term
" migrafion" if applied to the same description of" persons"
anS upon the plainest principles of construction must be
understood fo apply to something different from " importa
tion." What can it apply to, buf fhe passage or transfer
of slaves from one state or territory fo another ? An
argument urged by fhe niember who last addressed fhe
committee, (Mr. Clay,) I mean the argument derived from
thaf part of fhe constitution which denies to congress fhe
power of imposing a duty upon exports from any of fjie
states, strongly supports this interpretation. The two clau
ses, taken together, (and they are in fhe same section,)
amount fo this : you shall not prohibit the " importation"
until after fhe year 1808, but in fhe mean time, you may
impose a fax or duty upon " such importation" not exceed
ing ten dollars for each person : you shall not, during the
same period, prohibit " migration," buf can you impose a
duty or fax ? No. The authority fo impose a duty or fax
is dropped, and why ? Because migration, meaning, (as
we insist,) a transfer from state to state, includes in every
instance, the exportation y}-o?re a state, and therefore by the
fifth clause of the same section, no " duty or tax" can be
laid upon it
Various inferprefafions of this clause of fhe constitution
have been attempted by those who are opposed fo fhe
amendment, but none of them, 1 think, consistent with fhe
fair import of the terms, or fhe manifest spirit of the consti
tution. One gentleman indeed, (Mr. Smith of Maryland,)
has said, some days ago, that if was intended to give to
congress the power to prevent tbe passage from one state

225
into another of slaves Imported Into ,the former from abroad.
His long experience and knowledgc'enfitle fhe suggestion fo
great consideration, and if appears fo me to concede the
precise construction contended for. He admits that the
clause applies fo slaves, and fhe term " migration" to slaves
transferred from' one state fo another. Now, as there is no
description' of the kind of slaves, which llmifs if fp slaves
imported, If must apply fo all slaves. I yvill not insist upon
the advantage of this concession; the case is fully made
out without it ''¦ ¦'.
But we are .tpld by the gentleman from Delaware, fhat
the technical meaning of fhe word migrafion, is a change
pf residence from one country fo another. I must be per
mitted to say, thaf I am not aware thaf the word in ques
tion has ever received a technical meaning. We call those
words technical which have been appropriated fo fhe ser
vice of an art or science, and in relation fo that art or sci-
ehce have received a definite and somewhat artificial sense,
well understood by those Who are acquainted with the sub
ject , Thus, when we speak of an " estate fail" or " a
contingent remainder," the language Is perfectly intelligi-
jjle to a lawyer. The term, migration, has never fo my
knowledge heen so appropriated, unless if may be considered
as having been adopted by naturalists as descriptive of
the habits of certain animals, and then, if means simply a
change of chmafe, for the sake of temperature, or a change
of place for the sake pf food ; but not a change of country.
In ifs vulgar ^ense, that is, its cpmmon sense, as given fo us
in dictionaries, as used in conversation, or by approved
writers, it means only a change of place. In two pages of
Dr. Seybert's Statistical Annals, (37, 38,) the word is three
times used' to -denote the change or transfer of residence
from one state' to another ; and, if may be remarked in pas
sing, is accompanied with a reflection which well deserves
the afferifion of those who insist so strenuously upon the
free admissiori of Missouri, in order that the owners of
29

226
slaves may be enabled tago into that state. " It Is impor
tant to consider how far the diffusion of our population may
weaken us as a nation, and what will be the effect of the
migrations on the agriculture of the Atlantic states? Ma
ny valuable farms, originally productive, have been aban
doned, after they were exhausted and made barren from
constant cultivation, and no application of the means fo
restore their lost fertility. If migration be continued under
these circumstances, some districts will hereafter exhibit
all the features and poverty pf a desert, and extensive tracts
of Veiluable land will be a waste, to fhe injury of our agri
culture, nianufactures, and commerce. In many of these
situations, industry would be abundantly rew'arded for' all
the labour and expense of renovating the unmanaged and
impoverished soil." - I am reminded by some one near me,
of another difficulty supposed fo be in the way of our con
struction, and that is, that migrafion means a -voluntary
change of place, and that the removal of a slave is without
his own consent. Even if this were correct, if wM3uld
amount to nothing." The will of a slave is always fhe will
of his master, and his acts, whenever they are in obedience
to his master's orders, are by the constitution and laws
deemed to be voluntary. — What other term could ha\re
been employed ? We are to remember, that though the
slave Is regarded as property, yet is he. also regarded as a
" person," a human being, having a will, but that will ever
in coincidence with fhe wishes of his master, and it is from > «
this analomous composition of character, that the consti
tution itself had great difficulty in finding terms applicable
to his condition or conduct.
We have ieen told, too, (for fhe attempts have been
numerous to avoid the force of this clause) that It applies
fo freemen conaing from abroad. If would be very extra
ordinary, indeed, if the same word. In fhe sanie sentence, '
were to he interpreted to Include two descriptions so oppo
site as freemen and slaves. — But all this is minute verbal

227
criticism, and 1 fear Lshall fatigue fhe committee by dwell
ing upon it There is a much broader, and still more
satisfactory answer fo the objection. The clause in ques
tion has always been understood to apply fo slaves, and fo
slaves only, from the adoption of the constitution to fhe
present time. It is, (and . that is entirely conclusive) a
restraint upon the power of congress, insisted upon by fhe
slaveholding states, to secure for a limited fime the right of
supplying themselves with slaves. This Is familiarly
known to every person, who has any acquaintance with, the
history of the constitution, and it is known, also, that two
of the states (South Carolina and Georgia,) would not havQ
come Into the union without it How any one, knowing
these things, can gravely assert, thaf the clause has any
provision relating to freemen. It is entirely impossible for
me to conceive. It Imputes either mistake, or foolish de
sign to the framers of that instrument, for no good reason
can possibly be assigned, for withholding fpom congress,
during the twenty years, any power It possessed, over the
admission of freemen, though we know well fhe reason
(good or bad) for restraining the power as if respected
slaves. — 1 need not notice the observation of the member
from Delaware, that this; being a Federal power, must be
understood as applying in Ifs exercise to the union, and not
the sfafes. Every power, to be exercised by congress, is a
Federal power, hut It does not follow that It is not to ope
rate upon the states. This, in particular, by Its very
terms, is to apply to the sfafes Individually. Buf I hasten
to another objection, which has been very seriously urged,
and, if well founded, renders all this examination super
fluous. We are informed,' that the clause in question Is not
a grant of power, it Is only a restriction or restraint upon
power. To speak with perfect precision, it is an exception
or restraint for a linoited,time, upon the exercise of a power.
— Such an exception, it Is most clear. Is conclusive evidence
of a grant ; for if there were no power granted, there could

228
be no exception from or restraint upon its exercise. It is
, of itself equivalent to a grant of fhe power, after fhe expi
ration of fhe time., A rule of this house directs, that
strangers shall npt be admitted during fhe time|t is In ses
sion. Would any one doubt thaf this gives permission to
strangers to enter af other times ?
If this interpretation, however, (contrary as If is to the
plain design of the constitution) were correct, still there
would be no difficulty. If follows immediately affer the
enumeration of the powers granted to congress, and among
them we shall certainly find that which was intended for
a time to be restrained, unless we suppose the framers of
the constitution fo have misunderstood, most grossly, their
own work. If there be some ambiguity in the language, it
arises, from the remarkable reserve of the convention, upon
a subject whicii they did not choose to call by ifs proper
name, and fhat ambiguity ought to be favourably expound
ed. Congress, then, have a power, " fo provide for the
common defence, and general welfare," and for that pur
pose they have a specific power to "jegulafe commerce
with foreign nations, among the sfafes, and with, the Indian
tribes." Slaves are every where articles of trade, fhe sub
ject of traffic and commerce,, bought and Sold, from place
to place, and from hand to hand, by public sale or by
private sale, as suits the convenience or interest of the
owner, and are in all respects treated as property. The
general power fo regulate commerce, includes in If, of
course, a power to regulate this kind of commerce. With
respect to slaves imported from abroad, this has not beeh
disputed and cannot be disputed — while it continued, if was
a branch of the trade with foreign nations. The power to
regulate commerce " among the states" is given In the same
clause and in exactly tbe same terms as the power fo
" regulate commerce with foreign nations." If the latter
authorized congress to prohibit the importation of slaves
from abroad, (which has never been even questioned,) ho^

229
can it be doubted that fhe former gives fhetii authority,
when in their opinion fhe " general welfare" or the " com- .
mon defepce" require if, fo prohibit tbe transportation
from stafe fo state? If one comprehends slaves, so does
the other, and if this conclusion had never been carried
info practical eflect, it would only prove that no case had
occurred in vvhich Congress thought it expedient to exert
the power. But, this, construction is obviously necessary
to the plain dei^ign of fhe constitution, not, only fo the large
and liberal views with respect to the whole subject of sla
very, of which I will speak hereafter, but the particular
design manifested in fhe 'very clause now in question. It
Is conceded fhat congress might af all times prohibit the
importation of slaves from abroad into fhe territories of the
United States, as well as into sfafes formed after the con
stitution, fhe restriction until fhe year 1808, being confined
to the states then, existing. Of what avail was this power,
(however derived,) unless they could also prevent importa
tion through other states, or rather fhe passelge of newly
imported slaves from the old states, info new states* or ter^
rifories ,? , Sir, this consff ucf ion, ¦ in itself so reasonable,
has actually been adopted in practice. By fhe act of
1804, for dividing Louisiana info two territories, and mak
ing provision for the government of the southern portion, It
is enacted, thaf. no slayeg shall be imported from abroad,
and none shall be brought /rom any port or place within the
limits of the United Stales that have been imported since fhe
first day of May, 1798 — or shall hereafter be imported. If
Is no answer to this to say, that the slaves of a man mi
grating from one state to another, are not carried thither
for the purpose of commerce pr- trade, but are a part of
what has been called " his family." The power to regu
late conimerce, extends to every thing which is. fhe subject
of traffic, and is limited only by the'nafure of the article,
not by, the intention or views of the owner ; or else, every
law for the regulation of trade would become ineffectual —

230
slaves may be carried for the purpose of selling, and even
when this is not the ori^nal intention, they may neverthe
less he sold, and a man, affer disposing of all his " family,"
may return and buy another family, and afferwafrds sell it
They are articles of -traffic, and that is enough — neither is
it any answer to say, that the power in question is a power
to be exercised by legislation, and not in fhe form of a con
dition to be prescribed to a particular state. K it exist at
all, of which I hope there Is now no doubt, we arrive, after
this, I fear, very tedious investigation, at a result decisive of
the present controversy. For if the exposition given he
correct, it will follow, that no state in the union, having
once abolished slavery, can re-establish it without the
consent of congress ; and that it is no disparagement of the
rights of a new state fo lay it under the same prohibition.
There Is then a precise and perfect equality.
But, notwithstanding any supposed ambiguity in the
constitution, arising from the cause I have adverted to,
there are great leading points in that instrument, which
were intended to stand out upon occasions like fhe present,
as guides and marks to direct our steps, and it is a relief to
ourselves, as well as a debt of justice to those who framed
the constitution, to keep them constantly in view. We
can see there, plainly asserted, the poUtical and personal
equaUty of men — a deep and humiliating sense of the evil
of slavery — a hope that It might at some time be abolished,
and a determination as soon as possible to abolish it From
the date of the constitution to the present moment, these
have been the governing principles of this nation's conduct,
and the present is the first eflfort to arrest a career urged
equally by policy and humanity. If Missouri be permitted
to establish slavery, we shall bring upon ourselves the
charge of hypocrisy and insincerity, and upon the constitu
tion a deep stain, which must impair its lustre, and weaken
its title to the public esteem. It is to no purpose to say,
that the question of slavery is a question of state concern.

231
It affects the union In Its interests. Its resources, and cha^
racfer, permanently — perhaps forever. One single stafe,
to gratify the desire of a moment, may do what all the
union cannot undo — may produce an everlasting evil,
shame and reproach. And why ? Because it is. a state
right Sir, you may turn this matter as you will ; Missouri,
when she becomes a state, grows out nf the constitution,
she is formed under the care of congress, and admitted by
congress ; and if she has a right to establish slavery, it is a
right derived directly from the constitution, and conferred
upon her through the instrumentality of congress. We
cannot escape from our share of the blame, and, (which Is
Infinitely worse,) we cannot rescue the constitution from
the opprobrium which belongs to such a deed. That re
fined construction, which makes fhe constitu tion a. silent
and acquiescing accessary, looking with undisturbed com
placency upon what it professes to hold in detestation, may
answer the purpose of argument here, but it can avail no
where else. The judgment of mankind is not formed upon
artificial distinctions like this. As surely as the free is
judged by its fruit, will the constitution be judged- by what
it produces. I earnestly beseech gentlemen, then, fo save
fhe cpnstitutipn from a stain which has never yet been
fixed upon if, and with this entreaty, under the deepest
and most sincere feeling, I leave it in their hands.
2. Upon the subject of fhe treaty of cession, I will detain
the committee but a very short time. It has always ap
peared to me to be a proof of fhe weakness of the argument
against the amendment, that if was obliged to resort for
support to this topic, because It supposes that the inhabi
tants of. the territory of Missouri have higher rights and
privileges than the citizens of any territory within the
original limits of the United States. One gentleman says.
Indeed, that Missouri derives her right from Heaven. If
so, there Is an end to all question about the consflfufion or
the treaty, though it might be extremely difficult for some

232
of us to understand, how from such a source could be de
rived a lawful power fo establish slavery.
If we are bound by treaty stipulations, it will be admit
ted that they must be fulfilled. The public faith is to be
preserved inviolate, af every hazard of consequences. But,
hefore we admit a construction so dangerous as fhat
cpntended for, lef us examine carefully the extent of our
obligations. There are none, I suppose it will be conceded, who can
call the treaty to their aid, but those who were Inhabitants
of the ceded territory, and subjects of the ceding power, at
the time of the cession. In terms, the article In question
applies only to. them. Suppose if' had all been vacant
territory at fhe tinie of the cession, and since peopled by
citizens of fhe United States. Would it have been seri
ously asserted, that they acquired any new, or higher pri
vileges or rights, by migrating fo Louisiana? As fo the
original inhabitants themselves. It Is a question, not of
legislative, but of judicial cognizance, for a treaty is fhe
supreme law of the land. The condition, however, such as
it Is, Is not annexed fa fhe territory ; if is A stipulation in
favour of the free inhabiffinfs, etnd as fo them, it has no
application, affer they have become incorporated into fhe
union, and are made citizens of the United States — they
then become subject to the legislation of congress. — The
distinction between the territory and the inhabitants is so
¦obvious as fobe perceived at a single glance. The one
Is simply ceded, transferred in sovereignty, which places it
exactly upon fhe same footing as any Other territory of the
Unifed^Sfafes, without any condition. The other, that is,
the free inhabitants, are also transferred, hut with a stip
ulation entirely personal, that they shall, as soon as possi-
hle, " be incorporated in the union, and admitted to the
enjoyment of all the rights, advantages, and Immunities of
citizens- of fhe United States," and " in the mtan time they
shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment

233
of their liberty, property, and the religion
profess.?' How if was intended fo make them citizens, I do not
pretend to know. Certainly, a treaty cannot confer the
.privileges of citizenship; thaf can only be done by the
operation of an uniform naf uralization law; and while it
is acknowledged, that fhe treaty making power may right
fully bind us to do . every thing which Is within the con
stitutional competency of any department of fhe govern
ment, it can never be allowed to go further, for then it
would transcend - the ' constitution ifself. By what means
these free inhabitants were to be made, citizens, or at what
time, ate qhestioris I need not now attempt to answer.
There Is some difficulty in them, -undoubtedly. This dif
ficulty if was— ^or rather the impossibilify of bringing fhe
inhabitants info the union, by any, process unknown to. the
ordinary legislation,^ that occasioned, in fhe first place, the
qualification of fhe engagement," as sOpn as possible," which
may be fairly interpreted to mean '¦' as soon as our constifuf
tion would permit ;" and, in the next place, fhe sfiptilafiori,
that until they should become citizens, they should be
maintained and protected jri the enjoyment of their liberty,
property arid religion. Frpm the moment they are ihcor-.
porated, (this.is the precise import of the treaty). they are
to be upon the same footing with all other citizens of the
United States. Till then, they are aliens, hut are not to
be ppejirdiced by their alienage.
Did We mean to permit any foreign power fo intermeddle
with our internal concerns? The sanction of treaties is
in the ability of those who make them, to enforce the Ob-
servfeince of the stlpwlations they contain. Were our
negotiators so unwise—- were fhe President and Senate so
forgetful of their duty, as to make afid ratify a freaify by
which our own citizens wefe enabled fo appeal frOm this
government fo a foreign, povVef, and call in its interference*
by war if necess^py, to settle their rights? Such a suppo*
30

234
sition. is entirely inadmissible. This article was pirobably
proposed by our own negotiators — if it was. It was a most
unequivocal tribute, from the other high contracting party,
of respect for our constif ufion and laws, for it admits, that
no further security was necessary for the protection of their.
ceded subjects. But, did It mean to give to the free inha
bitants of Louisiana any peculiar rights of property, higher
or greater than those enjoyed by other citizens, after they
should become citizens of the United States ? It was he
yond the treaty making power to grant or to contract to
that extent Will it be admitted, that it was necessary
for the security of the citizen, that to the constitution should
he superadded the obligations of a treaty, and that to the
principles of our Government must be joined the right of
calling in a foreign power ? Why, Sir, I have heard it said
in this debate, thaf the treaty not only gives rights to those
who inhabited the territory, but also to our own citizens
who have migrated thither since the cession. The doc
trine thus asserted, appears even more objectlonaWe than
that I have alluded to ; hut it is only worse in appearance,
for in both cases it supposes an appeal to a foreign power,
from our own citizens, against the government
What are the " rights, advantages and privilege," of a
citizen of the united States, which are guaranteed to the
inhabitants of Louisiana ? They are the same throughout
the United States : They are, therefore, independent of
local rights, or those which depend, upen residence in a
particular place. An inhabitant of a state, has certain
privileges arising from his inhabitancy of the state. Ab
inhabitant of a territory, too, has certain privileges, whicb
arise fi'om his Kving in a territory. A citizen of tbe United
States, who resides neither In a state or territory, but is
out of the hmits ofthe imion, enjoys neither the privileges
of a state or a territory ; but he possesses the rights, privi-
l^es and immunities of a citizen of the United States, which
are common to all the three descriptions of persons. WhcB

235
an inhabitant of Louisiana is made a citizen of the United
States, he becomes entitled to fhe " rights, advantages and
immunities," of a citizen. He carries them with him wher
ever he goesT— if he Is in a state, he may add to, them state
privileges — if he is in a territory, he may enjoy the rights
of an inhabitant of a territory — in either, or beyond the
limits of both, he Is still a citizen of the Uriited .States, and
upon an equal footing * with any other citizen.
It has been argued indeed, that they are to be incorpora
ted info the union, and that this cannot be done without
forming them info a state or states. Should we admit this
argument fp ifs full extent, it would.leave us exactly where
it found us, for as they are to be incorporated (by the
express terms of fhe treaty) " according to the principles
of fhe federal constitution," we.should still be obliged to
return to the constitution, to enquire upon what terms
states are fo be admitted. And certainly, fhe plain answer
would be,, that they are to be admitted upon the same terms
as other territories in the United States. But the fallacy
of fhe argument lies, in applying to the territory (which
was ceded in full- sovereignty) what was intended only for
the inhabitants. Nothing more is necessary, fo enable us
to defect. the fallacy, than to trace it to some of its conse
quences. What right, upon the construction contended foB,
had we to postpone the admission for a single day ? Why,
gentlemen will say, the territory had not the requisite
number of inhabifanfs. Buf, no numberof Inhabifanfs Is
necessary, except by the practice under the constitution,.
and that same practice gives us certain other powers which
-need not now be mentioned. Including the very one in
. question. Again, Sir, — according fo this hypothesis, —
what authority had we tO divide this great territory; why
not admit it aU as one state ? They will say, it was too
large for a single state. True;, but the constitution has
not ascertained the size of a state, nor has It even been
settled In practice, for we have states of all sizes, from

236
70,500 square miles, (Virginia) fo 1548 square miles, (Rhode
Island.) The truth is,- and it is vainfo attempt to disguise
it, that the, common understanding of all parfies has long
ago fixed fhelnterpref ation of the treaty upon a footing
not now fo be disturbed. This territory, like every other
territory of fhe United States, is subject tothe povyer of fhe
Government, to be opened for sale; fo be settled, divided
and subdivided,' and regulated, according to ifs policy, and
finally fo be formed into states, and admitted when it may
be deemed expedient.
While I am upon this subject of the treaty, I vvish fo .ex
amine it with a different view, and at the same time fo show
fhe enormous extent of the doctrine contended for, which
will, I think, afford' a strong argument in favour- of the
right of congress f o impose the restriction. Whence did
the treaty making povver deriveits authority to purchase
lands, and freemen, and slaves? From any express' words
of the constitution ¦? No. It must then be implied from
what? Either from the possession of sovereign authority,.
to which if is an incidenf-^or, from the broad terms of
the grant, which is to make treaties upon the ground fhat •
treaties may stipulate for a purchase of territory. It
is then asort of implied power. And what is next implied ?
That fhe territory thus acquired is fo be upon a different
footing from any other territory of fhe United Sfafes: And
that congress must form states oflf, and must admit them.
There, Sir, the implication all at once stops short No
conditions are' to be Imposed ; no ternis offered ; no stipu
lations entered Intoj however salutary or even indispensably
necessary for the welfare of the union. No — you are not
even to require them f o have their legislative and judicial
proceedings in intelligible language. The whole policy of
the nation is fp yield to fhe Vieyvs and interests of the inhab
itants of the territory, who are, notwithstanding, to become
an integral part of fhe union, and have a full voice In your
deliberations. What is your treaty making power then?

237
Paramouhtto all the authorities of the nation ; paramount
to the constitution itself ; paramount even to the people.
Try this principle by any practical tesfj and see where
if will lead us. The United States have no power (if is
contended) to prevent or Jiiriit slavery, and they have no
power fo stop migration. You have purchased a territory,
nearly equal in extent to all the original states. A single
plantation may inoculate the whple with this odious dis
ease. The 50,000 slaves in.- Louisiana may blacken the
country from the Mississippi to fhe Pacific. What becomes
of the free states then? For every five slaves, there are
three votes, and fhe tiriie may. come. When the yoice of
fh(3 slaves, in the councils of. the nation, will be louder than
that-of the freemen. Heaven forbid ? for if it should, what
willbe the condition of those who live in fhe free sfafes?
There is'somefhing humiliating inlabour^n the labour of
getting a living — and it is scarcely to be expected: that the
master of an hundredi slaves should have any feelings. in
common wifhi -him, who earns his bread by his daily work.
— What becomes of the compact of the c'on.sfitufion ifself,
settled, as it was, upon the basis- of the existing states,, and
ofthe states: to be forrtied oaf of fhe North West Territory^
whose condition^ as respects slavery, was irrevocably fixed ?
The sense of that compact is' eri tirely changed. Its forrii
may remain, hut the substance — the life- of if, is gone for
ever. The same principle, too, (for if is indefinite in ifs
capacity) may be applied to future acquisitions. War or
negotiation, conquest or treaty, might bring fhe island,
of Cuba within the limits, of the union. Buf, I am satis
fied, and I hope the • committee are satisfied, that the
treaty has ' nothing to do -with the question. I discard it
altogether. • - -
1 will-now with fhe leave of fhe committee, ^proceed fo
fhe remaining branch of this very interesting subject, or
what is Called the questionrof expediency.
If is decreed that slavery shall be a very great evil—and

238
(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, aiid among the rest (in a qualified
sense) the lawfulness bf ifs origin and existence. I will not
disturb this arrangement, but I must be permitted to say
that slavery is a great moral and political evil. If it be
not, let It take its course — If it be a good, lef if be encour
aged. If It be an evil, I am opposed to its further exten
sion. This is plain, simple, clear, intelligible ground. . •
Most of those who have opposed fhe 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 orily, fhe member from Ken
tucky, who last addressed the committee, (Mr. Clay) rather
reproves his friends for this- unqualified adniission. He
sayS, it- is a very great evil Indeed f o fhe 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
ofthe north or east Sir, they are aU this, and even more.
For some of the virtues enumerated, they are eminently
and peculiarly 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 Indepen
dence. It Is natural that ' it should be so — fhe feeling Is
quickened by fhe degrading contrast continually hefore
them. But It seems to me, that the concession with respect
to slavery, modified as if is in appearance, is quite as .broad
as the unlimited admission of every one else who has spo
ken. It js an evil to the slave ; it is an evil founded in
wrong, and ifs irijustiee is not fhe less because it is ad
vantageous to some one else. Every injury, from the least
to th'e greatest,' might firid the same sort of mitigation. It
is a very great evil to him who suffers, hut it is no evil to

239
him who inflicts it. The same gentleman, howeyer, has
himself made the most unqualified concession ; for he said
he would recommend to the people of Missouri to abolish
slavery, and that In his own stafe he would favour a gene
ral emancipation, as soon as It should be practicable, whicb
he surely would not do If it were not an evil.
I beg leave, further, to say, that I do not consider this
as a question of humanity, or a question of policy, or inter
est, or profit or ease — ^It is, (disguise or argue It as you will)
a question of the extension qf slavery. It Is a question, too,
not for fhe present only, but for future ages ;. and the glo
rious example of our ancestors admonishes us to make the
sacrifice, (If sacrifice if he) as we would have the blessings
or the curses of posterity. Why should we spread an ac
knowledged evdl? Is there any other moral or physical
evil that we should think It wise or expedient to treat in
this way ? Would you extend the ravages of an infectious
disease ? Would you cultivate the growth and enlarge the
naxious influence of a poisonous weed ? Would any father
so treat his ofl&pring, even In this very instance ? If he
were surrounded with slaves, whom he believed fo be an
injury and a curse to him, would he require his son at set
ting out in life, to relieve him, by taking upon himself a
part of the odious burden ?
Besides, it is an evil founded In wrong, and originating in
our own choice. The extension of it, therefore, is not to
be justified but by the most urgent and Instant necessity,
so evident, that every man will at once agree to submit to
its imperious dictates. 1 reject all speculative, or probable,
or modified, or remote necessity — that which resolves itself
at last, when fairly analyzed, into matter of profit, of con
venience, or comparative poUtical power.- K there he
doubt, it is decisive — even though there were considerable
weight of probability in favour of the argument, 1 would
decide against it Has any one seriously considered the
scope of this doctrine ? It leads directly to the establish-

240
ment iif daverjf throughout the world. The same reasoning
that -wHl justiiy the extension of slavery into,«one region,
or coontiy, will equally justify its extenskm to anotber. It
leadsr, too, directly, to the re-establishment cf the foreign
slaxe trade, for it has a tendency to break down that great
moral feeling which has been gradually making its way
into the world, and to which alone, supported and encour
aged as it has b^n by the untiring exertions of humane
and benevolent men, jce are^ indebted for the abolition of
that detestable traffic,, so kmg the di^race of Chrigtendom.
To look npoa ^very with indiflference; to witness its ex
tension witfaoot emotion ; to permit oqeseK^ even to calcu
late its advantages— Sir, the next step, and a very short
one it is, may be readily imagined. There are parts of this
coimtry now,,at this very moment, where Ibe laws against
the importation of 'slaves, with all tbeir heavy dennncia-
tioos, are confinnally violated. It is notoriogs, tbat io spite
ofthe utmost vigilance that can be employed, African ne
groes are clandestinely brougbl in and sold as slaves. This
could iK»t happen if there were an universal sentinoent
agamst the trade ; the existence of the illicit traffic, to any
extent however smalL afibrds the fiillest proof that in tboee
parts of the iinion where it continues to be carried on, it
meets encouragement from tbe feelings and tbe intierests of
some part ofthe cammnnity. . Fa*' be it from me to impute
tfaese feeling to any state, or to any considerable part of a
state. But the sin-did appetite exkfs, or such inboman
means woald j»t be employ^ to gratify it
We ate told, however, that it is not extension, it is only
dvfiisiim, that fc to be the^eSecL
I ccAi&Es that i do not ^well midetstand the distinction.
Tbe difftiSKm, ef stazes, . is an extem^mm of the system of
doBery^ with aH ks odious features, and if it were tme (as
it cerf^nly is not) that their numbers wonld not be increa»>
ed by it, stitt, it woald be at lea^ impolitic But, for what
ptirpose, Is tbB diSwioQ to be ^icouiaged I To dispeise

,241
and weaken and dilute the morbid and dangerous matter,
says one. To better the condition of the slaves by spread
ing them over a large surface, says another. A third tells
us, that we cannot justly refuse fo permit a man to remove
with his family. A fourth comes directly fo fhe question
of interest, and his reason is, that land in, the state of Mis
souri 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, interest. In the shape of a sugges
tion, that slavery must be permitted. In order to maihfalh
the price of the public lands.
I would ask gentlemen seriously to examine their hearts,
and see if they are not deceiving themselves— I am sure
they mean not to deceive others. Do they remember the
arguments by which fhe slave trade was so long and so
obstinately defended in England ? The triumph of human
ity there is quite recent, and the contest Is a monument of
the zeal and. ingenuity fhat may be enlisted in a cause,
which we all agree to have been utterly indefensible, and
which no man. having a respect for himself, would now
have fhe hardihood to attempt fo defend. The arguments,
then employed, I am sorry fo say, have too much resem
blance to those which are urged upon this question of ex
pediency. The debates in parliament, fhe memorials from
Bristol and Liverpool, the representations of West India
merchants, and ship owners, and owners of West India
plantations, were filled with statements of the importance
of the traffic to fhe navigation and trade, and revenue, and
colonies, and all the other great interests of fhe kingdomt
Yes, sir, and they undertook to strengthen their argument,
by gravely asserting, that th« African slave was really
rescued from much greater misery, by putting him on
board a slave ship, and carrying him in irons (if he hap
pened to survive) to the place destined for his perpetual
31

242
imprisonment — These things are familiar to every body,
and they are now treated as they deserve to be.
But It Is only diffusion that is desired I Is this a reason
able desire ? Liftle more than thirty years have elapsed
since the constitution was adopted. Two sfafes of this
.., union (South Carolina and Georgia) then insisted upon
reserving, for twenty years, fhe privilege of supplying them
selves with slaves from abroad, and refused to come Irito
the union unless congress were prohibited, during fhat
time, from. preventing 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 diffuse what they were then so anxious
to possess? Are they so soon overburdened ? If cannot
be, for the illicit trade Is still carried Pn, and that would
end at once if there were not a demand and a market
I may be fold,, and fold with truth, that the other slave-
holding states are not exposed to fhe same remark. Of Vir
ginia, especially, if gives me pleasure fo be able fo speak on
thissjubject, with sincere respect While yet a colony, she
remonstrated against fhe infroducfion of slaves. One of
the earliest acts of her government, affer her independence,
put an end fo fhe trade: And it has always been understood
to her honour, that in the convention, her voice and her most
strenuous exertions \vere employed in favour of the immedi-
. ate abolition of fhe traffic. Still, Sir, with respect to any, or
all the slaye-holdlng sfafes, I may be allowed to ask, is
diffusion now necessary ? I think it Is not Look at the
present price of slaves. Does 4hat 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 consflfufion to the present time, the price has been
regularly advancing. I do not mean fo 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

243
periods, say Of five or six years, there has been a regular
and constant advance, manifesting a demand at least equal
fo fhe supply.
Take another and a larger yiew. Look at the extent
of territory, occupied entirely by freemen, and fhat which
Is occupied by freemen and by slaves. You will find, fhat at
time ofthe last censip, in 1810, 444,070, square miles inhab
ited by 2,333,336 free persons, and 1,138,360 slaves, giving
a, total of 3,471,696. Af the same period, 3,650,101 free
persons had for their portion 312,736 square miles. Such
was then fhe comparative extent and population of the
free sfafes, and of the slave-holding states and territories,
the laffer with fewer inhabitants by almost two hundred
thousand, possessing above one hundred and thirty thousand
square miles of land more than fhe former, a tract of coun
try equal in size to fhe two largest states in the union.
The population in the free sfafes we know Increases with
greater rapidity than in fhe slave-^holding states. At fhe
present time if is not fo be doubted, fhat the disparity is
greater than If was In 18 JO. and more unfavourable to the
free inhabitants. In making the distribufion of future
comforts, we ought to have. at least an equal eye to the
latter,, and they, I think from this statement, are most
likely soon to want room to diffuse.
If It were not dwelling too long upon this part of the
subject, I wbuld ask gentlemen fo look also af fhe compar
ative statement of the population to fhe square mile, in
the free sfafes, and in the slave-holding states. They will
find it In Dr. Seybert's work (page 45.) If I mistake not,
the average ofthe former was 27, 56, and ofthe latter 15,
36, applying the computation, to the states contained in his
table. These facts sufficiently answer the question, whe
ther fhe diffusion of the slave population is now necessary.
I am fully convinced, however, fhat this idea of diffu
sion, (as distinguished from extension^ which is at present
so great a favourite, is altogether founded in error. If the

244
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 diflfiised it
But this is certainly not the case. We need not recur for
proof or illustration to the laws that govern population.
Our own experience unhappily shows, fhat this evil has a
great capacity to increase ; and its present magnitude Is
such as fo occasion the most serious anxiety. In 1790,
there'were in fhe United Sfafes 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 op
posite side admit thaf an increase will fake place, for they
are foiinded upon the belief 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 fhe increase
ofpopulafion,blackor white, slave or free, but those which
depend upon fhe means of subsistence. By enlarging the
space, generally speaking, you increase the quantity of
food, and of course you increase fhe numbers of fhe peo
ple. Our own illustrious Franklin, with his usual sagacity,
long ago discovered this important truth. " Was the face
of the earth," he says, " vacant of other plants it might be
gradually sowed and overspread with one kind only, as for
instance, with fennel; and werejf empty of other inhab
itants, it might in a few ages,- be replenished with one
nation only, as for Instance, with Englishmen.." If this does
not exactly happen, it is only because in their march,
they are met and resisted by other plants and by other
people, struggling, like themselves for the means of sub
sistence. By enlarging fhe limits for slavery, you are thus prepar
ing the means for its indefinite increase and extension, and
the result will be, to keep the present slave-holding states
supplied to their wishes with this description of population,
and to enable them to throw off the surplus, with all Its
productive power, on the West, as long as the country

245
shall be able and willing to receive them. To what extent
you will, in this way, increase fhe slave population, it Is
impossible to calculate; but that you will increase it there
can be no doiibf, and It is equally certain fhat the increase
will be at fhe expense of the free population.
The. same gentleman fo whom I have several times re
ferred before (Mr. Clay,) insists that this will not be fhe
case. He says, that fhe ratio of Increase of slave popula
tion shows, that its activity is now af fhe maximum ; and,
as this implies the existence of the most favourable circum^
stances, you cannot, by any change, accelerate fhe increase.
He therefore infers, that if from twenty slaves in an old
state, you take two, arid transfer them to a new one,, if is
an actual diminution in the stafe from which they are
taken fo that amount, and putting fhe two states together,
you simply change the place, but not alter fhe quantify.
Supposing fhe fact fo be, as It Is here assumed to be, fhat
the activity of increase Is now af Its maximum. It affords a
most conclusive argument against the necessity of diffusion.
If proves that there is ample room, and abundant means of
subsistence, within fhe limits fhat now circumscribe the
slave population, and thafno enlargement 'of those hmits Is
necessary. Buf, Sir, we must look a little into fhe future.
Legislation on this subject. Is not merely for the moment
we occupy, The whole scope of the argument against us,
is founded upon the belief, that fhe time must come when
the slaves will be.sfraitened in fhe territory, large as it Is,
which now confines them. When that time shall arrive,
I presume if will not, be denied, fhat their numbers will be
Increased, by enlarging the space for them, and then, cer
tainly, you will have extended slavery. In every sense.
Will if be such a dispersion as the gentleman from Vir
ginia (Mr. Smyth) has talked of? If, like prisoners of war,
(one of fhe cases he has irientioned,) they were to be de
tained for a limited fime, and then set at liberty: Or, if
they were to be mixed in society, and gradually lose their

246
distinctive character in the mixture, dispersion would be
highly , expedient and just But, they are negroes and
slaves — so they are to corifinue. — Their descendants are fo
be negroes and slaves, to the latest generation, and for ever
chained fo their present condition. — Nature has placed
upon them an unalterable physical mark, and you have
associated with if an inseparable moral degradation, either
of which opposes a harrier not fo be passed — fo their coa
lescing with the society that surrounds them. They are,
and for ever must remain distinct
And now, let me ask gentlemen, where this diffusion is
to end ? If circumstandes require if, at present, will not
the same circumstances demand it hereafter ? Will they
not, at some .future time, become straitened in their new
limits, however large ? Arid what will you do then ?
Diffuse agaln^and what then ? Even this diffusion will
have ifs limits, and when they are reached, the case Is
without remedy and without hope. For a present ease to
ourselves, we doom our posterity to an interminable curse.
But, we seem to forget, alfpgether, that while the slaves
are spreading, the free population is also increasing, and
sooner or later, must feel fhe pressure, which if is supposed
may at some time be felt by the slaves. Where you place
a slave, he occupies the ground that would maintain a free
man. And who, in this code of speculative humanity,
making provision for times afar off, is to have the prefer
ence, fhe freeman or fhe slave ?
In this long view, of remote and distant consequences,
the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Clay,) thinks he sees
how slavery, when thus spread, is at last to find ifs end.
It is fo be brought about by fhe combined operation of the
laws which regulate fhe price of labour and the laws which
govern population. When the country shall be filled ¦with
inhabitants, and the price of labour shall have reached a
minimum (a comparative minimum I suppose is meant)
free labour will be found cheaper than slave labour.

247
Slaves wiU then be without employment, and, of course,
without the means of comfortable subsistence, which will
reduce their numbers, and finally extirpate them. This
Is fhe argument, as I understand It — When the period re
ferred to will arrive, no one can pretend to conjecture.
Much less, would any one attempt to say, what number of
slaves we shall have (with the previous encouragement
proposed to be given to them) when this severe law shall
begin to operate. But every prudent and feeling man will,
I think, agree, without hesitation, thaf he would rather see
the experiment fried upon a small scale than a large one
— fhat It would be much more easily and safely conducted,
'and with much less suffering. In the present slave-holding
states, than if it were to embrace in addition fhe whole of
the great territory beyond fhe Mississippi. Buf, let me ask .
that gentleman, what he supposes vvill happen in the mean
time ? -The diminished price of labour, and the reduced
means of subsistence, are, according to this theory, first to
operate upon the freemen, and then upon the slaves, and
upon both by producing a considerable degree of misery.
Does he suppose thaf they will patiently submit, and wait
till fhe slow destruction arrives ? The two great classes,
kept distinct by your laws, would in suCh a struggle, like
two men upon a single plank in fhe ocean, make a despe
rate effort each to secure to ifself existence, by destroying
the life of the other. When want and misery begin fo
press upon them, instinct will teach them how to seek re
lief, and deadly violepce will be its agent. And what Would
then be the situation of fhe country ? I shudder even to
think of it. The present slave-holding states have a secu
rity in beirig surrounded by sfafes thaf are free. But if
the whole nation, or even a considerable part of if, were in
the same condlf lori, what security should we then have ?
Again, sir, we are told, thaf the amendment in question
will injure the rights of property, by depriving the owners
of slaves of their unborn descendants, and by lessening the

§48
value of their lands, bought upon the presumption that
Missouri would be a slave state. ' Sir, we have no right fo
meddle 'with the question of slavery in the existing states.
Their own laws must regulate the subject, and they may
modify it as to them shall seem best. But, as a gerieral
position, independently of state provisions, it may safely be
averred, that no man has a property In an unborn human:
being. We need not go far for the proof of this. The
states thaf have abolished slavery, have done so by declar
ing that the children 16 be born should be free, vvhich would
have been beyond their power, if there had been a property
in the children before their birth. This principle, however,
is so well established, thaf if need not be further Insisted
upon. The depreciation in the value of land. Is a conse
quence not likely to happen. The reverse will be the case.
Let any one compare the prices and the Improvement of
land in the free sfafes, and in the slave-holding states, and
he will be satisfied, that In this, as in every other respect,
Missouri will be a great gainer by the restriction. But, if
it were otherwise, is the great policy of fhe nation in a point
so vital — are the essential interests of justice and humanity,
to yield to fhe pecjmiary interests of a few Individuals ?
Can you alvvays avoid doing a partial injury by your public
measures? When war Is declared, what is the effect upon
the merchant ? When peace is made, how does it fare with
the manufacturer ? You cannot even alter the rafe of a '
duty, without affecting some interest of the community,
either to Its prejudice or benefit, and atlasf you must come
to the consideration of the great question of national con
cern, to which minor considerations must give way.
In the variety of claims, thaf have been pressed upon
us, there Is but a single one which deserves a moment's at
tention. - If is thaf which arises out of fhe enquiry, so offen
repeated, will you not suffer a man to migrate with his..fa-
mily?— Those who have been accustomed to the labour and
service 5 of slaves, it is not to be denied, cannot at once

249 ¦
change their habits, without feehng, 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 fo both the parties; and in pro
portion as fhe authority has been mild in ifs exercise, will
the transfer of it fo other hands be disadvantageous, espe
cially fo fhe servant. Buf, if is impossible to make a dis-
Cfimination, or fo permit the introduction of slaves af all,
without giving up fhe whole matter. Ifyou allow' slavery
to exist, you must allow it without limits. The consequence
is, that the state becomes a slave state. Free labour and
slave labour cannot be employed together. Those who go
there, must become slave hplders, and your whole system
is overturned — Besides, if fhe limited permission did not, of
itself, produce fhe evil, to an unlimited extent, (as it cer
tainly would) it is liable to abuses, beyond all possibility of
control, which would inevitably have thaf effect The num
bers of a family are not defined— ^the number of families of
this sort, which a- single individual may have, cannot be
fixed. If is easy fo see how under colour of such permission,
a regular trade might be established, and carried on as
long as fh^re was any temptation of profit or interest —
This argument, however, has been pressed, as if a prohi
bition to go with slaves, was in effect a prohibition to the
Inhabitants of a slave-holding state to go af all. I cannot
believe this fo be, fhe case. They may go without slaves ;
for though slaves are a convenience and a luxury to those
who are accustomed fo them, yet fhe inhabitants of fhe
slave-holding states would hardly admit fhat they are In
dispensably necessary. Besides, they may take their slaves
with them as free servants. But look at the converse. —
The introduction of slavery, banishes free labour, or places
it under such discouragement and opprobrium as are equi
valent In effect You shut fhe country, then, against fhe
free emigrant, who.,carries with him nothing but bis indus
try. There are lirge and valuable classes of people, who
32

250
are opposed fo slavery, and cannot live where It Is permit
ted. These too you exclude. The laws and fhe policy of
a slave state, will and must be adapted to the condition of
slavery, and, without going Info any particulars. If will be
allowed, that they are In the highest degree offensive fo
those who are opposed to slavery. If seems to me, sir, — I
may be pardoned for so far expressing an opinion upon the
concerns of fhe slave-holding sfafes — it seems to me, fhat
the people of the south have a common interest with us In
this question, not for themselves, perhaps, buf for those
who are equally dear to them. The cultivation by slaves
requires large estates. They cannot be parcelled out and
divided. In the course of time, and before very long, it
will happen that the younger children of southern families
must look elsewhere fo find employment for their talents,
and scope for their exertion. What better provision can
they have, than ffee states, where they may fairly enter
Info compefitionwith freemen, and every one find fhe level
which his proper abilities, entitle him fo expect ? The hint
is sufficient, I venture fo^ throw It ouf for fhe consideration
of those whom It concerns.
Buf, independently of the objections fo the extension, ari
sing from the views thus presented by fhe opponents of the
amendment, and independently of many much rinore deeply
founded objections, which I forbear now to press, there are
enough, of a very obvious kind, to settle the question con
clusively. With fhe indulgence of the committee, I will
touch upon some of them.
It will be remembered, fhat this Is the first step beyond
the Mississippi — the Stafe of Louisiana is no exception, for
there slavery existed to an extent which left no alternative
— It Is fhe last step, too, for this is fhe last stand that can
he made. Compromise Is forbidden by fhe principles con
tended for on both sides. Any compromise that would
give slavery to Missouri Is out of the question. It Is, there
fore, the final. Irretrievable step, which can never be re-

251
called, and must lead to an immeasurable spread of slavery
over the country beyond fhe Mississippi. If any one faul-
ter ; If he be tempted by insinuafions, or terrified by fhe
apprehension of losing something desirable — if he find him
self drawn aside by views .to fhe little interests fhat are
immediately about him — lef him reflect upon the magni
tude of the question, and he will be elevated above all
such considerations. The eyes of the country are upon
him ; fhe interests of posterity are committed fo his care-
let him beware how he barters, not his own, but his chil
dren's birth-right, 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 fhe future as well as fhe 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 extinguishing slavery by
emancipation. If seems to me, thaf fhe reduction In value
of slaves, however accomplished, is fhe only inducement
that will ever effect an abolition of slavery, The,multlpll-
caflon of free sfafes, 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 — buf If can never
take effect while if is fhe interest of owners to pursue their
slaves with so much avidity, or fo pay such prices for them.
Increase the market, and you keep up fhe value — increase
the number of slave-holding sfafes, and you destroy the
possibility of emancipation, even if every part of the union
should desire It You extend. Indefinitely, the formidable
difficulties which already exist
Nor does the mischief stop here. All liberal minds and
all parts of the union, have with one voice agreed In the
necessity of abolishing that detestable traffic in human

252
flesh, the slave trade — the foreign slave trade : But, reject
the amendment on your table, admit Missouri without
restriction, and you will inevitably introduce and establish
a great inland domestic slave trade, not, it is true, with all
the horrors of the middle passage, nor the cold blooded
calculation upon the waste of human life in fhe seasoning,
but still with many of fhe odious features, and some of fhe
most cruel accompaniments of fhat hateful traffic. From
Washington fo St. Louis, may be a distance of one thousand
miles. Through this great spaCe, and even a much great
er, you must witness the transportation of slaves, with the
usual appendages of hand-cuffs and chains. The ties of
domestic life will be violently rent assunder, and those
whom nature has bound together, suffijr all the pangs of an
unnatural and cruel separation. Unfeeling force, stimulated
by unfeehng avarice, will tear the parent from fhe child,
and fhe child from the parent — fhe husband from fhe wife,
and fhe wife from the husband. We have lately witnessed
something of this sort, during the period of high prices.
Gentlemen of the south, particularly those from Virginia,
who speak of their slaves as a part of their family, would
start at this — They would reject, with scorn and indigna
tion, even a suggestion, that they were fo furnish a mar
ket for the supply of slaves to fhe other states. I can
well believe, fhat in farailies where fhe relation has long
subsisted, there are feehngs that would revolt at such a
thought — feelings that have considerably modified this
severe coridition, and grown out of t'he associations if has,
in a long com-se Of fime, produced. But can any one fell,
what cupidity may win or necessity extort ? No man Is
superior to fhe assaults of fortune ; and, if he were, fhe
stroke of death will surely come, and break down his pater
nal government, and, then, the slave dealer, whom he would
have kicked from his inclosure, hke a poisonous reptile,
presents himself— fo whom? — He cannot tell. Thoughts
like these, have offen, 1 doubt not, produced the Uberafion

253
of slaves. If gentlemen question owr . sincerity, let them
consider at what period of life it is, that emancipation most
frequently fakes place. It is af thaf serious moment, when
men sit down fo settle their worldly concerns, and, as if
were, fo take their leave of fhe world. Then if is, by the
last will, fo take effect when their own control is ended,
that owners restore their slaves to freedom, and, by vvhat
they certainly consider an act of justice, surrender them to
themselves, rather than leaVe them fo the disposal of they
know not whom. Let gentlemen from the south reflect on
this. The public sentiment, upon the subject of slavery, is
every where improved, and still improving. It has already
destroyed that monstrous inhuhianity called fhe slave trade.
I fear fhat such a measure, as is now proposed by the oppo
nents of the restriction, would not merely check and retard
Its progress. I seriously fear that it may gradually work
an entire change. The effects are not to be contemplated
without the deepest anxiety.
The political aspect of the subject is not less alarming.
The existence of this condition among us, continually en
dangers the peace and well being of the union, by fhe irri
tation and animosity it creates betwen neighbouring 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 prevailing system of slavery ? We are told,
indeed, both in fhe house and out of it, to leave the matter
to Providence. Those who fell us so, are nevertheless
active and eager in the smallest of their own concerns,
omitting nothing to secure success. Sir, we are endowed
with faculties, 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 consequences, with a hope and belief,
that, whatever 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 gratification, regardless

254
of all considerations of right or wrong, of good or evil, we
hug a vicious Indulgence fo our bosom, until we find It
turning to a venomous serpent, and threatening fo sting us
to the heart, with what rational or consoling expectation
can we call upon Providence fo fear it away and save us
from destruction.
If Is fime to come to a conclusion. I fear 1 have already
trespassed too long. In fhe effort I have made to submit to
the committee my views of this question. It has been Im
possible to escape entirely fhe Influence of fhe sensation
that pervades this house. Yet, I have no such apprehen
sions as have been expressed. The question is indeed an
important one ; but its importance is derived altogether
frpm Its connection with the extension, indefinitely, of negro
slavery, over a land which I trust Providence has destined
for fhe labour and fhe support of freemen. I have no fear
that this quesfiob, much as If has agitated the country. Is
to produce any fatal division, or even to generate a new
organization of parfies. If is not a question upon which
we ought to indulge unreasonable apprehensions, or yield to
the counsels of fear. If concerns ages fo come, and mil
lions fo be born. It is, as It were, a question of a new poli
tical creation, arid it is for us, under Heaven, to say, what
shall be ifs condition. If we Impose the restriction, if 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 stafe, without the restriction, the
power is gone forever, and with if are forever gone all the
efforts that have been made by fhe non slave holding states,
to repress and limit the sphere of slavery, and. enlarge and
extend fhe blessings of freedom. With If, perhaps, is gone
forever) fhe power of preventing fhe traffic in slaves, thaf
inhuman and detestable traffic, so long a disgrace to Chris
tendom. In future, and no very distant times, convenience
and profit, and necessity, may be found as available pleas
as they formerly were, and for the luxury of slavesj we
shall again involve ourselves in the sin of the trade. We

255
must not presume too much upon the strength of our reso
lutions. Let every man who has been accusfpmed to the
Indulgence, ask himself if it is npt a luxury — a tempting
luxury, which solicits him strongly and af every moment
The prompt obedience, fhe ready attenlion, fhe submissive
and humble, buf eager effort fo anticipate command — how
flattering fo our pride, how soothing fo our Indolence ! To
the members from fhe south, I appeal to know whether
they will suffer any temporary inconvenience, or any spec-
idafive advantage to expose us to the danger. To those
of fhe north, no appeal can be necessary. To both, I can
most sincerely say, thaf as I know my own views on this
subject to be free from any unworthy motive, so will I be
lieve, that they likevvise have no object but the common
good of our commori country, and that nothing would have
given me more heartfelt satisfaction, than that the present
proposition should have originated in fhe same quarter to
which we are said to be indebted for fhe ordinance 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 thaf series which began, by pleading the
cause of,humanity in remonstrances against the slave trade,
vvhile she was yet a colony, and, embracing her own act of
abolition, and fhe ordinance of 1787, terminated in fhe
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 compared with
the growth and prosperity of fhe States formed out of fhe
North West Territory ? When Europeans reproach us
with our negro slavery ; when they contrast our republi
can boast and pretensions with fhe existence of this condi
tion among us, we have our answerready — it is fo you we
owe this evil — you planted it here, and it has taken such
roof In the soil, we have not fhe power fo eradicate it.
Then, turning fo the west, and directing their attention to

256
Ohio, Indiana and Illinois, we can proudly tell'them, these
are fhe ofispring of our policy and our laws, these are the
free productions of fhe constitution of fhe United States.
But, if beyond this smiling region, they should descry ano
ther dark spot upon the face of the new creation — another
scene of negro slavery, established by ourselves, and spread
ing continually towards tbe further ocean, what shall we
say then ? No, sir, let us follow up fhe work our ances
tors have begun. Lef us give to the world a new pledge
of our sincerity. ^ Let fhe standard of freedom be planted
In Missouri, by fhe hands of fhe constitution, and let its
banner wave over fhe heads of none but freemen — men
retaining the image impressed upon them by their Creator,
and dependant upon none but God and the laws. Then,
as our republican sfafes extend, republican principles will
go hand in hand with republican practice — the love of li
berty with the, sense of justice. Then, sir, the dawn,
beaming from fhe constitution, which novv illuminates Ohio,
Indiana and Illinois, will spread With increasing brightness
fo the further west, fill in its brilliant lustre, the dark spot
which now rests upon our country, shall be forever hid
from sight. Industry, arts, commerce_, knowledge, will
flourish with plenty and contentment for ages to come, and
fhe loud chorus of universal freedom, re-echo from fhe
Pacific to the Atlantic, fhe great truths of fhe Declaration
of Independence. Then too, our brethren of fhe south, if
they sincerely wish if, may scatter their emancipated slaves
through this boundless region,, and our country, af length,
be happily freed forever from the foul stain and curse of
slavery. And if (may if be far, very far djstant !) intestine
commotion — civil dissention — division, should happen — we
shall not leave our posterity exposed to the combined hor
rors of a civil and a servile war. If any man sfill hesitate.
Influenced by some temporary motive of convenience, or
ease; or profit, I charge him fo think what our fathers have
suffered for us, and then to ask his heart, if he can be faith
less to the obligation he owes to posterity ?

SPEECH,
DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATI-VES, lilARCH
7TH, 1823, ON THE BILL. TO ESTABLISH AN inSTIFORM
SYSTEM OF BANKRUPTCY THROUGHOUT THe' UNITED
STATES.

MR. CHAIRMAN, It Is my duty now to endeavour fo reply to the prin
cipal objections which have been made fo the passage of
this bill.* Affer So much discussion, and at this late stage
ofthe debate, I would gladly dispense with its performance
and relieve the House from further trespass upon Ifs pa-
. tience. Buf, this would not be jusf f o the very Interesting
subject before us, nor to those who have so anxiously
besought our attention to if ; and I must therefore ask fhe
indulgence of fhe house, while, as rapidly as may be In my
power, I bring info their view, the answers — satisfactory
ones I hope they will he found — to the arguments of those
who are opposed to fhe bill.
I can say with truth, what probably can scarcely be said
by any other member of the house — that I have listened,
attentively, to every speech that has been made on either
' side of th# question, with only one exception, and thaf was
owing fo circumstances over which 1 had no control, and
which I very much regret. I haye listened with pleasure,
and with instruction, too, and with an increased conviction
of the expediency, necessity, and justice of the measure
proposed. If doubt had remained in my mind, it would
¦*'
* Mr. Sergeant was chairman of the comniittee on the Judiciary who
reported the bill.
33

258
have been entirely dispelled by the debate : For, the more
deeply and thoroughly fhe subject is examined, the more
obvious does ifs importance bt;come, and the more plain
and imperious our duty towards all classes of our fellow
citizens, buf especially towards those vvho are immediately
interested in the decision. Indeed, I am fully persuaded,
thaf nothing Is wanting but a close and candid examination
ofthe true nature and merits of fhe case, with a moderate
sense of what liberal justice, and fhe true interests of soci
ety demand, to remove fhe prejudices, and effectually silence
the objections, which have heretofore prevented the pas
sage of a bankrupt law.
In fhe remarks I am about to offer. It will be necessary,
occasionally, to touch upon ground already occupied by
members, who have preceded me in the debate. 1 will
do it as little as possible, and when I am oWiged to repeat
what has been already advanced, it will not be from want
of respect for those who have gone before me, nor from any
hope of being able to present fhe same topics with equal
strength and force, but only for the sake of their necessary
connexion with other views.
The first class of objections fo be noticed, for which we
are indebted chiefly to fhe gentleman from Virginia, (Mr.
A. Smyth,) are not fo fhe principle of a bankrupt law, but
to fhe details of this particular bill. I must submit to fhe
judgment ofthe house, how far such a course of observation,
was correct, or jusf, or likely fo conduce to a fair investi
gation, at this stage of fhe proceedings, and up(^ the pre
sent motion, which was made for the avowed purpose of
trying the sense of fhe house, upon fhe broad question,
whether we would or would not pass a bankrupt law, under
any modifications wheifever; In other words, whether it
was fit and proper at all to exercise the power given by
the constitution. The particular provisions of the bill, are
nol open to amendment, upon such a motion ; they are not
within the legitimate range of Its inquiry ; and such objec-

259
' tions are really calculated only to embarrass and prolong
the discussion, by producing impressions,, which, if they are
suffered to remain, might seriously affect the minds of those
who have not carefully examined fhe bill, while fhe at
tempt to answer them now, imposes upon fhe friends of the
measure, a burthen they ought not tp be required fo bear;
and upon the house, a fax the more severe, as It is not, and
cannot be productive of any profitable result If the
details ofthe bill are defective, let their defects be pointed
ouf, at the proper fime, and let us then endeavour fo amend
them. -Instead however, of following the course which is usual
upon such occasions, an attempt has been made fo bring
odium upon fhe bill, by a strong exhibition ofthe supposed
deformity of its parts. The member from Virginia, (Mr.
A. Smyth) has indeed characterized if as a monster, which,
if it were as bad as he described if fo be, if would be justi
fiable fo strangle at ils birth : which Ought not fo be suf
fered fo have a chance to breathe the breath of life. He
said, " that It Was calculated fo sacrifice the liberties of
fhe people, fo destroy personal security, and fhe security
of property, to abolish the mild and equitable systems of
jurisprudence, which fhe wisdom and policy of the states
have ordained," in short, that if would be productive of
every sort of mischief, and nothing buf mischief. That
gentleman has. Indeed, been extremely, I had almost said-
exCessively liberal, in acquitting me of any share In this
atrocious attempt upon fhe liberty and laWs of our country,
by supposing that not a line of the bill has proceeded from
my peri. While I thank him for his kind intentions, if la
impossible for me to. avail myself of fhe concession. For If
It were literally fotmded in fact, and I cannot say that it is,
yet, having adopted and advocated fhe bill, not once, but
repeatedly ; not hastily, but uppn full reflection, and feel
ing as I now do, that if my most anxious wishes and
exertions for Ifs passage, eould ensure Its success, it would

260
unquestionably succeed, I cannot, and ought not, and do
not desire, to be deemed less accountable, than the original
framers of fhe bill whoever they may have been. As to
those who have now, and upon former occasions, supported
it In this hojise, and in the pther, I am willing to stand In
the same line with them ; they are men, with whose
names I deem it an honour to have mine associated.
A member from South Carolina, (Mr. Mitchell,) has
urged if as an argument against the biU, that It has
heen floating, as he expressed if, for three or four years,
between the two houses, which he seemed fo think could
not have happened, if It had really deserved their conside
ration. He was mistaken — it has been much longer soliciting
fhe attention of congress. A bill, substantially fhe same, was
reported af least as long ago as fhe year 1813. From that
time fo the present, fhe subject has been frequently brought
into view. In 1817, if underwent considerable discussion.
It has since received some amendments, and at the last
session it passed the senate, exactly In the form iu which
it is now before this house. To what, then, was this great
delay attributable ? How did if happen fhat the call upon
congress, to exercise a power expressly given to them by fhe
constitution for fhe benefit of our fellow citizens, so fre
quently and Importunately made, and under circumstances,
as strong as coiild possibly have been contemplated by the
firamers of fhat instrument, has ilfherto been made in
vain ? The answer is obvious. If is because, those who
more particularly stand in need ofthe law, and petition for
its enactment, and those for whose relief it is designed, are
not represented here ; their wants and their wishes are
not felt, and, unfortunately, caimpt be made intelligible.
Who are fhe petitioners .? They are, generally, merchants.
When we hear that class of our fellow citizens, spoken of
as they have been In this debate ; when we are told as we
have been, by one member, (Mr. Mitchell) that the mer
chant Is a man, without a country, and without a home ;

261
who has no settled interest or stake In society ; who, to use
his very language. Is, " of every country and of no country,
indifferent whether fhe sun rises on him to the north, or to
the south of the equator," can we be at a loss to account
for fhe difficulty and delay, which this measure has encoun
tered ? Can we be suprlsed, that where such unreasonable,
and I must say, unjust prejudices are found, against a most
respectable and honourable class of the community, a deaf
ear .should be turned to their connplainfs, and they should
be dismissed, with cold indifference, or contemptuous
neglect? lam now addressing, on, their behalf,' a body
composed almost entirely of professional men and planters,
who do not want the aid of a bankrupt law for themselves,
and who, I can sincerely say, I hope may never stand in
need of Ifs relief; may never know from experience, the
wasting heart-sickness and despair of .the, unfortunate man,
who can obtain no relief. Thus circumstanced— placed
beyond the reach of this kind of misfortune themselves,
and seldom, perhaps nevter, witnessing It others, they do
not realize fhe force and extent of the evils which this
bill Is intended fo remedy. The subject does not come
home fo their business and bosoms, but is a mere matter
of cold speculation. When fhe friends of fhe bill, endeav
our to press If upon their hearts, and their minds, by plain
and unexaggerated statements, we are supposed to employ
. the pencil of fiction, only because they have not themselves
seen , fhe originals. If gentlemen, who are not conversant
with fhe operation of the existing laws, will not give us
credit for fhe facts we state ; if they will not beheve fhe
statements of those who have seen the evils and sufferings,
which this bill is Intended to remove, it would be vain, that
the picture, faithful as it Is, should be presented anew, or
" that other scenes of evil and of. misery, should be pour-
frayed. But I beg them to be assured, that this class of
ruined merchants, is not what it has been supposed to, be,
by some who have spoken on this question. Among them

262
are to be found the most' high minded and honourable
men; men who have been' eminently usefiil, men who have
been employed, and beneficially employed in the councils of
the nation, and vvho are novv withering under the blast
of unmerited misfortune !
Nor do gentlemen give due attention to the distinction, a
most important and plain distinction, so well enforced by
my colleague, (Mr. Hemphill) between the occupation of a
merchant or trader, and that of almost any other class In
fhe community. The capital of fhe professional man, is
in his talents and acquirements, which cannot be taken
from him. The planter's is In the soil, and remains, under
every vicissitude, if he be reasonably prudent, firm as the
fotmdations of fhe earth. The laws secure to him its
enjoyment He may lose a crop, fhe profits of a year, at
most ; the capital is sure. Immoveable, and Imperishable.
Neither of them has any jusf occasion to deal in credit, to
become creditors- or debtors to any considerable amount —
to involve himself in the fate of others, or to become liable
for debts, beyond bis means to pay. Such embarassment
is, as to them, in general, the evidence of imprudence at
least, if not of somethii^ worse. How different is the
necessary, 1 may say inevitable condition of the man en
gaged in trade ? His whole capital Is continually at risk,
exposed to the danger of the winds and the waves,. depend
ent upon the good fortune, and prudence of others, with
whom he is connected ; placed by the very nature of its
employment, beyond his control, and liable to be swept
away, at every moment, without his fault, and fo bis utter
ruin. Political changes, too, which press hght ly in compar
ison, upon other members of the community, may be and
frequently are, to him, overwhelming. The transition from
peace to war, and even the return from war to peace,
which comes dressed in smiles to every one else, may
prove to the merchant, a most destructive calamity. Non-
intercourse, embargo, every sort of restriction or political

263
change, may fall with irresistible weight upon him. Mea
sures of finance, too, a rapid change in fhe circulation (and
no nation, probably, ever experienced so sudden and great a
reduction, as we have passed through) by their effect upon
prices and upon the value of money, enter with uncontrol
lable fury, into the affairs of the merchant disconcerting
every thing, overturning all his schemes, and changing the
whole face of his concerns. The first shock to his credit
Is fatal ; for if Is also true, that this man; who has, so much
to meet and fo endure, rests all his hopes and prospects,
upon so delicate a foundation as fhe daily ability, continually
manifested, to' comply, with his engagements to the letter.
Touch that,' and he is irretrievably gone. He has nothing
with which fo begin again, but the uncertain forbearance
of his creditors.
Here is a broad ground, laid open fo fhe examination of
every one. Unless our opponents are prepared to say,
thaf there shall be no such thing as coriimerce, no mer
chants, no credit, no system of severe and rigid punctuality,
to regulate fhe movement ofthe machine of trade, they
must admit with fhe gentleman from South Carolina, (Mr.
Lowndes,) that these circumstances afford a motive for
peculiar legislation, such as I must again Insist, every civi
lized and commercial nation, has thought fit fo adopt.
Suppasing, then, that nofwifhsfan.ding fhe authority of the
constitution in favour of such a measure, we are sfill bound,
as our opponeftts have insisted, fo maintain and proVe Its
necessity, what more can be required than the general
views that have been presented? To carry them info
detail ; to insist upon the actual state of things, to describe
the evils fhat continually arise frorii the want of such pro-
vlslons^ must be wholly unavailing, unless they will give us
credit for our facts, and if they do that, enough has already
been stated. As long as they adhere to the opinion, thaf It
is all the creation of fancy, any effort to reason from what
is stated, must terminate in an useless waste of fime.

264
It is with great reliictanCe that 1 shall enter, af this
stage of the discussion, into a vindication of the details of
the bill. But it seems to be Indispensably necessary fo
relieve them, by a proper explanation, from the charges
that have been made. Otherwise, if the bill should fail, it
might be supposed fo be owing to carelessness, negligence,
or Ignorance In its construction ;, and ifs friends would have
the extreme mortification of losing the great object they
have in view, from their own fault. I should be exceed
ingly distressed. If fhe failure could be justly attributed to
any sUch cause. I am sure it could not, for I have hea-rd
no objections made, by those who are in favour of a bank
rupt law in any shape In which it can be framed. Those
who offered them, have exercised their ingenuity, not to
make it better, buf to make it worse ; or, which is the
same thing, fo give If fhe worst appearance possible, and to
bring discredit and odium upon It by every thing fhat Is
calculated to appeal fo pride, to passion, fo interest, and to
prejudice. It is is not necessary again to appeal fo fhe house, whe
ther thisis a fair course of proceeding, or ought fo receive
their countenance. But to test the sincerity of those who
have made objections, we Invite them to fake fhe bill intp
their owri hands — fd bring forward their amendments, to
show, candidly and distinctly, in what particulars if ,may
be beneficially altered ; give us, if they will, an entirely
new system, provided, the two great points of security to
fhe creditor, and relief fo tlie debtor, are preserved. I
have no feeling of concern for any thing else, and I think I
can answer for all who have supported fhe bill, that they
will be ready to concur in any proper amendment-^that
they will unequivocally evince their attachment, whoever
may claim fhe parentage. They will Only ask to spare ifs
life — let them know that the object of their solicitude may
live, and they will readily yield the contest about ifs^us-
tody. If gentlemen who have made objections will not d&

. 265 y ¦ . ''
so, we shall be constrained to believe, fhat it is because
they, have not the disposition to do justice to the measure,
and to our fellow citizens who have asked for Itv
At the proper fime, lshall myself venture to propose
tw.bameridrifienfs, and there is one, it is understood, will be
proposed, fo which I shall certainly not object I mean to
bring forward a provision to enable a mari in failing cir
cumstances, fo apply for a commission of bankruptcy, re
taining," however, the compulsory power. In cases where no
such application is made. The design of fhe provision
would be, to enable fhe debtor fo attain by, direct and per
mitted means, what he would otherwise be obliged to ac
complish by the irregular machinery of a concerted com
mission. The end would be lhe same, but a concerted
bankruptcy is liable to fhe objection, thaf It is founded on
an unlawful fiction. Another provision proposed, will be
for the purpose of obtaining authentic evidence of the prac
tical operation of the law, by requiring the commissioners
to make' frequent returns, at stated times, of the cases
which shall occur. The amendment alluded fo, as likely
to come from another quarter, is to enlarge thp description
of persons who may be voluntary bankrupts, or, in other
words, who may have the benefit of fhe law. If the gen
tleman from- South Carolina, (Mr. Lowndes,) who has
strongly stated and maintained the necessity and policy of
a bankrupt law, will concur with the' friends of the bill, in
the effort to amend if, many, if not most of his objections,
may certainly be removed. To wait until we can conci
liate fhe opinion of every member of the house, upon every
part of a bill like fhis^unfll v^ shall all agree, not only
upon the principle, but upon every subordinate enactment
— is fo postpone if indefiniteJy — it is fo mock the hopes of
thpse whp are anxiously looKiiTg for the measure, by keep
ing it forever before their eyes, but never placing it within
their reach. Something must be yielded upon minor points
of no great importance. 34

266
Let us remember how long such a bill has been before
'US. For nearly fen years, I believe. It has in some way or
other, been on our fables. Five years ago, it was discussed
in this house. Last session it passed the senate, and came
to us, too late. If was then said, to receive a deliberate ex
amination. Sometimes It Is too early ; sometimes too late ;
sometimes it is too much discussed, and the house from
mere weariness suffer it to drop from their hands by an
indirect decision ; then again, there is not time enough for
discussion, and if is put by for a future occasion. And at
last, when it is seasonably brought forward and we have
been weeks engaged upon It, with pressing memorials,
urging and beseeching us for fhe passage of fhe law, we
find out thaf this Is not exactly fhe law that It ought to he.
And what then ? Tbe natural answer would seem to be, to
make it what it ought to be, fo expunge what is wrong,
and endeavour to insert what you think right. Shall we
ever be better prepared than we now are ? — But no ; we
are to, waif for some undefined fime, until, by some undefi
nable means, a perfect work shall be presented to our ac
ceptance, so perfect, indeed, as to admit of neither objec
tion nor improvement I can only say, that if it correspond
with this description, it will not come from human hands,
and It must not be subjected to human criticism, or it can
never be free from a mixture of evil ; and if It were, the
presumptuous wisdom of man would not suffer it to escape
the imputation of defe<;t
If we are satisfied tl;nt the measure is necessary, let us
make the best bill we cao, and he satisfied with the sinceri
ty and the reality of our ezerfions. Experience is a great
teacher, and will point ouf to us defects, and their remedies,
with far greater certainty than speculative and conjectural
reasoning. Let us begin; and afterwards Improve, If neces
sary ; but let us begin. ^v
I am obliged, however, to say, that justice has not been ^
done to this bill, and I feel myself bound to endeavour to

267
vindicate it from the heavy charges fhat have been brought
against If, especially by the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr.
A. Smyth.) I am well aware, thaf fhe reply fo his criti-
cistas, some of them very minute, will be tedious and unin
teresting. Buf the house will bear in mind, fhat long as
the bill has been before them, and long as It has been
under discussion, there are probably very few of fhe mem
bers who have examined It throughout, and collated Its
different provisions. This is one of the most serious dif
ficulties its advocates have fo encounter. From its neces
sary length ; from the Indifference felt about It by many,
and. from other causes, if is inipossslble fo obtairi for It a
close and Careful attention. We are much indebted to any
one who will be at the pains taken by the gentleman from
North Carolina, (Mr. Sawyer,) fo examine and unfold Its
different parts.
From similar causes, operating even more powerfully,
the public is likely to know Uftle of the details, as the re
monstrance from New York, which the gentleman, from
New York, (Mr. Colden,) has shewn fo be founded In error
and misconception — most fully proves. Under these cir
cumstances, objections-, though destitute of real foundation,
or exaggerated greatly beyond their natural bearing, are
apt fo make a strong impression, especially when they come
from a. gentleman of as much research as fhe member from
Virginia, (Mr. A. Smyth,) who seldom offers himself fo fhe
house without due preparation, and delivers his opinions
with a deliberate gravity that cannot fail to have effect,
when he speaks upon a ^subject with which his professional
pursuits are supposed to have made him acquainted. What
then will he say. If I venture now to tell him, thaf there Is
scarcely one of the specific objections, upon which he has
rested his general denunciation of fhe bill, which is sup-
pprfed in point of fact ? The cause of some of his errors is
obvious. He has been studying fhe bankrupt law of Eng
land, Instead of the bill upon the table, and has been Insist-

268
Ing upon objectlonal provisions In the former, without suffi
ciently examining how far they are corrected by the latter.
Thus (to follow his own order,) he objected, that fhe de
scription of a trader, who might be a bankrupt, was too
broad, and would comprehend every person who should
buy and sell. In however small a quantity, though buying
and selling was not his occupation ; and he dwelt upon the
whimsical distinctions produced by this ambiguous descrip
tion. A bleacher, he said, — and I thank him for selecting
that illustration, — cannot be a bankrupt, because he only
bestows his labour; a dyer may, because he buys fhe dying
drugs. That is the law of England, but if is not this bill,
as he has himself, I believe, in very general terms, admit
ted. Why then introduce it at all ? Those who did not
carefully listen, and carefully examine, too, might be led
into the error of supposing, fhat fhe same objectionable
ambiguity remained in fhe bill, and fhat it was so inar-
tlficlally constructed as fo copy servilely even acknow
ledged defects in the law of England. Whereas, In truth,
all these things are carefully, and scrupulously, and I
believe, adequately guarded against by fhe proviso af fhe
end of fhe section.* I beg fhe particular attention of fhe
member from Virginia to that proviso, and call upon him,
if he thinks there is any further amendment necessary, to
aid us in making it; if not, fo abandon this objection as
untenable. He has fallen into another error of the same sort He
seems, indeed, to have studied very diligently, the English
bankrupt law, buf not fo have paid sufficient attention fo
this bill. If, said he, a servant, by fhe orders of his mas
ter, deny his master to a creditor, fhe master may be made
a bankrupt, and is Irretrievably ruined, even though he

* " K their living is substantially gotten by mechanical labour, thongh
with some mixture of buying and selling, they shall not as such only be
deemed or taken to be within the provisions of this bill."

269
were solvent and able fo pay all his debts. This Is not so.
Denial by this bill. Is not an act of bankruptcy, northe
evidence of It By fhe law of England, " keeping house,"
or " beginning fo keep hpuse," is the act of bankruptcy,
and' denial is the evidence. Buf by this bill, " keeping
house" Is not an act of bankruptcy ; it is " keeping house
so that he cankot be taken or served with pi-ocess." The act
of bankruptcy, therefore,'^Is not committed, until fhe debtor
Is reduced fo fhe extremity of havirig process actually
Issued against him, and defeats its execution by keeping
within the legal defence of his house. As fo this, how
ever, and fhe other acts alluded to, which involve grave
considerations, of too much importance fo be now discussed,
if any one thinks them not sufficiently guarded, lef him
candidly bring forward a clause more explicit — I mean at
the proper time. Then, too, I will point ouf fo the same
gentleman from Virginia, a matter of fact answer fo an
other of his arguments, which, in his own words, was stated
thus : " When one is declared a bankrupt, the declaration
has relation back to the time of committing fhe act of bank
ruptcy, so as fo avoid his subsequent acts." If assuredly
Is not so. The commission has no relation at all, against
bona fide acfs of the bankrupt, done in fhe course of his
business, without notice on the part of fhe person who
deals with him, as he may see most carefully provided in
the eleventh section. Such transactions will not be affected.
And as to other acts of the bankrupt, I perceive again, he
has been misled by the law of England, for In this bill, fhe
relation is expressly limited to six months before the com
mission issued. If he had done this bill fhe justice to be
stow upon It a little more of fhe time which he has em^
ployed In studying the law of England,, he would have
thought better of Its provisions. They are of a nature fo
improve upon acquaintance.
Besides objecting to what fhe bill does, the same gentle
man has objected to what It omits to do, and under this

^70
head has remarked, that it does not provide for issuing com
missions of bankruptcy against corporations; a very im
portant suggestion. Indeed, well deserving consideration,
but relating, to a subject so peculiar, and so distinct from
what this bill contemplates, that if Would require an en
tirely diflerent set of provisions. VVe have enough fo deal
with at present, and when fhe matter in hand is disposed
of, if any one will propose a law for corporations, (which
it Is competept to Congress to enact,) he will, it is to be
hoped, be met with a liberal spirit, and a disposition fo give
hini every possible aid, Buf it here occurs to me, that the
same gentleman made a remark, which puts us at issue
upon a matter of fact, and I feel a liftle tenacfous, because
it may be regarded as a fact of some consequence, and
as such it was formerly presented to the notice of the
house ; it Is with respect to the nature of the law of Hol
land. He says, before fhe Code Napoleon was introduced
into Holland, they had no bankrupt law, but pnly the cessio
bonorum, which merely discharged,^ the person. The infer-
lence Is, thaf in the times- of their greatest commercial pros
perity, they had no bankrupt law. He has quoted for this
a passage in Cooper's Bankrupt Law, who cites the opinion
of Lord Chancellor Hardwicke, expressed in a case decided
in 1744. The case is reported In Atkyns, where the Lord
Chancellor is only made to say, that h^ did npt take it fo
be the law of Holland, that the effects were discharged as
well as the person. There was ariother ppint in the case,
which was sufficient for Its decision, and thisj which is now
.in question, was not of much imporfarice, and therefore,
probably, not very carefully inquired Info. But if the mem
ber from Virginia had extended his view only a little fur
ther, in fhe same book from which he quoted (Cooper's
Bankrupt Law,) In the same page, in fhe following para
graph, and the sentence immediately following fhe one he
read, he would have found Lord Mansfield stafing just the
reverse, that Is to say, that the Dutch law did give a dis-

271
charge valid in England, and bf course, a discharge of the
debt So much for the authority ; but, if he still doubt, I
will refer him to Beawe's Lex Mercatoria, where he will
find under the head of bankruptcy, fhe old law of Holland,
arid a short history of Its Introduction. The proceedipgs
were carried on before a tribunal called the Chamber of
Desolate Estates, and, as I have heretofore stated, a cer
tain portion of the creditors had power, by a composition
with the, debtor, to bind the rest There was, also, at the
same time existing, a provision for relief, similar to the judi
cial discharge of the French law, or our insolvent law, a
cessio bonorum, by which a limited discharge was given
without the concurrence of creditors, arid perhaps intended
for a different description of persons. Thls.may have occa
sioned f he-apparent contradiction in fhe authority quoted.
In the multiplicity of fhe charges against this bill, another
was made, which its advocates heard stated with no slight
alarm, as if seemed at once to bring into the field against
them an irresistible host of opponents, where they expected
only to find friends. This bill was said to be deficient not
merely In gallantry, but even in Common justice to what
was termed " fhe weaker sex." ' If was some relief, how
ever, to find at last, that It was the law of Virginia, and
not this bill, that was chiefly objected against. The bill
proposes no change. Every lawyer knows, that what are
technically called the choses in action of the wife, are ab
solutely in the power of the hushand. He may reduce
them into possession ; he may assign them, and If is only
where, in fhe case of a general assignment, fhe assignee
is obliged to go into chancery to get possession, fhat the
court will compel him, as a condition upon which Its aid is
granted, to make some provision for the wife, All this is
the effect of the existing law^s. The -reproach he has cast
upon fhe law bf Virginia, fhat it is " monstrous injustice,"
would be offered with more propriety to the Legislature of
Virginia, for it does not belong to us to deal with the laws

s<

272
of thit state. Of this, however, I am sure, that he has
mIsunder.sfood the Spanish ,law, when he supposes It fo
make provision for the " dower" of thfe wife, in case of fhe
husband's bankruptcy. The word is " dowry," not " dower,"
and means not fhe part of the husband's estate, which (by
the common la,w) belongs to fhe wife after his death, but
the pprtion which fhe wife brings in marriage, and which,
In the continental nations of-Europe,'is so far separate, that
t^e wife may be a creditor of the husband. The Spanish
law, in fhe part referred to, provides, that the wife shall
not pfove her dowry in case of a second bankruptcy, and
instead of enlarging, diminishes her rights. Whether there
Is " monstrous injustice," as has been asserted. In the law
of Virginia, which gives fo fhe widow only one third of the
slaves she brought in marriage, and thaf third only for life,
I will not undertake fo say. But this Is certain, that what
in those nations, where fhe civil law prevails, Is accom
plished by treating fhe husband and wife as separate per-.
sons, may be effected where fhe common law is in force, by
means of a trust, (which, by the way, this bill would not
Injure,) and if that expedient is not more frequenti}' resort
ed to, if is owing fo manners, and not to laws — The gen
tleman from Virginia might, however, have found an apoU"
ogy. for fhe laws of Virginia, and of fhe other states, or
rather for their manners. Marriage is there an intimate
union, founded In affection, and preserved'In general with
mutual faith and kindness. It is contracted in early hfe,
¦yhile the feelings are warm and pure, and fhe simplicity of
our Jiofions regards it is an absolute union of interests, an
agreement to shaye a common lot The .parties start to
gether In the morningj)f life, together "they bear the heat
of the day, and If their lives are spared, they walk arm In
arm fill their equally lengthening shadows reach fo their^
descendants, who are entering on fhe same career. No
artificial contrivances of serrate estates; no provident
schemes of Independence which neither desires ; no such

273
^arrangements as are found exactly where iharrlage, in
certain classes, is almost a state of pecpe'tual divorce from
bed and board. And 1 would myself volunteer fo rescue
Virginia from the imputation of falhng short of Spain in
gaMntry, -by jplainly averring, that what the Spaniards
have in their lavys, fhe Virginians have In their hearts,
and leave if fo fhe ladies of Virginia to decide which they
prefer. Great apprehension, too. Is expi'essed by the same gen
tleman, least injustice should be done fo those who may
have had dealings With the bankrupt. " If," says he, " a
debtof of the bankrupt disputes the claim made against
him, he is liable fo a heavy forfeiture of double the value
on the grotind of concealment." No doubt he thiriks so, or
he would not state It But what Is the fact ? Is there any
ground for fhe, alarm ? Is there any clause in the bill, that
can, by any ppsslbilify, admit of such a construction, as,
that a man cannot contest a claim he believes fo be unjust,
without incurring a penalty ? If there be, lef if be point
ed out,, and at once erased from the bill. But there is no
such thing. The only provision thaf can be supposed to
have given rise to such an imagination (and thaf must have
.been from a hasty or very prejudiced perusal,) is that
which Is intended to operate upon persons fraudulently
concealing property and rights of the bankrupt, with a
view to cheat his creditors. Are they .entitled to any pe
culiar regard ? Is it for dealing with just Severity towards
them, that this bill is denounced as tyrannical, .rapacious,
oppressive, and dangerous to the liberties of the people,?
I thought fraud or cheating was every where an offence,
and a cheat — a mean culprit, who all would agree was
deserving of pijnishmenf ; and I still believe, that if this
precaution had not been in the bill, fhe omission would
have been urged as an argument against It The want of
due security against fraud, would be. In truth, a substan
tial objection. 35

274
In this multitude of exceptions, it is also made matter of
very grave accuSkfion, that the law Is fo be executed by
Irresponsible officers. I should like, before we proceed
further, to know what the gentleman from Virginia means
by " irresponsible" officers. Are not fhe commissioners to
be appointed by the highest executive officer of fhe govern
ment, by the same power that appoints all your officers,
civil and military, and fo whom the power of appointment
is entrusted by the constitution ? Are they not responsible
to him, and are they not responsible fo us, exactly in the
same manner as all other civil officers? Deriving their
authority from the same high source, and accountable to
the same extent, as fhe judges of courts, fhe commissioners
under the Spanish treaty now In session, fhe governor and
judges proposed by a bill on your table fo be appointed for
Florida, in what sense Is If that they are fo be " irrespon
sible V Does he mean fo be understood, fhat no officer is
responsible unless he give security, which seemed to he his,
meaning ? Lef him then propose if, and af fhe same time
propose to require security from other officers who have
similar functions to perform, such as the governor and jud
ges of Florida, and substitute for the responsibility of gene
ral good conduct, honour, conscience, and a regard for
reputation, fhe meaner obligation of a nominal pecuniary
liability. I say nominal, because at last it will be found,
when he has got his bond, that fhe duties fo be performed
by fhe commissioners, like those of fhe high officers I have
already referred fo, are nPt to be estimated in money, and
he would be extremely perplexed, if he were fo attempt to
fix the damages to be recovered for the violation, neglect,
or inadequate performance of duty by judges, commissioners
or governors, or even by members of congress.
In the hands of the gentleman from South Carolina, (Mr.
Mitchell,) this objection took quite a different shape. The
compensation of fhe commissioners Is so low, he says, fhat
the president will be able to get none but pettifogging law-

275
yers to fill the office. I will not stop to remark, that this
difficulty, (If It existed) would be removed by Increasing
the pay. Nor will I detain the house to state, that in the
United States we have no'such class as thaf of pettifogging
lawyers. The profession is in general a high and honour
able one. There are occa,sional exceptions, of persons of
low and sordid conduct and character, but they are marked
and frowned upon by the profession, as well as by the com
munity, and If must be a rare accident that wquld bring
one of them Info an employment of confidence. Of the
class, I repeat, vve know nothing, but from books, which
have given us an account of their existence elsewhere.
And I will no more admit such a charge against an hon
ourable profession, than I would admit those' brought against
merchants. Af fhe moment, however, fhat he was giving
utterance to this injurious apprehension, fhe practical an*
swer was af harid. The comperisafion under this act Is
five dollars a day; under the, act of 1800, as amended in
1802, It was six dollars a day, which Is not difference
enough fo make any change in fhe character and quahfica
tions of the persons fo be appointed. Now, af fhe very
time when the gentleman frorn South Carolina was stigma
tising by anticipation, the execution of fhe law, there sat
beside him, a most respectable member from Virginia, (Mr.
Tucker,) who was a commissioner under the act of 1800.
This is a practical answer, which may be extended by
naming others, whom If would be superfluous to do more
than name. The late secretary ofthe treasury, Mr. Dallas,
a late representative on this floor from Pennsylvania, Mr.
Hopkinson, a gentleman who has' been governor of New
Jersey, and is now in fhe senate of fhe United States, that
governor ofVirginia too who .perished in fhe calamitous fire
at Richmond, and many others of equal respectability, were
commissioners under the former law. These facts might
he sufficient fo allay that gentleman's fears. Is it for a
mpment fo be supposed, that fhe president of the United

276
States will descend, into fhe low places of society to find
Incompetent and unworthy men to fill offices of this sort,
contrary fo all fprmer experience, and in opposition to
every mptive of duty, of interest and honour, when Ije can
readily supply them with men of high character and stand
ing ? It does really seem to me, that nothing buf a preju
diced view of the matter, a predisposition, if not a prede
termination to think, 111 of fhe law, could have led f o con
clusions so hasty and so palpably erroneous as both those
which' I have now had to notice. As to the messenger of
the commissioners, if Aevvas one of the officers who created
this alarm, I will only say, make him what you pilease ; let
him be (as In fact he fornierly was) the marshal, or the
sheriff) or any body else, and require from him what secu
rity you think proper for his good conduct ; all that is easily
arranged, in less time than is required fo falk about if, and
with less labour too, if we are really desirous to hawe it
done. Another topic which has given occasion for the exercise
of much ingenious speculation, and great diversify of view,
is the subject of preferences. Before I approach the gene
ral question, however, let me put the gentleman from Vir
ginia (Mr. A. Smyth) right, as to a specific objection he
has made ; it Is, that fhe United Statps would be in danger
of losing their priority or preference iri payment, because,
as I think he stated it, fhe assignment, would vest fhe pro
perty in fhe assignees before the lien of fhe United States
attached. I need not say, where there are so many law
yers, that lien and preference In payment are different
things, and that If is not necessary to give priority, that
there should be a lien, though a Hen may of itself confer a
preference. The priority of the United States is esta
blished by law, and does not rest upon a right of lien, and
that priority is expressly saved hy ihe &Oth section of the hiU,
which has, I presume, escaped his observation. But the
same gentleman objects with great earnestness, that this

277
bill takes away preferences, puts all creditors upon an.
equal footing, which he thinks contrary fo good policy and
justice, and contrary fo the law of Virginia for distributing
the estates of persons deceased. Another gentleman from
the same stafe, fakes exactly opposite ground," and con
tends thaf the bill is bad, becaus.e it does .not effec^fually
destroy fhe power of giving preferences. It certainly Is,
in the estimation of the friends of the bill, pne of its, chief
excellencies, fhat it will, as far as practicable, take from
the failing debtor, the power of paying one creditor in pre
ference to the other, of giving the whole to one, arid leav
ing nothing for the resf, as his own views of interest or
feeling niay direct ; and that if will distrlbyfe equally the
effects among all his creditors. To say that fhe law of
Virginia, or fhe law of Spain, prefers some classes of credi
tors fo others, and even fo prove fhat it Is fit thaf the lau)
should, do so, Is nothing to the purpose, for the question
here is not what the lav? should provide, but what the
failing debtor shall be permitted, of his own mere will to do ;
and every argunient that does, not meet that precise case,
goes wide of the mark. Has any one pretended to deny,
thaf this power in fhe debtor vvho Is not able to pay all his
debts, produces the^ evils and mischiefs which have been
heretofore stated? No. If cannot be denied. But the
Speaker has endeavoured to avoid the effect of what I think
an Incontestible truth, by an argument something of this
sort, in which he has been supported by another gentleman
from , 'V^irginla : " If is just in any debtor to pay me that for
which he had received a valuable consideration, and If It
be jusf In him lo pay, if cannot be unjust in me to receive."
The answer is, that the proposition. If true, (and there
may be great doubt of Its truth, where the debtor acts from
a selfish motive, and with a knovVledge ofhis insolvency,)
does not go far enough, and does not apply to the case in
hand. It only proyes that it Is not unjust in the creditor
to receive, if the law permit him to do so, but to be of any

278
avail. It ought fo go further, and establish that It would be
immoral and unjust for the debtor to adopt a different
course, and distribute the remnant of his property, equally
among all his creditors, or for fhe law fo prescribe fhat
course to him, and forbid his giving preferences. If neither
be unjust. It is an open question for the law giver, to adopt
that policy which he thinks most jusf, and most conducive
to the public interests. The argument, therefore, is alto
gether fallacious, and the rule if would furnish has never I
believe been adopted by any legislature ; buf fhe distribu
tion of Insolvent estates has every where been the familiar
subject of legislative direction. And so it ought fo be ; for
In point of fact we know, and without fhe aid of experi
ence We might fake if for granted, that tbe preferences
given by debtors are not iri favour of fhe meritorious, the
needy, the helpless, fhe ignorant, the distant creditor ; those
are apt to be overlooked and disregarded, and fhe provision
is most likely fo be made for the importunate, fhe wealthy,
the watchful, those who are af hand, and those who are
able fo aid the debtor by future loans of money or of credit
The rule of equal distribution has intrinsic merit In it The
maxim of a court of chancery is, fhat " equality is equity,"
and as a general rule no better can be adopfed.
The opponents of fhe bill, have, in several insfances,
contradicted each other. They have made objections and
employed arguments of a directly opposite character.
Most of them have regarded it as injurious to the creditor,
subversive of his rights, and therefore, immoral and unjust.
But fhe gentleman to whom I have so often referred, (Mr.
A. Smyth,) has found out, thaf fhe project Is too favourable,
to fhe creditors, that It is calculated fo benefit them too
much, that it is an energetic remedy, that, fo use his own
language, " it Is calculated to fill fhe pockets of the credi
tor." Without, attempting to reconcile these inconlsf encies,
it might fairly be claimed as some merit in fhe bill, to have
so conciliated the conflicting rights ot debtor and creditor.

279
that one set of ifs enemies are driven fo urge that if has
done too much for the former, and the other, thaf if has
done too much for fhe latter. If it had done more than it
ought for either, at the expense of the other, this would
have been fhe ground of objection maintained by all,
uniformly and consistently. As to the assertion that it will
"fill fhe pockets of the creditors," I will only say, fhat if
he who made It can establish its correctness, he will be
come by far fhe most powerful advocate fhe bill has had.
He will gain over all those who are the exclusive friends of
the creditors. Ifs most sanguine friends have never pro
mised _^so much, and they, would be deemed extremely
visionary indeed if they were fo hint that fhe pockets of
creditors could by any legal contrivance, any legislative
alchemy, be filled' from fhe wrecks of insolvent estates.
It Is at least, a very singular objection..
There are some objections which I hardly knovv how fo
dispose of or treat It would be. fatiguing to me, and more
so to fhe committee, ifi were fo notice all fhe httle matters,
soriie of them extremely minute and not worthy of the
time bestowed upon them, which have been pressed intp the
service of our opponents, and arrayed against fhe bill.
We are told, for example, that there is to be no duty paid
upon sales of bankrupt estates by auction, and this is no
less than an invasion of state rights. One would be led to
suppose, from the seriousness with which if was brought
forward, thaf if was a new as well as a most dangerous and
alarming invasion. And yet It so happens, fhat it Is not
new, and I think if cannot be. dangerous, for if was long
ago made iri a most peaceful manner, and if is still going on
without complaint or resistance. Does not the Marshal
every where sell under process ofthe federal courts with
out paying auction duties f If it had been proposed to
make bankrupt estates pay auction duties, iri order that
creditors' pockets might not be " filled" too full ; to render
this new discovered mine of wealth a source of revenue ;

280
to tax all who, ask the aid of this newly Invented, and
magical power, such a proposition would have beeh intelli
gible. , V , > •
Another rnpst formidable objection, of danger to the rights
and liberties of the citizen, seriously insisted upon, was
this-: — ^If a, commissioner, assignee, or other person acting
tinder a commission, should be sued for any act done in the
course, of his duty, and the suit should be decided in his fa
vour, that is, the plaintiff should fail in his suit, what then
is to happen ? Why doubtless we are prepared to expect
some dreadful catastrophe, of which the plaintiff, vvho has
only brought a false and vexatious suit. Is to be the un
happy victim — fifte and imprisonment at the very least. If
liot death or torftire. And -what Is if ? He is to pay
' double costs. This is a small matter to differ about,
and rather than gentlemen should be seriously disturbed, I
should be Inclined to make it only single costs. If fime and
the patience of the house would permit, it might he shown,
however, thaf even this dangerous provision Is not wholly
Indefensible. It has been in the collection law of 1799, for
more than twenty years, without doing any mischief. It
was introduced info the collection law of 1815, and there
remains uncensured ; and the embargo-act of 1809, made a
much larger stride towards this imaginary tyranny, for
that actually gave treble costs ! But, fhe truth is, that this
is the most moderate penalty that can be deVised, for fhe
security of persons acting under public authority against
unjust, and unfoun'ded, and vexatious suits for what they
do in fhe discharge of their duty, and as such, is frequently,
nay, habitually, resorted' to. >,
Of stilLless force, is fhe imputed invasion of state-rights,
with regard to gaolers, by making them liable for escapes.
We all of us know that the United States government have
no right to use the gaols of the sfafes, nor of course to
employ their gaolers without their consent. Where the^
use , of the gaols is permitted by the slates, the'gaole'rs

281 ,
• H', ' ¦ ,¦ ,¦ '¦ '
thereby become; the, gaolers of the. United States, and are,
and ought to be, universally liable for escapes. If these'
officers were, or could be, .subjected to such responsljjility
without the consent of fhe states, there might be ground
for complaint, and fo those who are excessively afraid of
encroachments by fh^ general government, there might be
ground alsp for apprehension. But if is always under a
law of a state (which they may pass or not at fheir'pleas-
ure,) that its prisons are used by the United States, and
then the gaolers are to be considered as only performing
their ordinary duty, with their ordinary compensation, and
under their ordinary accountability. It would be rather
below the dignify of grave legislation, to enact fljaf fhe
gaoler sjiould be at liberty to lef his. prisoner -go free-
Some person who did not perplex himself with deep specu
lations, might confound us by asking whit gaols were for.
None of the objections fo the bill, however, have struck
me with more surprise than those which seemed to spring
from a sijdden, newly awakened, buf unfortunately,' not
enduring sympathy for' the unfortunate bankrupt. They
gaye me, I will confess, a momentary pleasure, for the source
froin which they seethed to flow, was one fforn which we
much relied for aid. But the grateful fegjing was insfantb-
checked. If was impossible to avoid perceiving, that It
was the spirit pf opposition to the: bill, and thaf ajone,
which was at work, even when fhe better genius of -hu-
inanify was invoked to furnish^ ari argument What is it
we hear? Why the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. A.
Smyth,) tells u^ fhe certificate will not be -an effectual
security to the bankrupt, _/br it ma\j be qmstimied upon the
aground of fraud and concealment, and. set aside if fraud
and concealment are proved. With all our exertions we
have'not been able fo engage his sympathy on behalf of iAe
honest but unfortunate debtor, and here it bursts forth at
.once in fav o\i.v oi &\e fraitdident bankrupt. Let me ask
one question. What v^fe^uld have been thought of a, bill
*'¦ 36

282
without such a provision ? Would It not have been stig
matised', and justly stigmatised, as an open and Inviting
refuge for fraud? Perhaps It is meant only, thaf fhe
creditors may contrive to have the certificate cancelled
and annulled without a jusf cause, by false evidence or
from misunderstanding the case. No man can say fhat
this may not happen ; if is certainly within the range of
possibility. But if if should, and I believe if never has,
ought we for this remote, possible contingency, to- withhold
all legislation ? If some should be unjustly deprived of fhe
benefit of a certificate, others will obtain it, and so far. we
shall do good. Thesame motive should induce us fo repeal
all our penal laws, for if is not only true that it may happen,
but if actually has happened, (as thaf gentleman's legal
reading enables him full well fo know,) that fhe penalties
of fhe law, even fhe punishment of an infamous death, have
fallen upon innocent men.
In like manner it is objected, that the bill requires the
concurrence of two-thirds, in number and valuCj of the cre
ditors fo give a discharge, when according fo the views of
some, fhe commissioners alone ought to have the power,
whether fhe creditors consent or not. This would be to
dlsr^ard what fhe experience of every other nation recom
mends, for they all agree in requiring fhe consent of af least
a majority, of fhe creditors, before fhe bankrupt can be dis
charged. Still, though I incline strongly af present fo fhe
section as it stands, if the gentleman who jhas given us this
view, (Mr. A. Smyth) will propose an amendment to tbe
effect he has mentioned, meaning thereby fo promote fhe
passage of fhe law, I will do my best fo go along with him,
and do not doubt thaf I shall be able to overcome my diffi-*
culties, if he can get rid of his. I must, however, in pass
ing, inform him, that he is In an error when he says, fhe
Lord Chancellor in England has fhe power of compelling
the creditors fo sign the certificate. — Itis not so. His own
authority, if h© will consult if again, wiU satisfy him on

283
this point. And, without even that trouble, he may per
ceive, fhat there would be no sense in having the signature
of fhe creditors af all, if they could be compelled fo sign.
After so long detaining fhe House, it vvould be inexcusa
ble fo follow all these statements in detail, and yet, if they
were worth making, they are perhaps worth refuting.
When one who has been af great pains to inform himself,
and fo give information fo others,' has fallen into so many
mistakes. If is quite impossible fo say, that he may not have
led others into them: they are unimportant, individually,
but collectively, they make a startling host. He has tpld
us, that the old law was In operation buf eighteen months,
and cases remain undetermined after eighteen years. In
pursuing the antithesis, he has lost sight of fhe fact It
was in operation more than twice fhe time, that is fo say,
fov three years and eight months. Some hundreds of cases
were decided, as appears from official documents on the
fable, fo which I mean hereafter fo refer ; and It does not
appear thaf any remain undecided. Certainly, I admit it
to be highly probable, and believe if fo be fhe fact, fhat
some of the numerous concerns of these numerous estates
have not been closed, and some of them never will be
closed. Is tbat the fault of the law ? Just' as much as it
Is fhe fault of the people and the government, that claims
arising out of the war of fhe revolution are sfill, after forty
-years, unsettled and unsatisfied, and every day presented
to us for liquidation, or that some will inevitably remain
forever unrequited. It is owing fo fhe nature of the con
cerns themselves, and not fo any defect in fhe administra
tion of the law.
But all fhe controversies arising under the bill will go
Into fhe Federal courts for decision, and here Is a formida
ble fact for all who are opposed to the exercise of fhe Fede
ral judicial power. — There is an obvious answer. The ex
tent to which this may be carried, depends upon the plea
sure of Congress, who may make the law in this respect

284
exactly what tbey please. The present is not a fit time to
discuss the question, buf there wiU be full opportunity here
after, and -whatever the House may decide, will of course
he acquiesced in by fhe friends of the bilL Unle^ those
who make the objection, will show that it exists, otherwise
than by general denunciation, and apply their efforts dis
tinctly and specifically to remove it, they ought not to make
a clamour, calculated only to awaken unreasonable preju
dices upon a subject too little imderstood already. — V\ ell,
hut have we not even a weightier sin f o answer for ? The
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Smyth) who has pursued this
imfortunate bill with unsparing and unrelenting severity,
has stated that the law, if passed, would create an enor
mous body of commissioners, an army indeed, adding, in a
parenthesis, probably not less than three thousand ! And
the representation has gone forth among the people. They
will be forced to conclude, fhat we are going to bring upon
them something like an Esyptian plague, a flight of locusts
" to come up' upon fhe land, and eat every herb of tbe
land," and reduce them to famine — or perhaps they will
imagine, that they are to have domiciliary visits, or to
be waited tipon by a host of excise-men, with inkhorns at
tbeir button-holes, and authority to search and seize in tb^
pockets. Probahly, not less than three thousand commis-
siemers ! I should hke to know bow this terrific calculation
was made, for I am sure that such a number conld not find
employment, and if they should become dangerous, it must
be from mere idleness. Let us see. Under the former
law, there were not more than five commissioners in any
one stafe, in some there were fewer, and in some there
were none. It is not necessary to be very particular when
we talk about thousands — ^we will allow an average of five
for a state, which is more than twice as many as will be
wanted- That will give uis for the imion, one hundred and
twenty. Let lis bave one hundred commissioners, to exe
cute the law, and he is welcome to the balance of the three

285
thousand, fo dispose of as he thinkg fit. If that will not
satisfy him, there is a very simple. expedient fhat will make'
assurance sure. Lef him provide in fhe bill that fhe whole
number shall not exceed a certain limit ; let the President
be expressly forbidden to raise this host.
I will not dwell *upon what has been said of the penalties
denounced by this act, against persons convicted of perjury
or fraud, nor attempt fo settle precisely what term of im
prisonment, or what pecuniary fine ought, according to the
most scrupulous and exact calculation', fo be inflicted upon
conviction. In taking fhe maximum, however, of fen years
imprisonment, as fhe punishment fo which " four several
offences which a bankrupt may commit," are subjected,
and thence deducing Its oppressive character, fhe gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. A. Sinyth) has not done justice fo fhe
bill, for if is fo be " not less than twelve months nor ex
ceeding ten years," giving a discretion, within those limits,
to the court before whom fhe offender -may be tried. In
fhe contrast which he presented between the general law
for the punishment of perjury, which he says, Infficfs only
three years imprisonment, and the present bill, his state
ment was also short, for If wholly escaped his notice that
the pillory was in the former, and not in the latter. I con
fess myself unable to estimate how many dollars of fipe, or
how many days of imprisonment, may be an equivalent for
an hour In the pillory. Let the convicted culprits judge
of thaf, but let the community be spared the pain and dis
tress of being obliged to witness a public exposure, as In
consistent with sound policy, as it Is with all just feeling.
This bill has not fo answer for perpetuating a -mode of
punishment, which most of the states have abolished; nor
has if to answer for copying the bloody, penalties which are
the opprobrium of the bankrupt law of England, and one
great cause of its failure. The penalties are mild, and con
formable fo the enlightened , spirit and humane disposition
whichj pervade our country.

286
, Is it in conformity with the same spirit, some one will
now be ready to ask, that we allow doors fo be broken, in
pursuit of a fraudulent bankrupt or his property ? This
power has been severely censured by fhe gentleman from
Virginia, (Mr. Smyth,) and a gentleman from South Caro
lina, (Mr. Mitchell,) whose views were» in general much
larger than this objection implies. They represent if as
unreasonable, as cruel, in derogation of common right, con
trary to our. established notions, and even unconstitutional,
not to permit fhe fancied privilege of an outer door fo. stand
between a fraudulent bankrupt who is seeking to conceal
himself or- his property, and the jusf claims of his creditors :
And the latter gentleman has, even gone so far as to assert,
that the people of South Carolina would not submit fo its
exercise ; that It conld not be executed ; fhat they would
resist at every iiazard. He has not done justice to the
good people of South Carolina, who I beheve, are as little
disposed as any part of fhe United States,- fo resist fhe
execution of laws rightfully enacted. And for whom is it
thus assumed that they would array themselves in open
hostility against the laws ? For whose- rights is if, they are
supposed to feel such tender r^ard, as to assert and main
tain them at the extreme risk even of shedding blood ? It
Is for that man, who has been described as a degraded
being, one -without a home, who belongs to every country
and no cotmtry, who has no stake or interest in society.
Tbat is not all, it is to be for one, who to.4he imputed and
unmerited degradation thus ascribed to him, has added the
real degradation of fraud — fhe fraudulent bankrupt is to
summon insurrection to his aid, to put down the execution
of a just law — It is all a mistake. The state of Virginia
and the state of South Carolina, have adopted the English
Common Law, with some modifications. That law do^
give us tbe phrase, " that a man's house is his castle,"
indicating by the terms In which it is expressed ifs feudal
origin, and tbe proud spirit of the feudal lord, who, proba-

287
bly, relied upon something stronger than the law to pre
serve his " casfle" from violation. Buf as now understood,
it Is nothing more than this, that the outer door of the
house shall not be broken fo serve civil process upon fhe
owner or his goods. Whe're the outer door is open, fhe
inner doors are no security ; where fhe officer has once
obtained entrance only for his arm, he may go on even
with force — It must be process, too, which is merely civil ;
if if be buf tinctured with criminal character, doors, puter
or inner,* are not in fhe way — And what outer door, is it,
that has even this privilege? Of the house of fhe, person
against whom fhe process is directed. One man's house is
not permitted fo protect the person or fhe property of ario- *
ther. So very limited is the common law privilege, which
is the groimd work 'of this pompous phrase, fhat a man's
house is his casfle, and which has been made fhe theme of
so much declamation. It is not af all invaded, and if it
were, cannot we alter the common law ? Whenever bank
rupt laws or attachment laws have been made in the Uni
ted. States, it has been entirely disregarded, they have Con
tained and do now contain the , very provision, so much
inveighed against In this bill. The common lavv does not
permit process fo be served on Sunday, and yet the attach
ment law of Virginia, directs, that attachments shall be
issued and served on Sunday, which is obnoxious to exactly
the same remarks^Now, what is fhe provision of this bill ?
The most guarded, af the same time fhat it is the most in
dispensable fhat can be conceived. Upon probable cause,
supported by oath or affirmation, doors may be broken in
the day time, to reach fhe person or property of a fraudur
lent bankrupt, secreted within them. , Remember, fhe pro
cess is not civil, but criminal. The common law privilege,
does not even in theory extend -to. It Gentlemen who
make these objections, and especially' those who talk of re
sistance, must permit me f o fell them, fhat they do not know
fhe laws under which they live, at least they have not

. 388
considered their operation iri relation fo fhe subject In hand.
The people of South Carolina, and the people of Virginia,
too, not only submitted without resistance to exactly the
same clause in the former bankrupt law, without a mur
mur, but they are now, and for years have been hving
peaceably, and in the undisturbed enjoyment, as they have
believed, of all their rights, under laws of the United States,
giving precisely the same powers. The collection lawiof
1799, and that of 1815, bbfh'authorise collectors fo break
dwelUng houses — ^Where'is this sleeping lion of wfiich gen
tlemen 'profess to be so much afraid. He must have slept
profoundly, or been very good nafured, for they did riot
even know ofhis existence — It is the cage fheydisBke, and
not the lion. The truth is, fhat such powers are cautiona
ry or preventive, rather than active. The knovvledge of
their existence, saves the necessity of exercising them.
The cases are rare and flagrant in which thefr exertion Is
required, and then they are indispensible ; their omission
would be absolutely unjustifiable, and. would betray gross
ignorance, or unreasonable concession to speculative fe^s.
One single instance of successful security obtained for the
person or property of a fraudulent bankruptby means of
this fancied privilege'' of the dwelling house, would give oc
casion to more well founded complaint, than could arise
from the exercise of the power for a century. '
Of a like nature is fhe censure upoff fhe bill for giving
fhe authority to issue process, which will follow the person
from one part of the United States fo another,' as, for in
stance, to seize him at New Orleans, upon a bankruptcy
committed at Boston, and bring him back. And why not ?
An extreme case IngeMously put, may occasion a momen
tary pause. But is this any thing new 1 Do not gentlemen
know, that under a lav*' of 1793, subpoenas from fhe Fede
ral Courts will run from one state to another^ and that of
course attachments to compel obedience to them, or rather
fo punish disobedience, are etjiially unhmlfed in their ope-

289
raflf^H.. "And wjiom is It that this process, now complained
of,-,Is' to pursue andseize? The fraudulent bankrupt, '-who
is running away, to cheat his creditors, and who is entitled
to no compassion.,
I know, sir, fhat I have occupied much of fhe time of the
house In answering these objections, perhaps too much. I
will not disguise that, I feel relieved in having had the
opportunity of showing, that some of the most formidable
amongst them, urged as If in fact they existed agkirist this
.¦'bill, were in truth applicable only to the law of England;
and that others, however strongly Insisted upon, had no
foundation whatever, owing their support fo nothing but the
zeal and ingenuity of those who brought them forward, and
requiring only a little examination to expose their fallacy.
It is unfortunate, fhat the bill, froni its necessary length
and' variety of detail, has little chance of being carefully
studied and understood, and Is on thaf account pecuHarly
exposed fo fhe danger of misrepresentation. ' The friends
of the measure, could not but be concerned, that fhe state
ments which you have heard, should go forth fo the world
wllhoul contradiction ; and thaf those who framed the bill,
should be subjected fo fhe mortification of being supposed
¦ to have constructed It In so careless or unworkmanlike a
style, as fo defeat their own object, and disappoint the
anxious wishes of thpse who have asked our interposition.
This would, indeed, hea severe censure, but one they know
they do hot merit — fo'r these objections, however plausibly
stated, have all of them come from the declared enemies of
a bankrupt laio under any modification luhatever, who.would
just as readily vote for the present hili,j(tsfor any other thai
could be devised to accomplish the sa/i^i. end. If the bill
should become a law. It will vindicate "ifself. Its first hu
mane and effective operation will signally refute the' argu
ments and objections brought against it here and elsewhere.
But If If shpuld be rejected, and not permitted to speak for
ifself, it is much fobe feat-ed fhat its true character would
37

290
not be generally understood, nor, consequently, the motives
of those who have given it their support The house will
therefore pardon me for having so long detained them upon
this part of the case.
Before I proceed to the more immediate examination of
the constitutional question which has been raised, in order
that the discussion of It may be free from the embarrass
ment of any extrinsic considerations whatever, fhe com
mittee will permit me fo say something of retrospective
laws, a topic which has been much insisted upon by fhe
opponents of fhe bill, e^nd especially by fhe speaker, (Mr.
Barbour,) but I think entirely inisunderstood. I fully agree
with him, and with fhe learned and eminent judge whom
he quoted (Chancellor Kent) fhat the principles of sound
legislation are opposed fo retrospective laws, as essentially
unjust, and inconsistent with all our notions of good govern
ment But what are retrospective laws.?.. Here if is that
our opponents have erred, by assuming what has not been
proved, and what I venture fo affirm cannot be proved,
thaf such a bill as thaf before you Is justly obnoxious to the
censure of being retrospective, 'because it suspends, or if
you please, urider certain circumstances, fakes aWay fhe
remedy for antecedent debts discharging the future effects,
as well as the person. A retrospective law, is a law that
impairs or affects the vested rights of individuals. Every
man has a vested right in his property ; a law would be
retrospective and unjust, fhat should take the property of
A, or any part or portion of if, and give it fo B. A man
has a vested right in his contracts. Interpreted according fo
the laws in being af fhe time and place where they were
made; and so far the argument Is correct, that contracts
are property, or fo speak with greater precision, are upon
the same footing in point of inviolable security. A law that
should vary existing contracts, as to their interpretation or
meaning and true effect, would be retrospective and grpssly
unjust — It is also a great political truth, that every citizen

291
of a well constituted community, has a general right to the
benefit of such reiiiedies, to enforce fhe performarice of con
tracts, as a jusf attention to fhe great interests of society
will permit, arid the interests and rights of others do not
forbid. This is the equivalent he receives for the surren
der of his ovvn power, that he shall have the aid of fhe
power of society, to the extent and'ln the manner which
, the legislative authority shall deem fit and proper. But
has a citizen, of this or any other country, a Vested right In
any particular remedy, so that If can never, as to him, be
either taken away or altered? If the creditor has this
right, so has the debtor ; and then the absurd consequence
would follow, thaf the remedies provided by law, and exist
ing at fhe time fhe contract was entered Into, could never
as to the parties to that contract, be either enlarged or
diminished. If ariy part of fhe property of the debtor was,
by law, exempted from liability, as for instance his land, it
eould never be subjected to execution. If his person was
not by law subject fo imprisonment, if could not be made
so. On the other side. If would follow that nothing could
be withdrawn from execution. You could not, under fhe
Influence of any motive,- however urgent, exempt the bed
upon which a man's family repose, the cow which gives
nourishment fo his children, the tools of a mechanic which
enable him to provide for himself and his family, without
the aid of public relief. To such extravagant lengths does
this doctrine lead ! It Is In fhe face of every day's experi
ence. Legislation Is constantly employed In modifying the
remedies, sometimes enlarging and sometimes diminishing,
often giving fhe creditor more power over his debtor, seldom
doing any thing for the laffer.
The remedy is no part of the contract The remedy
depends both upon time and place, while fhe interpreta
tion of fhe contract, and ifs legal validity, are uniform and
permanent, wherever and at whatever time It may come
in question. When one man gives another a promissory

292
note, is if any part of the contract, that he shall have the
power to put the debtor in gaol if the note be unpaid, or
shall have an immediate suit, or an immediate judgment 1
This depends upon fhe will of fhe legislative authority at
the fime and place, where he may endeavour to enforce
the performance. But the validity of the contract. Its
interpretation and meaning, are governed conclusively and
perpetually, among all civilized communities, by the law of
the time and place where the contract was entered into.
If a contract be made in the stafe of N^ew York, where
the interest of money is seven per cent, if is a part of the
contract to pay seven per cent, interest — and whether it
be put in suit in New York or in Pennsylvania, that will be
its construction. If the interest of money at the tirae of
entering into the contract were six per cent., no subsequent
reduction would affect or alter if. So, if if be fo pay money
af a certain time, it will no where be considered eis pay
able immediately ; and if if be to pay at oiice, no legisla
tive power would make it payable at a distant day. Thus,
tbe contract is every where and at all times the same.
But the remedy depends upon the law of the forum,
where if is put in suit, al the time when if is put in suit So
entirely is this thecase, fhat even the statute of limitations of
the place where fhe contract is sought to be enforced, is the
the one which is to be appUed to the contract, and not the
hmitation established by the law of fhe place where made.
And as it is competent to fhe legislative power, from time
to time, according fo fhe exigency of circumstances, to vary
the remedies which individuals shall have against each
other, or to define fhe manner In which they shall be per
mitted to employ the power of society, to enforce their
private rights — so is it competent, and even Indispenslbly
necessary, that the legislature of a well constituted com
munity sbould have authority to declare that under certain
circumstances, where fhe pubhc good, and a due regard for
the interests of all require it, the remedy shall entirely

293
cease, and fhe creditor be no longer at liberty to use the
power of society to enforce his claims — to provide that the
effects shall be discharged, as well as the person. The his
tory of the world had proved its necessity — the insurrec
tions and secessions at Rome, had .shown, thaf au unmiti
gated execution of severe laws between debtor and creditor,
was a mode of oppression, as unjust and dangerous as any
other whatever. It had produced convulsions, and might
do so again. The experience of fhe world, including fhe
states which compose tbis union,, had established fhe law
fulness of its exercise. And no plan of government would
be complete, or safe, or just, wjthout it.
Not that the legislative authority can release a man from
fhe moral or conscientious obligation fo fulfil his contract —
this transcends all human power. The bill on the fable
does not attempt fo do so — if does no more than declare
when in the case of an insolvent debtor, who by a summa
ry remedy has been compelled fo surrender all his prop
erty for payment of his debts, a certain proportion of his
creditors concurring, he shall no longer be subject to the
process of the law, buf be relieved, effectually and finally
from the oppressive weight of the power of society wielded
by the creditor. His ¦ duty ifi conscience remains, as it
does In many cases where from reason of policy, contracts
are prohibited and declared void. In fhe instance of usury
the laws of England tnake the contracts void, and courts of
law vvill not enforce them. Yet, if fhe debtor is obliged fo
go info a court of equity for relief, he can only obtain it
upon fhe terms of fulfilling his conscientious obligation, that
is, of paying the principal and legal interest
A retrospective law, which Is obnoxious fo the objection,
is a law that operates upon the vested right in fhe contract
— a law fhat alters the remedy, is in no sense a retrospec
tive law ; it operates upon no existing right, buf is the
exercise of a power which belongs fo society for the com
mon good, and subject fo which all contracts and dealings

294
take place — the power, to be used with sound discretion,
of providing the remedies of individuals against each other.
Any other exposition of it would be impossible.
It might w^ith equal truth, -and vvith as much force, be
contended, that imprisonment for debt could not be abol
ished as to antecedent contracts. Imprisonment is a mode
of compelling payment and sometimes a very important
one. A man may acquire property after his discharge
under fhe insolvent law, and hold If In such a way, that it
cannot be reached by process of execution. To relieve
him from liability fo imprisonment does certainly in such a
case impair fhe means of enforcing fhe payment ofhis debt
Yet who ever heard that such a law could be objected fo
as retrospective ? So if fhe policy of society required, that
a portion ' of fhe property of a debtor should be exempted
from execution, as some, liftle household furniture, or his
tools of trade — There would be no end to the embarrass
ment and gross injustice of such a doctrine. If would be a
sort of formal and pharisaical morality, without substance,
and without any real respect for the duties and rights of
humanity; or the peace and safety of the community.
The truth unquestionably is, fhat if is Impossible fo con
struct a bankrupt or an insolvent law, that shall not ope
rate upon antecedent debts, as has already been shown.
The power to make a bankrupt law, must therefore
necessarily imply the power fo give it such effect — ^And If
it could be so constructed, there is no good reason why It
should be ; for as to the relief It Is to afford. If can no
where be better applied than to those who actually stand
in need of it af the present moment. Accordingly the
Supreme Court of the United States, in their examination
of tbe powers of the states, have made no such distinction,
as that which has been here contended for.
'The question, therefore, simply Is, whether the constitu
tion of the United States gives us the power to make a
bankrupt law, which will discharge the eflPects as well as

295
the person of the debtor from liability. If If does, there Is
no pretence for limiting it to mere prospective operation ;
for all rights of individuals are as much subject to this great
fundamental law, and the provisions it contains, as they are
to any particular law thaf may be passed in pursuance of
those powers ; as much subject fo if, as if it had contained
a bankrupt law af length.
Does the constitution permit us fo pass such a lavy? Af
a very early stage of the discussion, I was interrupfed when
addressing fo the house, some general views in support of
the bill, with a request to answer this supposed constitu
tional objection before if had been distinctly made. That
was not the fit fime ; if an answer by anticipation had been
then attempted, it would have been without the means of
knowing what fhe precise nature of this new objection was,
for 1 confess that I should not have been able to understand
It as it has since been stated. There might have been
some danger, too, of weakening the ample refutation it has
since received. It has been triumphantly overthrown by
fhe advocates of the bill; they have had fhe aid, and con-
" currence too, of some of its opponents. One gentleman
from South Carolina, (Mr. Lowndes,) met if with a most
satisfactory argument, proving conclusively thaf fhe prin
ciple of construction upon which it is founded, is vastly more
dangerous than the bill can possibly be — another (Mr.
Mitchell) commenced his speech by expressly repudiating
if — others have passed if by without notice; and It is
doubtful whether af this moment, if is entertained by any
member of fhe house, buf fhe three gentlemen from
Virginia. ''
Even these gentlemen do riot agree among themselves.
There are more than shades of difference between them.
I understood one of thfem (Mr. Archer) fo argue, that even
if the constitution gave fhe power expressly (as If assuredly
does) It would nevertheless .be immoral fo discharge fhe
bankrupt from liability, and therefore immoral to exercise

296
the power. It would be void, for that Is the legitimate con
clusion of the argument. Yet he admitted thaf a discharge
for a time, with a power in fhe judge fo declare the bank
rupt hable, when he should acquire more property than
was necessary fo Tnalnfain his family, might be fit and
proper. Something like that is fhe law of Hamburg. It
seems to me fo concede the whole grouud.
Another of these gentlemen (Mr. Barbour) seemed to
argue fhat such an act of legislation transcended the right
ful power of society — was immoral and unjust Once a
debt, always a debt, is fhe maxim ; and properly under
stood it is undoubtedly true, buf in fhe sense in which it Is
here employed, it is as undoubtedly without foundation.
I must here protest against mounting higher than the
constitution, to discuss speculative doctrines in morals, in
order fo get rid of the plain provisions of fhat instrument,
so clearly expressed as to seem fo render doubt impossible.
All beyond, must be opinion — Whose opinion, what stand
ard shall we adopt. If we once abandon fhe great constitu
tional guide, and set up theoretical reasonings fo confound
Ifs obvious practical precepts? What writer shall we re
sort fo for instruction.? Sir, we are not here to pursue
abstractions, fo follow out politico-moral discussions, to
debate about metaphysical entities or non-entities, with
scholastic subtlety — to chase the horizon, which we can
never reach ; or to ascend above the walks and business of
men into fhe regions of airy speculation. Our duty, under
the constifufipn, is with man and his nature, gross and
chequered as they are ; a being (like ourselves) with
senses, affections, passions and appetites — subject to error,
bom wth infirmities, scarcely master of himself, and not at
all fhe master of events — liable fo misfortunes, which pru
dence can neither guard against nor prevent — who af fhe
moment when he seems to be putting down his foot on firm
ground, may be sinking Into a quicksand, or coming within
the circle of a whirlpool from whicb he cannot extricate

297
himself We must quit the regions of speculation, and
efherial beings, and descend in- our legislation, to fhe hum
ble ground of common sense, applied fo creatures of earthly
nfbuld, for with such at last we shall find we have fo deal.
When men are brought together in society, it is not only
lavyful, but It is deemed useful and horiourable that they
should engage actively and zealously in the pursuit of those
things which are the ordinary objects of desire — wealth,
fame, disfinction of every sort, fairly acquired. These
feelings are quickened by continual excitement. The ob
jects of desire are brought nearer, they are enhanced in
Value by the very protection afforded to them, the motives
for pursuing them are multiplied, and, af fhe same fime,
rendered more powerful — and while the excitements are
thus increased, fhe race more eager, fhe competitors more
numerous, the stimulus more continual, and powerful. —
What Is If, according to this new theory of morals, that
society, instituted for the happiness of all, undertakes to
'do? Tp lend its whole power to oppress fhe unfortunate ;
to ,add ifs whole force fo the overpowering- weight of
calamity ; to put its foot, as if were, upon the neck of those
who have fallen in the race, and keep them for ever in the
dust Yes; such things have happened in the history of
the world, The body of the debtpr has been given to the
creditor ; fhe debtor and his family have been condemned
to slavery ; the debtor to interminable imprlsonmenfi The
common law had it for a maxim, " that he who cannot pay
in his purse, must pay in his person."
But these are the stories of dark and barbarous ages ;
the light of civilization has chased them away, and it is
now tlie familiar judgment of mankind, fhat this great
moral achievement Is not only the fruit of civilization, but
marks decisi veiy; and with unerring truth, the stage at
which any nation may be considered to have arrived in
her progress.
And what says the history of mankind ? Is there any
38

298
civilized nation, or weis there at the adoption of the consti
tution, any civilized nation, any society of Christians — for
Christianity baS every vvhere been attended by civilization
-^among whom the power did not exist, and upon fit occa
sions Was not exercised, of regulating the relation of debtor
and creditor, and fixing fhe terms upon which fhe aid of
the whole strength of society shall be afforded to the latter,
and fhe point at which if shall be withheld ? Name the
nation In which a doubt ever existed. Does any writer on
public law, or any writer on ethics, however rigid, insist
upon such a doctrine? The right of eminent domain, as
some authors ferm if, or the right of transcendental propriety,
as it is called by Puffendorf, which has been alluded to in
the debate, has no relation to fhe matter in hand. That
is an inherent right of society, however constituted, a
conservative power essential fo Ifs existence, and not de
rived from grant. It is a power of self preservation, and
means nothing more than thaf fhe community has a right,
in certain exigencies, to take or fo sacrifice the property of
individuals, for the safety and. advantage of the whole,
which is attended with the correspondent obligation to make
compensation ouf of the common stock, if that can be done.
But what has this fo do with the question, whether we are
bound to permit one of our citizens forever to follow ano
ther, who has been unfortunate and surrendered all his
property, with fhe process of fhe law, exercising over him
a violent dominion of ferror, driving him to idleness and
despair, or obliging him to take shelter in fraud, without
even the probability of obtaining any thing by it but the
gratification of evil passions ?
There Is, indeed, one view which arises out of this sugges
tion, where a close and decisive analogy will be found. It is
EIS much the duty of government to protect the property of
Its citizens against foreign force, as it is to give them reme
dies against each other. It Is even a more interesting duty
to the citizen . Does It follow, or has it ever been conceived ,

299
that government is In every instance bound to fulfil this
duty by an appeal fo arms vvhere justice is withheld — fo
involve the nation iri all the. calamities of war, wherever
the rights pf property of an Individual have been invaded?
If is a matter af high discretion, and so is fhe regulation of
the domestic remedy.
But I repeat. Is there any nation fhat has doubted, or
any writer who has denied the morality of the power?
The .expediency of ifs exercise, under given circumstances.
Is quite a difforent question. You. have already had the
example of a large portion of the civilized world, England,
Scotland, Ireland, Holland, France, Spain : and let me add
Hamburg. You have had the examples of some of the
states of this union, Rhode Island, Nevy York, Pennsylvania,
Maryland — one of them, too, (Pennsylvaniti) having a good
bankruptlaw in fbrce af fhe very place where the conven
tion was sifting. ;
This may all be a mistake ; a nevv discovery may have
been made. And, what is if *? Why if is, in substance,
that fo makej-such a law transcends the power of society —
and why ? Because it is against good morals and contrary
to the dictates of justice. Such is fhe sum of fhe argument,
fairly stated. It has an Imposing appearance, but it will
be found to be an argument in a circle,' and fhe error of
those who wield it vyith so much apparent triumph to con
sist, in not going far enough back for their premises— In
assuming that, which is not and cannot be established.
-What is the meaning of fhe positiori, upon which this
whole assumption of immorality stands ? Is it that no politi
cal community can rightfully possess fhe power ? It must
be, or it is nothing. For if it mean only that it is unlawful
and Immoral to exercise the power, because it has not been
conferred, then it is a mere truism, of exactly fhe same
Import, as if one should tell us that we could not rightfully
exercise a power which fhe constitution denies to us.
The position then must be, that no political community

300
can possess tbe power, which may be confidently pro
nounced to be untenable, and which every reflecting man
who will be af the trouble to examine it will concur ip
pronouncing fo be so. The very reverse Is true — no well
constituted political community can be without It, and It
would be a disgrace fo fhe constitution, if it did not contain
a provision, so just, so humane, so indispensable, that its
omission would argue a blind and obstinate disregard of
all the most obvious lessons of experience.
We are led here into an examination of rather an
abstract kind, and almost painful, as it always is to enter
into researches which have been long since practically
made, and resulted iii the establishment of certain familiar
truths open fo every one, and commonly received as first
principles. Our government is founded upon contract, not impKed,
but express, realizing what was once thought to be an idle
vision, a mere creature of fhe imagination. AH power is
in the people, and they have parted with as much of it by
the constitution as they thought proper to give, retaining
the rest, and retaining too fhe power fo recall or alter what
they have granted. The power of a government, thus
.constituted, embraces all which those who formed it could
rightfully give, and have chosen to confer, or. If you please,
to relinquish. There are rights whicb are in the strict
est sense Inalienable, and which individuals- cannot part
¦with ; such is the right of self-preservation. The declara
tion of Independance enumerates them, " hfe, hberty, and
the pursuit of happiness." I am not going to enter into
the contested question, whence society derives the right to
take away life for crime. In retum for what is given up,
individuals obtain a most substantial benefit ; the protect
ing power of the whole is extended to them, to secure life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as well as property.
Tbe most prosperous have the largest share of this protec
tion, for they have most to be secured. Now, I will ask

301
whether any one can seriously mainfain for an instant, that
individuals have no right to give up to society, the whole
regulation and control of fhe relation of debtor and credi
tor ? Cannot a man release his own debt ; and if he may,
cannot he permit if to be done by others ? Is there any
thing immoral or unjust in doing so ? Is the right of proper
ty an Inahenable right ? I will nof ask whether it does not
owe its very existence to society ? Surely all the power
over It might be thus transferred, every modification of it,
even the ' fruits of a man's own acquisition. There are
societies in. which property is in common. Is If immoral or
unjust ? .It may be impolitic or unwise.
Suppose, theri, it should be agreed, in the social compact,
that the creditor shall be aided fo enforce fhe performance
of contracts, but that the governing authprity shall decide
when and fo what extent Is this Immoral or unjust ? On
the contrary, is if not proved by all experience to be in
dispenslbly necessary. .Or, suppose it to be agreed that
this may be dotie by laws that shall operate on existing as
well as on future contracts ? Is that immoral Or unjust ? It
Is salutary and necessary, and what any people would
adopt, and what I think those who have made fhe objection,
would, if called upon to make a frame -of government,
themselves adopt without hesitation. It is a power neces
sary for the purposes of humanity and justice. It Is a
precaution necessary for fhe peace and safety, and well
being of fhe community ; even for the creditor himself,
vvhose interests are involved Iri the common fate and are
In danger from whatever threatens the p.ublic tranquility.
If such a power be given by the fundamental law of soci
ety, by the consflfufion — is If immoral or unjust fo exercise
if? Hitherto we have only been looking at the right and
interests of creditors, forgetting thaf the unfortunate debtor
is also a citizen ; that he has rights, which we are bound
to consider and respect, Indeed the whole argument
against the bill; seems to have heen directed hy an over

302
jealous concern about creditors, as if the constitution had
been made for them alone, and the debtor had no part or
lot in fhe matter. It might be sufficient to say, that if the
authority exist, every contract Is of course subject fo its
exercise. Buf thaf may perhaps be thought too technical
— let us take a more practical view of the matter. " The
interesfs'of debtor and creditor," says fhe Speaker, "are
directly opposed, what you do for one, must be at fhe ex
pense of the other, and that is not just" In entering into
this social compact, or forming constitutions of government,
men are to be regarded as equally capable of becoming
debtors or creditors, they may equally expect that they or
their descendants will be fortunate or unfortunate, and in
making fhe concessions by which government is empower
ed to enforce the demands of justice, they are therefore
equally concerned in providing for these contingencies.
Their interests are, at thaf fime, not adverse, buf fhe same.
In the course of fime, vvhat was common to all, is displaced
by individual circumstances, vvhat was foreseen and intended
to be provided for, actually happens ; one pursues an oc
cupation of risk, the other has fhe more stable dependence
of a profession or farm; one is fortunate, another unfortu
nate ; one is rich, fhe other poor : one a debtor, fhe other
a creditor. Their interests become adverse; their feelings
opposed, and then if is that fhe umpire of fhe law inter
poses, clothed with fhe authority they have themselves
conferred, while they could regard the matter with impar
tiality. And the umpire is bound by the true spirit of the
compact to execute it in this, as in every other provision.
If is a great mistake fo suppose, fhat the creditor, or fhe
debtor either, who comes under such a constitution, fo ask
you to execute fhe authority conferred, seelis from you a
dispensation of mercy or charity. If is justice he demands.
It Is his right, and we are not warranted in repulsing him
from the door, felling him " begone, we have no charity to
bestow," All are tp be protected according to their exi-

303
gencies, not one at ^ the expense of another — neither is It
any answer, to say' (as has been said) " we do nof want if ;"
we might give fhe same reply fo every class of petitioners
who come for aid or relief If fhe savage foe were on our
borders, and fhe inhabitants, threatened with cruel death,
were obliged to abandon their lands and houses, we might
say, " what is that "fo us, we have no lands fhere, we have
no fear of fhe enemy, we do nof hear fhe frightful sound of
the war-whoop, nor see the gleam of the tomahawk." But
what would be thought of such an answer ? If fhere be a
class of men whose pursuits and relations are such that a
peculiar legislation is necessary-^and such there is as the
geritleman from South Carolina, (Mr, Lowndes,) has most
clearly established, it is for fhenri that this power was in
troduced info fhe consflfufion, they have a right to ask, and
loe are hound io gfant its' -benefit. The merchants of the
United States, aye even the unfortunate insolvent ones, do
not come as beggars to fhe door, and solicit if as a favor,
they demand if as a right You have scrupulously, and
to the letter, carried into effect all fhe powers for fhe secu
rity of property, and for enforcing claims. You have sur
rounded fhe prosperous .with safeguards, as if was right you
should do. For citizens of different states, and even for
the foreign creditor you have established impartial tribu
nals, above the reach of local prejudice. You give them
fhe most powerful- process of the law, and you back it
with all the force of fhe community fo compel obedience.
They rest in peace, and fhe law watches over them and
their possessions, a sleepless and untiring sentinel. All
this is right. But here stands one solitary provision for
the unfortunate, and only orie; one stipulation of the
social compact, for the case of extreme and unmerited dis-.
tress ; one single security for fhe inalienable right " of lib
erty and the pursuit of happiness," and fhat alone re
mains without effect, sacrificedv to imaginary notions of
abstract justice.

304
Can, it be according to the theory of such a government,
or is it jusf, that the power should forever remain dormant?
Is it fhe r^ht'of every creditor, not only to be thus aided
to enforce his .demands fo fhe extent of all the means his
debtor possesses, buf also to use forever the whole power
of the community to oppress the unfortunate, to hang over
him In terror, to palsy his efforts, and to break his heart?
The debtor, as well as the creditor, is a member of society,
bound to contribute fo mainfain its peace, and defend it
from the assaults of external force, and even more likely
to be obhged to do so in person, because he cannot pur-
chEise exemption. He helps by what strength he has, to
uphold the institutions upon which the security of all de
pends. And what is this imaginary demand of justice?
Not worth estimating. If all the insolvent debtors in the
United States were enumerated, and their debts, scheduled,
I ask, gentlemen, to turn this calculation In their minds, and
tell me how much the chance of obtaining payment by
coercion of law is worth. Is if fhe thousandth part of a
dollar ? And to interfere with this, is called impairing the
obligation of contracts, and denounced as immoral and un
just Sir, by the hill on your fable, fhe creditor gets more
than he can lose. He gets the chance of his debtor he-
coming again an industrious man, and acquiring the means
of paying his debts. I am .not indulging in a mere dream ;
I have an instance at hand. There is at this moment within
the sound of my voice, a member of this House, who was
a certificated bankrupt under the act of 1800. Relieved
by that much calumniated law, he was enabled by his in
dustry to acquire fhe means of paying his debts — to bis
honor be it told, he has fully paid them, and now enjoys as
he deserves the highest confidence of society. Let one in
stance of a similar occurrence be shown in the case of an
insolvent law, and I will then produce another.
Creditors, as a body, therefore, are evidently gainers by
such a law. They have a prompt and efficacious remedy.

,305
to secure to them the most equitable disposition of the
debtors' effects, and they have not a worse, 'but it may be
fairly asserted they haye a better prospect of obtaining fM^
residue affer a discharge than they had before. Society Is
a very great gainer, by the restoration of a useful citizen
to the pursuits of wholesome industry. The honest debtor,
who has some interest in fhe social compact, is also a gainer.
And can It be, Is It possible, I beg to repeat, where the in
teresfs and wishes of fhe larger portion of creditors, not
only in general, Buf In any given case, concur with the In
terests, of society and the Interests of the debtor, fhat the
demands of morality and justice do still require, fhat they
should all give way tP fh^ mere will of a minority, or even
of a single creditor ? Twp thirds unite — it is insufficient
Unless all agree, there is fo be no relief. What is this, but
to surrender to every creditor ; whatever may he his cha
racter, rapacious, cruel or unfe.eling ; whatever may be his
feelings, morbid, violent,. and implacable; even though his
passions may be excited by imaginary wrong; when he Is
in the worst coridition possible fp form a judgment (and
such there may be in every, case,) — ^what is if, I say, but
to surrender fo him, ,in, his own case, fhe authority which
society af Ifs formation, contracted to fexercise with impar
tiality at least, if .not with somethlhg of parental tender
ness and humanity ?
To such extravagant lengths do these new refinements
carry us 1 This Is the morality which one gentleman prized
ao highly, thaf he said he would rather wifriess fhe destruc
tion of a whole generation of men, than fhe passage of fhe
bill on your table, and another, that he would rather see a
torch put to our navy, and our merchant ships the food of
worms ! Neither of them meant what he said. It was only
a violerif figure. The destruction of a generation of men,
is too awful for confemplafioh, too large for our conception.
And as to our navy, " the bit of striped bunting," thaf has
floated In triumph over the heads of our gallant country-
39

306
men, the stars that lighted them to victory, are as much
.above all price, as the miserable right to torment a ruined
IP^cbant with fhe process of fhe law, Is beneath all rea
sonable estimate.
How, then, can If be said fhat it transcends the power of
society, to possess such an authority as Is now contended
for ? It surrenders no inalienable rights. It Is a fit, an use
ful and a necessary authority, without which no civilized
society would be deemed to be well constituted — without
which, no well constituted civilized society has existed, and
which no one heretofore ever dreamt could he dispensed
with. The writers of the " Federalist" in a single sentence
express their sense of ifs necessity on account of its " infi-
mate connexion with commerce."
But we are told by the Speaker (Mr. Barbour) it is wrong
to give the rehef proposed, because It puts charity to the
debtor, which is a duty of imperfect obligation, above jus
tice to the creditor, 'which is a duty of perfect obligation.
I would not stop to notice this argument, if it had not been
urged on a former discussion some years ago, and from its
being repeated now, we may suppose thaf in his own esti
mation af leEist it has some weight. I need hot say, that
the rights of the debtor are as much a matter of strict jus
tice as those of the creditor ; they are founded as strongly
in the institutions of society, and as much a part of the social
compact. That would he a sufficient answer. — Neither Is
it necessary to detain the House hy inquiring what it is that
makes the distinction between duties of perfect, and duties
of Imperfect obligation. We may perplex ourselves and
others, but can do no good by pursuing these distant ele
mentary researches. The only distinction, perhaps, that
can at last be relied upon, on this contested point. Is, that
what the law enjoins, is a duty of perfect obligation, and
what it does not, is Imperfect, which would also be a suffi
cient answer. — Let the aigument stand, however, and ifs
premises be taken for granted, what Is it worth ? The right

307 ¦ [[ f"- ..,._ <1
of property Is of the perfect kind — giving alms to
is Imperfect — and yet -the poor laws compel us to"?
bute from our means, to the relief and support of the p
The policy of such provisions has of late been ve.ry much
questioned, but no one has ever doubted their justice, or
the rightful power of the legislature to establish them.
But fo return from this excursion into distant regions,
not very profitable, and -I fear extremely tedious, let us
come to fhe constitution of the United States, where we
shall at last be upon tangible and solid ground. Taking it
fo'r granted, as we must do, that fhe people of the United
States, in framing their fiindaniental law of gpvernment,
their social compact, were competent to give to congress
the power to make a bankrupt law, fo operate to the ex
tent contemplated by the bill, have they given fhat power?
It is nof fo be denied, that before the adoption bf the
constitution, the states Individually possessed the power ;
or, that many of them exercised it, and werp in the actual
exercise of it at fhe very time. If Is now certain that the
sfafes surrendered fhe power, and as to them it was extin
guished. The argument is that Ifwas nof given fo the
United States, and therefore that it was extinguished alto
gether, and finally. ¦ ,
Here let us pause — ^a deviation so extraordinary from fhe
track of all civilized communities, a departure from' the
course followed and approved bythe states who formed the
confederation, the voluntary destruction of a p6wer which
the commentators on fhe constitution declared to be " inti
mately connected with commerce," could not have hap
pened without strong reasons, and we should expect to see
it signalized by something emphatic and plain fo every ap
prehension, Is fhere any ]thirig bf the kind? Not at all;
we must go in quest of it among the schoolmen and the
casuists, and instead of looking into the constitution we are
to explore, the original grounds of right and .Wrong.
The constitution gives us the power, in plain, strong, and

308
comprehensive 'terms, without limifation or exception, (save
that they are to be uniform throughout the tmion,) embrac-
w^ all laws " upon the subject of bankruptcy," In as full a
sense as those terms were understood at the tirne by any
state or nation. If we could In any way persuade ourselves
to be at a loss for their construction, we need ooly look to
the fact, that in the very city where the convention were
sitting, there was then in operation a IeIw " upon fhe sub
ject of bankruptcy," which discharged fhe effects as well as
the person of the bankrupt The power, generally given.
Includes every variety of Its^exercise. It must necessarily
include that which is essential fo its salutary exertion ; and
it has been already demonstrated, by arguments which
need not now be repeated, that fhe discharge of fhe debtor
is not onlyljust and right in ifself, but is indispensable to
the efficacy of the law in favour of the creditors. The gen
tleman froYn South Carolina, (Mr. Lowndes) has conceded
this. Experience has confirmed it. All mankind would
join in condemning a law that would strip the unfortunate
man of all his means by a summary process, and leave him
without the hope of relief; and every unfortunate man,
thus circumstanced, would be strongly tempted, fo keep
back, by fraudulent concealment, some part of his property.
• There must be mutuality even here.
But this will " Impair the obligation of contracts," If Is
said, and the constitution of the United States has itself
denounced thaf as immoral, by prohibiting it fo the states —
which is in effect fo argue, fhat because there is ari express
denial of the power fo fhe states, therefore there Is an im
plied one to the union, though the power is expressly given
to congress. It is quite certain, that in a moral point of
viewj a bankrupt law does not impair fhe obligation of con
tracts — no human legislation can absolve fhe conscience,
as has already been remarked. The uniform current of
decision is, that a discharge under the bankrupt law, leaves
the debt in force upon the conscience and honour of the

309
debtor, so as to be a sufficient foundation for a new pro
mise. It takes away fhe remedy, which I admit mlghf.be
of great importance. The error lies In assuming, that the
prohibition ' to fhe states Is constitutional evidence pf the
immorality of the power. It is no^ so^it is nof a moral,
buf a political restraint, intended fo preserve the harmony
of fhe union, by denying fo the states powers which ought
to be exercised uniformly, and not according to the local
interests or wishes of each — vvhlqh were therefore expressly
given to fhe union, and for fhat very reason not necessary
to be retained by the states. Upon this ground, the deci
sion of the Supreme Court pf fhe United States is fully' vin
dicated. The clause in question might be interpreted in
one of two ways; the moral interpretation (the. narrowest)
would be, that such a law was nof within the prohibition ;
the political interpretation, vvould be more extensive, look
ing to the great objects intended fo be secured." In what
sense, were the Supreme Court to understand it, fhe most
limited, which would leave an opening for all fhe evils
intended fobe provided against, or the most general, which
would effectually guard against them all, and could do no
injury, because congress still possessed the power t They
expounded the clause in ifs fair sense, according fo its intent
asa political restraint. In a political instrument
To argue that a power Is denied to the union, because it
Is denied fo the sfafes. Is to reverse all the rules of just
reasoning,^ and would strip congress of some of the most
confessedly useful and necessary powers. It would be
much more like the ordinary rule of construction to say,
fhat what is prohibited to the sf cites, and not prohibited to
congress, was not Intended to be. prohibited; and in th^ in-
sfarice now under consideration, the omission was nof acci
dental, but manifestly 'deliberate and by design. "No state
shall pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or /aw;
impairing, ihe obligation of contracts." Congress shall pass
" no bill of attain&er or ex post facto lavv." It is Impossible

310
for any one to believe, that these two prohibitions were
intended to mean the same thing, or that an entire clause,
of great significance, was dropped by neglect or inadvert
ence from the latter.
It could not be ; for congress have the power to impair
the obligation of contracts, and those who framed the con
stitution, knew they must have it Be not alarmed ; 1 do
not contend for any thing so extravagant as that congress
may legislate directly upon contracts, to impair their obli
gation, and for no olher purpose. But here are certain
great powers expressly given, for the public benefit, which
In their exercise, nof only may, hut must have that eflfect,
and all that is contended, Is, that congress are nol on thaf
account restrained from exercising fhe powers granted.
Take the power fo declare war, for example. There may
be a contract of partnership between a person residing in
the United States, and a person in England, to continue for
a number of years — fhe two countries being at peace when
the partnership is entered into. War is declared : what is
the effect? The contract is dissolved, not only as to tbe
partners, but as to all other persons. That was the case of
Griswold vs. Waddington. Take a case of two citizens,
resident in fhe United States. One contracts to load, and
the other to carry a cargo from the United States fo a dis
tant country, for a certain freight or hire to be paid. The
cargo Is loaded ; the ship Is ready to proceed ; great ex
penses are incurred — and then comes an embargo, laid by
virtue of an implied power. What is fhe eflfect upon the
contract ? It is suspended. In the same case, war is de
clared against the country to whicb the vessel is destined.
What becomes of the contract ? It is dissolved. I need
not refer to the power of " coining money, and regulating
the value thereof, and of foreign coins," of issuing paper
money or the hke. They may aU operate upon contracts.
The power to establish " uniform laws on the subject of
bankruptcy," is ^ven as expressly and clearly as any of

311
them, and Is no more to be repealed by this ideal limitation,
than they are, even if If should have the effect of impair
ing fhe obligation of contracts. In fact, the constitution
has transferred the power from fhe states to congress, and
It Is natural fo suppose that it Is transferred as full and
entire as If existed before.
There are two very obvious rules of construction to be
applied to this instrument, which put an end to all such
doubts, and are necessary to preserve its integrity. The
first is, that where a power is expressly given, if is fo be
understood If not In Ifs largest at least in its natural and
obvious sense — because when limitations are intended, they
are expressly assigned. The other is, that where a povver
is given by implication, if is to be implied no further than is
necessary, fo carry info effect powers expressly granted.
The one of these rules Is just as sacred as fhe other, and
the departure from either has fhe same consequence, of
throwing us upon the unlimited doctrine of implication, and
subjecting the instrument fo every sort of interpolation fhat
ingenuity can devise. Instead of a plain text, to be ex
pounded fairly, according fo the natural import of ifs terms,
it will become what our own notions may from time to
time happen to fell us if ought to be, till it lose all claim
and title to respect
The constitutional power being thus clearly established.
It is then a part of the. social compact and fhere is a high
constitutional duty to fulfil, of permanent and invariable
obligation towards those who are concerned in ifs exercise.
If is as much our duty as itis to establish courts of justice.
Do we mean to contend then, we are asked, that every
power given by the constitution, Is fo be tept always in
exercise ? No. There are some which, from their nature,
are only to be occasional, as fhat of war. There are
others vvhich regard our social and domestic comfort. We
do not mean that even this authority is to be so understood
in the most literal sense. But we do mean to say, that

"S12
when th^ call uppn us whp are interested in its exercise,
for ¦ybose benefit and well being' If was chiefly Intended,
even though they be merchants or insolvent debtors, it is
no fit answer to fell them that we do not want il, or fhat
bankrupt laws, under any circumstances, are unjust, and
ought not to be passed. This is an argument against the
xonstitution itself If they stand in need of if, and make
put a proper case, it is no appeal tO our sympathy. If Is no
claim upon pur charity, they are preferring but a demand
to have a social stipulation executed in their behalf, which
I agam say we are bound fo execute, unless strong reasons
of unquestionable expediency stand In the way. -.
It is due fo fhe states who have surrendered the power,
and are no longer able to give adequate relief — It is due to
their citizens, who now look In vain to state laws, that we
i^all not tell them thaf here too they must look in vain —
that the constitution has put an express restraint upon fhe
states, from policy, and we now put an implied restraint
upon ourselves, from abstract notions of what the constitu
tion ought to be. The states cannot, and we will not give
relief. Do they ask for If? We have memorials from Salem,
fi-om Boston, from New York, Philadelphia, Richmond,
Charleston, and elsewhere, not from debtors alone, or even
principally, buf from creditors. The chambers of commerce
of New York .and Philadelphia, represent the^bodyjand
express the feelings of fhe commercial community of those
places; The memorial from Charleston, is from men of
high respectability, acting on behalf of fhe merchants, and
starting with great force, in a comprehensive argument
eaflfled fo tbe serious attention of every member of fhe
l^use, fhe inefficiency of the present laws to do justice to
creditors, and the Indispensable necessity of a bankrupt
law, for their aid. There Is, too, a memorial from Nash
viUe In Tennessee, presented at the last session, setting
forth the claims of fhe debtors with unquestionable truth.

313
and with 'a strength that -truth alone can give. There Is,
it is true, a remonstrance' from^ Boston and one from New
York, and perhaps from some other quarfer^'but they bear
no comparison with the weight of opinion and feelyig ex
pressed in fayour of , the law, nor do they give any answer
to the reasoning oh which the'y are founded. Among thosq
who are interested, and have riiost knowledge of the subr -
ject, the entire body of merchants in the United Sta tes^^.
who 1 must here take leave to say are as much attached
to our institutions, have as deep a stake in society, are as
strongly connected with the country by every sort of fie,
are as useful, as honourable and as well entitled to- consld-
erafiouj as any class whatever — I affirm, that In that body
there Is as much unanimity' as ever there was on any great-
question. Do they make out a case for our interposition ? The
constitution Would seem to answer fhat enquiry, and to put
it upon our opponents fo show, that if ought not to be car
ried into execution. ' But the case Is fully made out, and
without restating what I formerly advanced, I would say
that as to the debtors, especially, if is marked by a peculi
arity ofthe most decisive character. It Is nof denied, it
cannot be denied, thaf if eVer there existed circumstances
which loudly and imperiously called for a bankrupt law,
for their relief, they, do now exist — If the necessity be not
at this time sufficiently manifest, if never can be so. 'The
unexampled change through which we -have passed,! the
political measures of restriction, vvar and peace, that have
followed each other ¦with such rapidity; the unprecedented
reduction pf the circulation, all these,, the' acts of the
government it is admitted, have swept with the 'destructive
energy of a tornado, producing an extent of Individual,
calamity, such as never before was wil;nessed, arid It is fo
be hoped will nof. in, a long course of time be vvltnessed
again*! Skill and prudence, could no more avoid their in-
40

314
fluence, fhaiv they can successfully contend with the fury
of tbe elements. i
This, I say, has been admitted. Some gentlemen have
gone so far as to acknowledge, fhat they would be willing
to make provision for fhe unfortunate. But ¦will not — and
the question seems to stagger and confound their resolution
— will not some who are unworthy, avaU themselvos of it ?
Yes, they wUl. Let it be admitted. What then? Are
you fo wait fill you can form a system so complete, and
can administer it by such perfect agents, that none but the
meritorious can possibly receive fhe benefit ? If the boun
ties of Providence were withheld from us, till none could
enjoy their blessings, but those who deserve them, what
would be our condition ? Buf fhe sun shines upon fhe just
and upon fhe unjust — And, if it should so happen that the
vivifying power of the present bill, while it imparts Ufe and
animation fo a hundred of the unfortiinate, should. reach
one fraudulent or dishonest man, or even ten, it Is not on
thaf account to be rejected. The balance would sfill be
in ifs favour, by fhe undoubted good it would do. The
humane maxim of our criminal law, is, thaf If is better ten
guilty men should escape, than one innocent man should
sttfler. But here you reverse it — you condemn ten inno
cent men to suffer, that one guilty man may not escape;
I forbear to press the great national considerations which
are so well • stated in the meoiorial fr.om Charleston, and
have heen fully presented in the debate. It is needless to
insist upon the inadequacy ef stafe provisions, since the
decision of the Supreme Court of the United States has
made it so painfully familiar. Nor neCd I advert again to
the dangers which threaten from state legislation ; they
have been already pointed out by others. But, I will has
ten to reply to some other arguments- advanced .againsjt the
bill, distinctly admitting, that if our opponents can satisfac
torily show that the -law would bave a tendency to pro
duce or to increase fi'auds, to demoralise society, and in

315
that way to do more harm than good, they will then have.
made out a strong objection to ifs passage — an objection
to be fairly weighed, and not lightly estimated, even In
> comparison with fhe hfgh considerations of justice and
humanity, whlcb demand if at our hands.
For this purpose it is urged, and with apparent triumph,
as if it were a conclusive argument againsl the adoption of
a system of bankrupt law, that upon a recent inquiry ,-xar-
rled on by order of the British house of commons, frauds
and abuses to a great extent, have beeri proved fo exist in
England. The fact is so— and if fhe concession be of any
value, gentlemen have fhe full benefit of all fhe objection
it affords. But before we advance from it to a conclusion,
so important as to involve fhe fate not only of the present
bill, but of all future efforts to do what the exigency of the
case seems so strongly to call for, let us first be sure fhat
fhe conclusion is warranted. I will not rest upon fhe
answer— a sufficient answer, which has already been given
— ^that these defects have not been of such a nature as to
Induce any man in that nation seriously to propose an abo
lition of the system, but only an amendment ofil ; that fhe
bankrupt law is sfill in force, a monument ofthe conviction,
that the evils belonging fo if, great as fo us they may ap
pear, are raiore than overbalanced by fhe good. Buf let
me ask, does any one who has carefully examined fhe evi
dence and fhe rteporf, believe, thaf these abuses and frauds
are Inseparably incident fo such a law ? That a law whicjh
proposes to fake possession of the'effectsof a failing debtor,
and distribute them equally among his creditors, and upon
certain terms to give a, discharge, must necessarily and
inevitably be the prolific parent of vICe and crime ? If he
does, he comes hastily fo a harsh conclusion, which 1 believe
to be wholly unwarranted. I believe and think I can
satisfy any reasonable rinan, fhat these frauds and abuses
are owing* to other causes ; to the state of society; to de
fects in the provisions of the law ; and to errors and mis-

316
condtrct in Its administration. It might here be fairly put
to gentlemen to consider, that Chere are bankrupt laws in
every stafe of Eurppe, that . is civilized and commercial ;
that m these, no such abuses and frauds have occurred, or
if they have, the evils that have been put down are greater
than those which have sprung up; the system Is still re
tained. Whence is If, then, that these acknowledged
ahus.es and frauds have proceeded in England ? I would
answer, from the stafe of society, that great cause in whicb
bas originated so many and such various modifications of
vice and crime, and .especially of every sort of fraud. The
chief sources from which they have flowed are ignorance
and poverty. There is another, to be noticed presently,
more pregnant of evU, perhaps, than either or both — take
asingle fact The commitments of the united kingdom, in
theyear 1818, for crimes of every sort, were no less than
107,000. The number appears incredible, but it is liter
ally true, all the code of sanguinary punishments fo fhe
contrary notwithstanding. The stafe of things there, and
especially in fhe metropolis, has >been unfolded in many
ways, anfl is altogether shocking. and deplorable. Look at
the reports upon the police of the metropolis — upon men
dicity — ^upon the state of the prisons, as exhibited by Bux
ton — upon every thing of infernal regulation; It is one
dark picture of vice and crime, and misery. We know
that there .is a great surplus Of ingenuity, excited and quick
ened by the severe pressure of poverty.
Is it too' much to say, that in Some shape or other, fraud
and corruption have intruded themselves into aH the in
stitutions of that nation, even those which are confessedly
praise-worthy and worthy of imitation — even into the Insti
tutions of learning and humanity. We should all agree,
•with one accord, that nothing can be more useful -than edu
cation; nolhing more honourable as well as useful, than
establishments for its diffusion, and especially among the
poor; nothing more unexceptionably good, thah endow-

317
ments for the support of such establishmerifs, from the
munificence of individual's or fhe stafe; and to her horiour
be It said, no nation ever existed, In, which they were
more liberal or more extensive than in Great Britain, Have
they escaped fhe infectious touch of fraud and abuse? He
must have ^ very slight acquaintance with what is passing
about us, who will affirm that they have. This subject,
of charitable foundations and provision for the education of
the poor, as Well as fhat of fhe bankrupt laws, has engaged
the attention of parliament. Committees have been ap
pointed, evidence taken, and finally, a commission esta
blished for prosecuting fhe inquiry, and applying the reme
dy. What has bequ discovered ? Schools amply endowed,
without a .single scholar ; masters liberally paid, perform
ing no duty ; the funds, in short, destined for fhe purposes
of charity and education, diverted entirely from their' ob
jects, and fraudulently applied fo the use of those for whom .
they, never were designed. Lef me take another instance
— :a melancholy one. Indeed', whei-e one'svould have hoped
fo find an exception. I mean the Inquiry into the state of
the lunatic asylums in England, which was also a parlia
mentary inquiry. If there be any thing which would ap-
pear to combine fhe strongest claims upon the justice and
the' sympathy of man,, It would .be this provision for' fhe
unfortunate In whom the divine light has been extinguished,
or so obscrired as to be no longer sufficient to direct their
footsteps — who seem, as It were, to be thrown by Provi
dence upon their fellow creatures, and ought fo quicken In
us an uriri:iixed feeling of compassion and humanity. Yet,
what has bee^ the result of fhe'Inquiry ?' The .funds 4es-
tined for their support,- diverted, fraudulently diverted from
their purpose ; with few exceptions, fhe whole system, con
ceived iri the best and noblest spirit turned intp a specula
tion upon human ifllsery ; fhe helpless victims bf this awful
dispensation, subjected fo fhe more than brutal ferocity of
beings in the shajie of men ; suffering from filth and'want.

318
neglected and robbed ; yes, the miserable insane robbed of
the provision which humanity had made for their support
I refer fo the minufes of evidence to bear me out, and es
pecially to the case of Norris, in page 175, and to pages 11,
46, 90, Aci Indignation at the unfeeling cruelty and ava
rice of the guardians and keepers of these institutions. Is
swallowed up in horror at the scenes diteclosed.
It has already been stated, that besides Ignorance and
poverty, there is- another great source of evil,' (itself both
cause and effect) perhaps more productive than either or
both, and embracing quite a different sort of people, those
who are neither poor nor Ignorant, who have not the temp
tation nor the excuse for vice or crime, and who cannot be
saidto be guilty of crime — they are not pick pockets nor
highway robbers. It is the universality of corruption. 1
am not to be charged with fhe want of justice or even with
the want of charity. I will state nothing but upon the
highest evidence. -I will not imitate fhe example of Earl
Grey, who has publicly given his sanction to atrocious
calumnies respecting our country, on no better authority
than that of Fearon. England Is'unquestionablya great
nations-great in arts, in arms, in letters and in science';
great in industry and wealth, great almost beyond example
in martial renown, great In moral and InteUectual courage.
Some of ber best heads, and her best hearts, are now ac
tively engaged with steady resolution in fhe endeavour to
reform her institutions, and repair the injury which time
and circumstances have done to the social edifice, emd it Is
to be hoped they wUl succeed. I would not, • needlessly
exhibit, even what the truth will fully justify, for there is
no pleasure in stating disagreeable truths. That nation
has much to rejoice in, and she has much fo mourn over —
but when the inquiry about her bankrupt law. Is thus held
up to warn us, we should forget what we owe to ourselves,
and what we owe to the question before us, if we did not fair
ly meet the argument, and show how much it is really worth.

319
Nothing shaU be stated without the highest authority, and
as I h'ave heretofore appealed to evidenpe taken by order
of the house of commons, let me at present appeal to the
assertion of a very distinguished member of that body; now
no more — a man warmly attached to his country, a scholar
and a gentleman — a model, if was said, of -the best of fiis;
nation — one whose reasonings were sometimes paradoxical,
but always ingenious and elegant — one, who above all men
was accustomed to speak fhe truth fairly and manfully and
fearlessly, but never in fhe spirit of cant or faction — I, mean
the late WiUiam Wyndham. He*plainly avowed in. par
liament, fhat corruption was a -part of fhe system of gov
ernment in England, arid he boldly vindicated it as a neces
sary part of fhat system, affecting and regulating all the
rest, insisting .at the same time fhat if began with the peo
ple, and not with fhe government. It would be tedious to
go Into particulars. What is the result ? Universalindul-
gcnce, a delicate forbearance to expose or to cbrrect abuses,
destructive of every good purpose, and ruinous to all but
those who profit by fhe abuses themselves. They remain .
uncorrected until they force them.sel ves info notice, by their
own. enormity, or are dragged into view by intrepid men
like those who have instituted each of these inquiries. Js
If nof evident that this tenderness for each others frai!|.Ies
Is felt in the administration of the bankrupt law, and is it
not rebuked in the report of the committee? '
I might bring info the view of the Jhouse, a late election
of a mayor of Liverpool, WherC'for the first three days, fhe
candidates af fhe close of the polls had each the same num
ber of votes. The regular price of a vote on fhe first day
(as the newspapers state) was seven shUlings, As the con
test became more animated. It rose fo — I do not recoUect
how much — perhaps as many guineas. Or I might remind
them of the memorable account given by Lord Cochrane
In the house of commons of the expenses of his first elec
tion, when voters -^ere publicly invited to come and receive
ten pounds ten shiUings,

320
What is the just inference from all this? Because elec
tions In.' England are the scenes of shan%ful and notorious
traffic, where votes are bought and sol(f ; because electors
are bribed, and the elected (according to Lord Cochrane's
statement) must repair the fesses of a costly election by
selling himself-^thaf therefore. you wUl have no elections?
You wiU have no establishments of charity or letters or
science, because in England they have run to jvaste or
worse ! You wUl not even have a receptacle for the unfor
tunate maniac !
And yet, each of these conclusions would be just as well
warranted, as that you will have no bankrupt law ; for it
is plain as evidence can make it, that fhe evils complained
of, are not evUs necessarily or even naturally belonging to
the system, but to an imperfect and bad administration of '
it, operating upon a vicious state of society. " Principles,
and not men," was once a favorite maxim. A sagacious
and highly gifted m^an, whose life was one continued politi
cal struggle, in an unfinished work, which was the fruit of
calm meditation, aided by his great experience and know
ledge, has laboured successfully to prove thaf the maxim is
false, and fhat good men are at least as important as good
principles. He has clearly established that the best laws
are of -no avail If bad men are fo administer them, and hag
cited, one instance of a law of infinite value coming into
existence in the very worst times. I allude to Mr. Fox's
historical fragment, '-' Principles 'and men" is much nearer
the truth.
We have aU fhe insfitiftions which have been now ad
verted to. We have elections without bribery — we have
establishments of education apd charity, without robbery
of fhe popr^we have lunatic asylrims where the unhappy
are treated vvith fender and kind attention — yes, one I knovv
of, and if It were allowable on such a subject fo indulge a
feeling of pride, I would say' that I am proud of living
among a people who have" established and maintain such an

321
institution as the Pennsylvania hospital. I bellq^ve we can
have a bankrupt law (as we have had). wIfhou£:any ofthe
frauds and abuses that occur in England. "
1 Time will not permit me f o enter at large info an examr
. ination of the defects; in fhe bankrupt law of Englarid, .and
its administration, which have given occasion to the general
c,ensure to be found in fhe minutes of evidence. Some of
them have been already pointed out j and " they are. them
selves sufficient fo justify the witness, who says " the bank
rupt-law, as now administered, is a disgrace. fo the coun-.
try." In London, the business is transacted in ' tumult,
noise and confusion which forbid all deliberate exaniinafion
—^In the cpuntry, -the splicifor who sues out the commission.
Is permitted fo name the coriimissioners. Is If wonderful,
that fhe commission should become " stock in trade?" A
case occurred, where one parfriCr of a firm was petitionirig
creditor; another was solicitor ; a third, commissioner, and
a fourth, assignee. ' The Lord Chancellor expressed " strong
indignation," and ' said, " unless fhe court holds a strong
hand oyer bankruptcy, particularly as administered in the
country, it is Itself accessary to as great a nuisance as any
known in the land." This, and the accompariying remarks,
are quoted with great emphasis against us In the present
debate. Now it never appears to have occurred', to the
Lord Chancellpr, that he had no one to blame buf himself,
and thaf all this gross abuse which sP excited his indigna
tion, arpse from his own neglect or from his own excessive
delicacy, fo call if by no harsher name. How did if hap
pen, that commissions- became stock in .trade, to fhe great
scandal of the law ? The answer Is plain, because he
suffered;;Solicitors fo name the commissioners and direct the
execiitjipnof cotnmis.sions, ins.fead of doing If himself; he let
fhe authority fall from his own hands, fo be caught up and
exercised as charice or interest might .direct and ''it feU
into base and unworthy hands. And Why did he suffer
this i Mark well the reason, it speaks a language which
41

322
if Is impossible to mistake or misunderstand, and, being
characteristic of the^ administration of the law, throws a
broad Ught upon the whole subject The nomination of
commissioners by himself, " he considered as an exercise qf
favour, which was -unfair towards those whom it excluded."
(Min. p. 57.) This is the same Lord Chancellor who Is
quoted for his strong indignation at the abuses in country
commissions, and who teUs us It Is necessary to hold a
"strong hand" over them! The committee rebuke him
in their report for his extreme delicacy. Is It wonderful,
that where fhe first step fe towards any thing but fhe fair
execution ofthe commission, •the whole should end in some
thing which has no regard to " the interests of the estate
or the creditors ?" This cannot happen under the present
blU. I forbear to remark upon the delays that must arise
from the circumstance of all questions of bankruptcy com
ing before a single judicial officer already overloaded by
his various avocations; upon the great expense of aU judi
cial proceedings in England ; upon the excessive severity of
the penal provisions in the English bankrupt law, which
has entirely defeated their execution, because if is repugnant
to every feeling of justice. Whoever will be at fhe trouT)le
carefully to examine fhe evidence, wIU see these things for
himself; he will find most of them stated In the report of
the committee ; and if he will then turh his eye to our own
country and to the bUl on the fable, he will be satisfied
that there Is no . ground for apprehension of the frauds and
abuses which prevail In England.
Our opponents place much reliance also upon the opera
tion of the act of 1800, or rather the hasty repeal of it This
is evidently their favourite ground, upon which they appeal
with great confidence to the public sentiment of the coun
try. That law, says one of them, was not suffered to Uve
out its short day — It sunk under fhe weight of ifs o'wn
iniquity. Apart frpm general dentmciaflon, which amotmts

323
to nothing,^what is affirmed against that law, or what can
with truth be affirmed against it ? feet us come lo parti
culars, fo fhe unvarnished matter of fact, and nof be
carried, away by sweeping allegations, which may be en
tirely unfounded. It cannot be asserted with truth, nor
have I heard it asserted at all, that fhere was fraud and
abuse in Its administration. It was every where executed
by respectable men, with fidelity and Intelligerice. Nor
has It been stated, nor do I believe it can be truly stated,
that frauds to any considerable extent were committed
under it or by Its means. There may have been some, as
there probably will be under every, system of bankrupt or
insolvent law, and as there are, unquestionably, wherever
insolvencies occur, even though there be no bankrupt laws
af all ; as fhere are, even where rigorous Imprisonment for
debt prevails. / hazard nothing in saying it was better
administered- than any insolvent law in the United States
ever has heen, or propably ever will be.
Neither has it produced fhe great evil, so much appre
hended, of certificated bankrupts afterward acquiring
large fortunes and riding over their destitute creditors
without paying their debts. That Is a mere Creature of
fhe imagination, of which I will say a few words presently.
And here I must express my obUgations fo fhe gentleman
from South Carolina (jMr. Blair) for bringing wilhin our
reach the means of knowledge upon what would otherwise
have been matter only of speculation and opinion ; and 1 '
confess that the examination of the lists, especially of fhat
frofti Pennsylvania, has afforded views that are highly
encouraging of the practical operation of the law. That
list contains about two hundred cases, (fewer than I sup
posed) and It gives the nariies of 'the persons who were
bankrupts, of inost of whom I have been able to obtain
some knpwiedge. By far the greater part of them were
worthy men, whp well deserved fhe relief. Of fhe two
hundred in the list, seventy three are since dead ; there

324
may be more. Not one of them died rich, Ofthe hving,
whose real condition is still uncertain, there are but two
who are reputed to be rich. One of the two, I have under
stood, faas paid his former debts, and it is probable the other
has, for I do nof recollect fo have ever heard any com
plaints made of him. The rest are, generally, as far as my
knowledge of them extends, men of good character and
useful citizens. Some of them have been in the public
service, and others occupy respectable ahd useful places
in society, but of an unambitious and in a certain sense
inferior kind — thaf is, inferior f o their former occupafions-^-
which enable them with industry to mainfain themselves
reputablv, and to educate, and bring forward their children
qualified for usefulness in their day. If was probably the
same in other districts- — and if such be fhe practical opera
tion ofthe lavv, who wiU say If is nof desirable?
Why, sir, it is a mere phantom that has haunted fhe
gentleman from South Carolina, (Mr. Blair,) raised by
dwelling too long upon a singlp view, and fhat a conjectu
ral one, instead of looking at fhe truth which experience
teaches, or which reflection, directed by what we all know,
•instead of being vaguely indulged,' would equally teach.
He is afraid of the demoralizing example of certificated
bankrupts acquiring wealth. Is there any such danger?
Let him examinine the thing soberly and candidly. Let
him suppose one hundred men, for instance, to engage In
commercial enterprize, beginning in the spring time of Ufe,
with all the advantages of youth, health, spirits, untouched
credit, and what fortune may bplong to tbem. Hovv many
of them wUl arrive at great wealth?^ Again, sir, let him
suppose one hundred bankrupts tp. recommence their life ;
advanced in years ; vvith broken spirits ; their credit taint
ed ; no capital fo begin with, and every thing agaiiist them.
How many of this secpnd set are likely to Eirrive af the dan
gerous distinction of great • wealth ? And if fhere be any,
how many of these does he suppose wUl deprive, themsdyes

325
of the high enjoyment of paying their debts ?^^The chance
Is not worth computing. Every profession or occupation
has prizes, but they are few in proportion fo the blanks.
In fhe occupation .of a merchant, one Would almost be led
to doubt — ^such is the scene of individual ruin our commer
cial history presents — whether there are any prizes at aU.
We may be sure the high onCs are very, very few indeed :
And If he has no other objection to fhe bUl than this,
he ought at once fo yield If as resting upon no real foun
dation. If is nof worthy of being received into a rational
calculation. But It Is supposed fhat under the act of 1800, there were
very few dividends. Indeed from what has been said, we
should conclude there were none. Few or many, are al
ways comparative terms, and are absolutely unmeaning
words unless vve have something In our minds- with which
the comparison is to be made. Would there have been as
many or more without fhe bankrupt law? Has fhe whole
estate in every case been fairly divided? These are fhe
true enquiries fo be made, as to the point nPw in question,
and they are answered by fhe lists more satisfactorily than
I believe any one anticipated. If will be born in mind, fhat
fhe early operation of the law would be principaUy in cases
of previously existing and stale insolvency, where fhe es
tate had been already consumed' for waYit-~of adequate in
ducement fo surrenderj or disposed of by assignnierits under
insolvent laws or Ptherwise. The law was repealed too
soon fp give it a chance fo exhibit its real usefulness.. It
must also be recdUecfed, thaf before any dividend could be
made among creditors In general, the- United Sfafes were
to be paid in full ; and as\those who are liable fo commis
sions of bankruptcy, are of the class of persons who are
generally debtors for duties, this right Of preference
would exist in many of fhe cases. Creditors having specific
securities must also be paid ; and neither of these would
appear In the, dividends. Now let us see what this calum-

326
niated law.effected. The Pennsylvania list, thotigb it gives
us two hundred cases of bankruptcy, (the whole that oc
curred) furnishes fhe history of but thirty-seven -cases.
The rest have nol been returned to the clerk's office, we
have no account of them, and it does not appear how ma
ny or what dividends were declared — Of the thirty-seven
cases there were fen in which there were dividends — the
lowest was six per cent, they varied from that to fifty, and
in one case the creditors were paid in full with interest ! —
In New York, where there were In all one hundred and
sixty-six commissions, we have an account of only seventy-
one, that is, of the cases 'which occurred from the first of
July, 1802, to the repeal of the law In December, 1803.
Ofthe cases before the first of July, 1802, we are not In
formed. Of the seventy-one cases, there were twenty-two
in' which there were dividends, varying -from three or four
per cent to seventy per cent, and in one case the Creditors
were paid In full with interest ! From the other districts,
there is no information.
This is much better, I repeat, than any of us supposed,
and better — far better, it may be safely asserted, than can
be predicated of any insolvent law, or of any equal number
of voluntary assignments. And when you consider the two
circumstances before adverted to, ¦vvhich would have a ne
cessary eflfect upon the dividends, in fhe early cases, fhe
law of 1800 Is placed In a very fair and respectable light
as it regards the interests of the creditor by this single
glance at its operation. That the operation was beneficial,
1 have no doubt— that It would haVe been more so. If It had
been suffered to continue, is matter of very strong proba
bility. Such is the opiriion of nearly all the commercial
men in the union, asyou see from their memorials ; arid
they have fhe best ineans of forming a correct judgment,
Bnt that-law was certainly unpopular, say gentlemen — -
the sense of the country was against It ; and that is urged
as an argument of great force. Why was that law odious.

327
and why was It so hastily repealed by such an Immense
majority ? It may be thaf ifwas misundersfopd, as if Is even
now. It may be fhat ifs mischievous tendencies were
greatly exaggerated, as they have been in this debate. It
may be, that the fancied right ofthe creditor, fo pursue the
future effects of an insolvent debtor, worthless as It Is in
any practical estimate, was svvelled Into the same theoreti
cal magnitude,,as It has been in this House ; and that some
were persuaded fo believe fhat to interfere with this right,
to fake this shadow from the creditor, even upon the most
urgent motives, transcended the jusf power of legislation.
It may be fhat It was unpopular then, as jit Is perhaps now,
because If concerns chiefly buf a small portion of our fellow
citizens, A thousand circumstances, having no connexion
with its real merits, may have influenced Its fate, and It
was npt suflfered fo continue long enough In existence to
establish ifs real character In the public estimation.
To establish thaf a measure is unpopular, without proving
that It deserves fo be so, is altogether Inconclusive. To
establish even that if deserved fo be unpopular twenty
years ago, would by no means prove that It ought fo be
unpopular now. If might have been unfit then, and be
very fif and proper at the present time. The change iri
human affairs whicb is continually going on. Is precisely
¦vvhat gives occasion for continual legislation, and we are
all of us obliged repeatedly tb admit that we have been iri
error. Time conquers even the pride of opinion. Look
at the history of your navy. Many a gallent battle was
fought for If in this house by the venerable gentleman who
sits before me, (Mr, -Bassett) many a prejudice had he and
others to contend against, for Its support, before it had
fought Ifs own way fo renown and favour. Now it is fhe
favorite of the nation, universally popular, and it deserves
to be so — every man is its friend and foryvard to be its
champion. But for the opportunity offered by the war
with the Barbary powers, but for Its heroic achievements

328
In the war with England, the same cloud might sflU have
rested upon the navy ; if might still have heen unpopular,
and we should have heen without fhe great Inheritance
of fame secured by our naval heroes, which those wars
have leff us.
The unpopularity of fhe bankrupt law, was owing chiefly
if not wholly, to the circumstances in which If came Into
being. I never said, if was a party measure. I do not
know whether if was or not, for I have not examined fhe
journal, and If I had, I should not be able to decide. I
know it ought not to be; and cannot novv be justly so con
sidered. But it came into beirig in violent party times,
was characterized as a measure of the party who then
wielded fhe power of the government, and from whom the
power soon after departed; audit has been, and even at
this moment, continues fo be. (as we are obliged fo know
and feel) associated in fhe feeUngs and opinions of many
with fhe character of fhe stormy day when if first appear
ed. There were other circumstances attending the pas
sage of the law in the house, calculated fo make it odious,
and the spirit of warm party contest which then prevailed,
suflfered nothing of this sort to faU of due effect, for want
of being sufficiently pressed upon the public attention —
Hence its unpopularity.
But now lef us see what it is that a bankrupt law prom
ises to effect Exaggeration would be as dangerous on one
side as on fhe other — it would be as foolish to overstate its
advantages, as It Is fo overstate its defects; A bankrupt law
does not promise fo cure all fhe evils of society ; nor to
relieve all the distress In the world ; nor fo correct all the
vices and follies df men. Nay, sir, ifs friends cannot soberly
undertake that it wUl he altogether free from some pecu
liar evils of ifs own — for fhat is the case with every hu
man instifufion. Let us not deceive ourselves. Good and
evU are found mixed in some proportion in whatever coraes
from the hand of man, as virtues and vices, wisdoin and

329
folly, strength and weakness are found mixed in his cha.rac-.
ter. The true question Is this — Is it better or is it worse
than fhe present state of things? Is if our duty under the
constitution ? ' Let us take a fair and liberal and rational
view. If Is very possible, and even very easy, by presents
Ing only fhe objectionable parts of any human establish
ment, fo give if a bad appearance. Perhaps fo hasty and
superficial observers, fhe evil is more apparent 'than fhe
good. The law's delay, thp expense of judicial establish
ments/ occasional hardship and Inconvenience fronij, the
rigorous demands of justice — these are ofteri insisted upon.
If we forget that judicial tribunals, are the gfeat conserva
tors of private rights and public franquiOity — that their
mere existence is a perpetual safeguard, of which we feel
the benefit when they are at resf, as vvhen they are in
exercise — that the number of cases they may have to de
cide, is of Uftle importance compared vvith the knowledge
that they are always open to give redress, and thus are
exercising a constant" preventive and conservative influ
ence — if we forget that the authority of fhe judge is the
authority of the law, that fhe independence of the judge is
indispensable fo enable him fo perform his stern duty, and
that fhe unvarying rigour of judgment, Is the dispensation
of justice according to |aw — I say, forgetting all these
things, we may prove that, courts of justice are almost
an evil.
The good which is done, is silent, unostentatious, gently
but efficaciously pervading fhe community, and scarcely
attracting observation, while each instance of what any
man or set of men choose to think a grievance. Is instantly
the topic of complaint," and often of loud and importunate
complaint. The same thing has happened to Us, I mean, to con
gress. We have been freely censured, and we have
censured ourselves ; perhaps the censure may in part be'
just ; but those who see In this body, nothing but a coUec-
42

330
tion of men, who waste their time in fruitless discussion, do
nof do justice to representative government or fo fhe body
itself- They da not know fhat even here, there are many
who are silently and laboriously occupied in doing .pubUc
work, which makes no noise, and engages no attention,
however faithfully done. Let us endeavour to avoid de
serving such censure. .
The press, too, the great InteUectual Ught of the woTld
— what should we say of fhat, if vve looked only af one
side of the case? But I must not enter further info such
inquiries. What Is it, I repeat, fhat the friends of this bill
promise?' That it wUl do some goo^l. What doits ene
mies say ? That it wiU nof cure all evU.- Granted. Will
it be better or worse than, the present state of. things ? /
firmly believe things cannot he ivorse than they now are.
The laws, as they stand at present, are sufficient for
creditors in general, but not for the creditors of a faUing
debtor. ¦ They are limited in felritorial operation, they are
strongly tinctured with local feeling and views, are repug
nant and contradictory, and occasion conflicts, where one
uniform system would produce harmony throughout fhe
nation. They are inadequate, because they have no effi
cient power to compel, and can offer no adequate motive
to induce an honest surrender.
The laws are irisufficient for failing or for fallen debtors.
' They are hmited In territory, and they are Umlted In the
relief they can give. They are wholly inefficacious against
foreign creditors, while the foreign debtor finds a sure re
fuge from his creditors in the institutions of his own country,
the benefit of which is extended to him here. The mer
chant of fhe United Sfafes, whether creditor or debtor, Is
in a worse condition than fhe merchant of any European
nctflon^ Where is the remedy ? Here, in a bankrupt law — and
here only; the states can do nothing, they have surren
dered all their power to you^-Such a law wIU establish

331
peace between the citizens of different states, by extending
a common rule fo all who are likely fo have relations with
each other, in a case where a common rule is of fhe greati
est importance. It will give reUef to fhe unfortunate ; re
store them to societv, and to usefulness, and teach them to
look with affection and gratitude to fhe government of their
country — It vvill place your merchants upon a footing of
equality with foreigners, while even fo foreigners If will do
equal justice — It will give greater security fo the revenue ;
and It will have a tendency to per|)efuate fhe blessings of
this union, by extending the hand of constitutionalaufhorlty
with parental power, but with parental tenderness ¦ too,
throughout every part of fhe nation.
And at whose expense will all this good be done ? I
answer, unhesitatingly,, at fhe expense of no one. Gentle
men have Irideed told us', that creditors may be in distress as
well as debtors,' and the Speaker has indulged himself in
sketching for us a picture of the misery thaf may be
brought info the family of a, creditor bythe faUure of a
debtor. If may happen, fhat is certainly true. What
then ? You canriot' relieve the creditor, nothing would be
relief fo him but fhe payment of his debt, and fhat you
cannot pay — if you could, you would effectually relieve
both debtor and creditor. The debtor you can relieve^ —
buf, as. you cannot give relief to both, according to this
argument, you wUl give relief fo neither. Because the
misfortune of one (more or less as It may happen fo be) is
inevitable and" incurable, therefore you wiU hot administer
the aid you can give fo the extreme misery of fhe other.
Because you are nof certain that you can do aU possible or
conceivable good, you will .do none at all. ¦ Is this wise, or
humane, or just ? It is of the same class with another ob
jection fhat has been made, and amounts to this, that if we
cannot relieve all debtors, of every description^ we ought
not to relieve any.
Is fhe bUl perfect, or Is it even such that any one would

332
undertake fo pronounce that no better can be devised?
Assuredly we need not insist fhat it is. It has been fully
and deliberately and carefully examined. If fhere be those
among us who think some bankrupt law may be made, let
them now join us to make It. Here is the bcisls. How else
can we answer to our fellow citizens who are praying for
such a law ? Let us not turn a deaf ear to their complaints,
nor repel them with a cold suggestion, that we have not
yet devised a perfect system: They 'will be satisfied with
the bUl on fhe table, much better at any rate than with
such an answer. <
And the unfortunate who now stand In need of ifs relief,
what shall we say fo them ? They are waiting In anxious
and trembling expectation, their eyes turned towards you
with an intensely earnest -and imploring look. If that bUl
pass. Imperfect as you may deem It to be, their suspense
wUl terminate In tears of joy knd gratitude. Many a glad
heart will you make, now weighed down with sorrow.
We wUl say to tbem, be patient, be patient — stay fUl we
make a perfect system, fill we devise something which fhe
wit of man never yet devised. We, who are here entirely
a-t our ease,, enjoying in abundance the good things of the
world — we will counsel them to be patient They will
answer us, fhat they are suffering every moment, in daily
want of the necessary comforts of life, without freedom fo
exert their industry, and without even fhe consolation of
hope to cheer them on their way — " the flesh will quiver
where fhe pincer tears," "We will sflU coolly council them
to be patient. But remember, thaf fhe sand in the glass
is all this time rapidly runriing down — with some of them.
It wUl soon ,be empty. Then, yes, then, without our aid,
they will obtain a discharge, which we, nor no human
power can prevent — an effectual- discharge. The cold
clod will not press more heavily on the debtor than on the
creditor ; the breath of heaven over the sUent- depository in
which he lies wIU be as sweet, and fhe verdure be as quick

333
and- fragrant But fUl that moment arrives, the unfortu
nate man is doomed to feel the incumbent weight of the
institutions of society. Lef us think of the present gene
ration; of the men that live, and let us do, something for
their welfare and happiness. Let us, I repeat it, begin;
for the sake of'humanity and justice, let us begin.
My strength Is exhausted, and I must conclude. Yet 1
scarcely know how to leave this part of the sutjecf, "when
I think what deep dlsappolntnient will foUovv the failure bf
the bill
Sir, I am as ambitious as people In general are, and I
beHeve not more so. I feel unaffected pleasure in pos
sessing fhe confidence of those amongst whom I live,
second orily to fhe desire fo deserve it. I wUl nof deny
thaf I am even forid of what Is called popularityf But if
the choice were presented, and it be not presuihpfuous to
suppose it — I can say sincerely, there is no honour this
country can confer, which I would nof cheerfuUy forego, to
be instruraental in -giving fhe relief intended by this bill.

«

SPEECH,

ON RETRENCHMENT AND REFORM, DELIVERED IN THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE DNITED STATES,
FEBRUARY 2ND, 1828.
In the session of 1^7-8, Mr. Chilton, oi Kentncky, offered i series of
resolntioqs on the subject of retrenchment, in the Honse of Represen
tatives, wMch, after a long and animated discnssion, in the course of
whidi this speech --was deliTcred, with sbme modification were finally
eidopted. The whole subject ofthe proposed retrenchment ofthe expenses
of the General GoTemment, was nltimately referred to a select committee,
composed of Messrs. Hamilton, Cambreleng, Rives, Ingham, Sergeant, apd
Everett. Mr. SERGEAyx said he should be sorry to bave it known
how much difficulty he had had, fo overcome the repug
nance he felt to make any demand upon the fime and at
tention of the House in this debate. If known to others, to
the extent he had fdt it himself, he wets afraid it would he
deemed an absolute weakness. He had been for some time,
he said, out of the House. Great changes had taken place
in its composition during that period. There were many
members to whom he was a stranger. It seemed to him,
also, that there was a change in the kind of demand they
made on each other. Nothing appeared to him likely to
engage the attention of the house — judging from what he
had witnessed, nnless it was piquant highly seasoned, and
pointed with individual and personal aUusIon. For this he
was neither prepared nor quaUfied. He would take up as
little time as possible, and, as far as he coidd, would avoid
aU topics thaf were likely to irritate or inflame. He Would
not here treat ofthe great question which agitates the people

335
of this nation, and upion which, as one of the people, he had
a decided opinion. If touched at aU, it would be incident
ally, as the natural consequence of remarks upon fhe sub
ject before the House, and of the facts he should have to
stale, and not as a principal point. ,
It was one thing, he said, to offer a resolution like that
under consideration, and another to vote npon it after it
had been offered. The gentleman from Kentucky, he
hoped, wbuld consider him as speaking with entire respect
for his motives and views. But, for himself, he must say,
that he (Mr. S.) would nof have offered fhe resolution ; yet,
being brought forward, he would not vote fo lay it upon fhe
table, nor to. make any other disposition of it thaf would
prevent the proposed inquiry from having a full discussion
and a free course. The reasons for both these conclusions
appeared, fo hirii to be perfectly satisfactory.
He would not, he said, have proposed such a resolution,
because he thought it must be unavaiUng. It was too ex
tensive for any practical, purpose — it aimed a.t too much.
It embraced fhe whole business bf congress. It was our
diify, he said, to fake care that the public affairs were car
ried on in fhe most profitable manner for the people, and
with the least public burthen. And this was not peculiarly
the duty of congress at any one time, buf at all times.
It was the great end and object of our labours and our
care, and ought to be of daily application by all of us. He
fhought it too much to devolve upon a single committee fhe
whole of that which was the common concern and care of
congress; He fhought if unnecessary. Every inquiry proposed by
this resolution, was already provided for, in accordance
' with fhe duty of fhe house, by fhe appointment of commit
tees, fo give efiect lo the great guards of fhe constitution
within their respective spheres. No money can be drawn
from the treasury, hut in pursuance of appropriations made
by law. No officer can be appointed but under fhe autho-

336
rity of the constitution or the laws. No salary can be af-
flx^sd to an office, buf by the same warrant. The Commit
tee of Ways and Means, a standing committee of fhe
house, acfs upon estimates furnished by every department
of the government When caUed upon fo report appro
priations, tbey compare these estimates with exjstlng laws
and existing exigencies, and report only such as are justi
fied hy law.
When they report the appropriation bill, each Item of
it is subject to the revision of every member of this house.
The annual appropriation hill brings every thing under re
view. The House Itself Is fo examine in de(ail, and see that
all Is In" conformity with the law. Have we nof, too, com
mittees on fhe expgndlfure of each department ? And a
Committee on the' PubUc Expenditures, to make a biennial
examination, and see that the monies have been falfhfuU;;^
appUed, according to the appropriations, and fully account
ed for ? He would not speak at present of fhe manner in
which congress makes appropriations, nor how they are to
be accounfed for, particularly the contingent fund of this
House, or of any of the departments. But he would say
this — if there he any appoiritment nof authorized by law,
or any salary paid which the law does riot authorise, let the
specific abuses be pointed out and traced fo ifs source, so
that the offence and fhe oflender may be known. He knew
of none such.
There was still another reason why he would not have
brought forward such a resolution — he spoke sincerely, and
affer listening to this debate, as well as making some exa
mination for himself-^there was no basis laid for the reso
lution, .as there ought to be, by showing that there was
abuse or "extravagant expenditure, or such a state of things
as rendered a general inquiry necessary, either for fhe pur
pose of immediate, correction, or, as had been Intimated, fo
procure materials for a more propitious moment The
structure of this government was not the work of a day.

337
He did not speak of the consflfufion, but of the fabric which
had been constructed under the constitution for effecting
its great purposes. If had not been buUt up at one time,
buf by successive and continued exertions of- successive
legislatures. It was not fhe work of one party, but of all
the parties- whicih had existed In the United States. Begun
by oue, extended and enlarged ' by another — at one time
perhaps carried too far, and then somewhat reduced, so as
to adapt it to the state of the country, but in such reduc
tion always following fhe only course fhat can lead to any
practical result — that of examining it item by item, and
piece by piece. It was not now the possession of one set of
men, or of any one party, buf of fhe whole people of the
United States,' by whose Immediate represenfufives it had
thus been constructed. The legislature was created by the
Constitution — Its pay and expenses are regulated by itself.
The execoitive, too, was established by the constitution.
The subordinate officers have been created by Congress,
and iricreased according to the growing wants of this ex
panding nation. Their pay and emoluments also have been
fixed by congress. Even the number of clerks in each de
partment, and the pay of every clerk, is regulated and
ascertained by law. It bad, indeed, been remarked by the
gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. Randolph,) that the corifin-
gent expenses of this House had Increased In, a much greater
ratio than its numbers — that in twenty years the numbers
had only doubled, and fhe expenses were nearly quadrupled.
This matter is entirely under the regulation of the House. .
If the .expense be too great, let it be checked 'and control
led, by limiting, if it 'be possible, those branches of service
which occasion the expense. E.ut he did nof believe the
numerical argument precisely correct, or fhat In tmis case
two and two would necessarily only make four. When it
was considered that this confederation now embraced twen
ty-four states and three territories, the extent of the coun
try, and the space through which information was fo be
43

338
diffused — 'he thought it would be a great error to .suppose
that the expenses would Increase only according to the in
crease of the number of representatives. He rather thought,
that, Uke the price of plate-glass or diamonds, they would
increase in' somewhat of a geometrical ratio..,. The greater
part of the expense, If was obvious, was incurred for the
purpose of giving Information, and this was an object of too
much importance to be sacrificed, for the purpose of saving
expense. The establishments of the country have been formed in
the same way — the army, the navy, fhe foreign intercourse.
On what basis do they stand 1 Each on the footing upon
which it has been deliberately placed by congress, after
carefully considering what the public service required, and
what theywere respecfiv^y worth. There may have been
error — nothing human is exempt from liabUIty to error.
Sometimes, however, it Is imputed with unjust severity.
But if there be error, let it be pointed out, examined, and
corrected. There let the wisdom of congress apply the
remedy at the point where the evU exists.
There was an additional reason why, he would not have
offered such a resolution, and especially at the present mo
ment. He vvould state it freely. At fhe same time, bethought
it proper to say that he had no doubt the resolution was
fairly and honestly meant, and for the direct purpose which
the mover had himself stated. He (the mover) thouglit,
and some of his constituents thought, that there were
points In which reform was_ necessary, and that fheyjmight
be embraced by a general inquiry. Bpt his (Mr. S.) ob
jection to himself bringing forward such a resolution was
this— a general allegation of extravagance and abuse — such
as the resolution seems to imply, cannot be accurately and
satisfactorily met. It is impossible, whatever may be the
fact, to give it a demonstrative refutation, because it- pre
sents no specific subject for discussion. It may do harrih;
it is calculated to spread abroad an opinion that abuse and

339
extravagance exist, and are aUowed, here, af the seat of
government, under the very, eye of congress — It is calcu
lated fo weaken the attachment, of fhe people fo the go
vernment — not to the administration — he did nof mean that
— nof to this set of men In power, or to fhat sef of men —
but to the government Itself — and to give point to an
inquiry he had seen in a tie wspaper with great regret — of
what advantage or use is this government to fhe people?"
This is especially the case where the allegation includes
ourselves. There was one part of fhe resolution fo which he had
the strongest repugnance as a subject of discussion. He
never had discussed It, and he did nof fhlnlt he ever would.
He referred to fhe Inquiry about our own pay. The amount
of the pay of members of congress has never been altered
but once since fhe adoption of the constitution, (Mr. Ran
dolph — twice). Twice altered the mode of compensation,
fhe amount but once. The ,per diem now allowed was in
tended to be about equal in substance (he had made no
exact calculation) to the per annum allowed by the com
pensation law. Two dollars a day — and no more— had
been added, to the pay fixed at fhe organization of the
goyernment. This eould- nof be deemed an extravagant or
exorbitant addition. He looked back, he said, fo the
period of that law (compensation law) with great regret
Nof that he thought the per annum compensation Injurious
In principle or wrong in amount— but . he regretted ex
tremely that fhe public mind should hSve been agitated as
it was, by such a question. ^ He would rather have foregone
any advantage fo himself. No: the advantage was nof
worth estimating — he would rather have foregone the
whole pay for the time, than have been instrumental in
furnishing such a cause for regret. - .
Dismissing this subject of the pay of the members
(always accompanied with unpleasant feelings^) he said he
was, on general grounds, prepare* to believe, from some

346
examination, that the suggestion of extravagance or abuse,
and the consequent neceiffiity of reform, as applied to this
House, to the executive departments, or to any branch of the
service, was not supported, ^^e did not mean fo say that
there was no useless office. But fhere was no proof, nor
no reason fo beUeve, that there Is any such office. N^r.
would he say that there was no useless expenditure. But
he would say, that he knew of none, and, iu .this debate,-,
none had been designated. As aU the offices are created
by the constitution, or by act of congress, as even the
clerks were numbered and their salaries fixed, and both
were in fhe power of congress, he could nof suppose, until
some ground for the belief had previously been laid, that
there was in these particulars-extravagance or abuse.
On the contrary, he said, there was the strongest general
evidence of a wise and economical administration of the
affairs of this country. He did not mean the present
administration merely — he meant the government in gene
ral, giving to the present administration their just portion
of credit. As .far as they were concerned, they were enti
tled to the praise of fairly contributing to give effect to a
wbe system of economy. Much of the merit belonged to
congress. Matters of revenue and expenditure, necessarily sounded
in, figures. He would not contradict those who seemed to
think tbat even figures might deceive ; but be would say
that be did not know how such a subject could be under
stood without resorting to them. It was a matter of calcu
lation after all, and nothing but calculation, however
tedious the process, would lead fo sure results. He did not
intend to restrict himself In his inquiry to the term of the
present administration. Beginning with the peace, when
the nation was Uberaf ed from the extraordinary demands of
war, he would embrace the whole period of fhekist adminis
tration, (which one gentleman had said he thought was wasted
ful and prodigal,) and as much of the time of the present

341
admii)isfrafion as ha& already expired, in order to show
fhat there had been, ahd still continued fo be, a wjse and
economical management of the affairs of the country.
What had been accomplished ''during that period?
From the treasury report of 1816, If appears that the
pubUc debt was then estimated (30fh September, 1815)
at $119,635,558 46
" Subject," the report adds, " to consider
able changes and additions," estimat
ed at 7,000,000 00
Making a total of $126,635,558 46
There were, besides, large floating clairifis, growing ouf
of the war, for which congress has been obliged from time
to time fo make provision- The public debt, therefore. In
January,, 1816, was, in round numbers, one hundred and
twenty-six mUlions and a half of dollars. What is if now ?
Nominally, sixty -seven ' millions. , But of this aggregate,
seven mUIons vvere the subscription to the bank of the United
States, for which we have the same amount in stock, of
equa], or of greater value. Deduct that sum, and the ¦
total debt Is but 60 millions. So that duringthe period of
about twelve years, beginning immediately, after the war,
fhere has been an extinguishment of debt'to the amount of
rather more than sixty-six mUlions, Btit this Is not all.
There has been created, during the same time, a debt , of
five miUions of dollars, to purchase Florida, that Is, to pay
fhe claims of our own citizens, stipulated by the treaty jvith
Spain to be paid as the. price of thaf purchase. This sum
being iadded, as It ought fobe, there is an aggregate of
seventy-one miUions, or nearly six millions of dollars a year,
during fhe whole of that period, besides paying the interest
of the debt, fhe expenses of government, and making liberal
provlslotis for the public service. This Is something. But
much more had been done. For what he was about fo
say, he referred to the report of the committee of ways and

342
means in the year 1816. At the head of that committee
Wcis a gentleman, who <^uld not be remembered without
a feeling of deep regret at the public loss sustained by his
early death. He ' possessed, In an uncommon degree, the
confidence of this House ; and he well deserved It' With so
much knowledge, and with powers which enabled him fo
delight and to instruct the House, fhere was united so much
gentleness and kindness, and such real unaffected modesfy,
that you were already prepared to be subdued before he
exerted.hls commanding power of argument. He spake, he
said, of the public loss — As fo the individual himself (the
lafeWIUIam Lowndes, of South Carolina,) hehad lived long
enough to acquire the best possible reputation — a reputa
tion earned by a Well-spent life. But to return to the Im
mediate subject It appeared from the report, that at the
period referred fo, (1816,) there was a direct tax of more
than five mUlfons and an half— there were internal taxes,
consisting of licenses to distillers, tax on carriages, licenses
to retailers, auction duties, tax on furniture, on manufac
tures, excise on distilled spirits, and increased postage, to
the amount of seven milUcms, making an aggregate of more
than twelve miUions and a half of dollars. From all this
weight of burthen, the people of this country had heen re
lieved. Above twelve millions arid an half of revenue had
been surrendered; yet the interest of the public debt,
amounting, at the beginning of the period, to more than six
millions of dollars .per annum, had been duly paid — the
claims growing ouf of the war, of very large amount, had
been paid — the army establishment supported — the navy
maitifained and augmented — a system of fortifications esta
blished and prosecuted, commensurate with the wants of
the country- — fhe claims under the treaty with Spain had
been satisfied — the regular operations of the government
carried; on — and beside occasional appropriations by con
gress, a permanent provision (a heavy draught upon the
treasury, but weU applied) bad been made for adding to

343
the comfort of t^ declining years pf the veterans of the
Revohition. Something not inconsiderable, too, has been
done for infernal improvement And, during the same
period, as he had^jalready stated, seventy millions had been
paid off qf the principal of the public debt Of this amount
he fhought It proper to a,dd, more than sixteen mUlions,
(principally of public debt) had been paid during fhe pre
sent admlnlsf ration.
, A government which has effected this, he said, vyould
seem to be entitled fo fhe praise of being wise and econo
mical, at least until fhe contrary appeared by some proof
of extravagance. And what Is our position now ¦? Ther.e
is. no Internal tax — no direct, burthen; the expenses of our
government are entirely defrayed by fhe indirect taxation
of fhe customs. .We are In the full enjoyment of ciyil, re
ligious and political liberty, to an extent without example ;
and last, not least, there is as much abstinence on fhe part
of the government. In fhe exerplse of itspowers over indi
viduals, as can possibly be observed : much greater than
any known government ever did, or now does observe. We
enjoy under it ample protection, and yet we never feel its
pressure. We know of its existence only by the benefits
it confers. Out of the income and revenue of fhe country, fen mil-
Uons a year are irrevocably destined as a sinlcing fund to
extinguish the public debt The process- is rapidly going
on. He would not repeat the : accurate and satisfactory
.statement which, had been made by his colleague, (Mr.
Stewart). The annual appropriation is more than sufficient
to pay off the debt af fhe periods when by the terms of fhe
several loans it is redeemable. The whole may be paid off
in fhe year 1835, and a large surplus accumulated in the
treasury. After that period, the present revenue will ex
ceed, by at least ten millions of dollars, fhe wants of fhe
government, and may be accordingly reduced. Suet Is our
condition, and such our prospects.

344
But there Is other proof more precise, and in some re
spects more satfefactory, upon tlas point of a wise ecqnomy.
What are tbe total expenditures of the government, fhe
public debt included? Lel us take fhe year 1826. ft
afibrds a better basis than the year just ended, because it
is all matter^<rf exact knowle%e, and no part estimated.
Tbe whole expenditure Is about twenty-four millions of
dollars; The population of fhe United States at tiie pre
sent moment Is not exactly known. But, upon the lowest
estimate that can be reasonably formed of it, this expendi
ture is less than two dollars for each individual compoang
it. How th«i can it be supposed, as It seemed to be by
the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. Floyd) that the compa
rison with other countries would be disadvantageous to us 1
There Is no comparison in the case. Take- the govern
ment of England, for example. The. taxation fhere, ac
cording to the latest statement I have seen, taking an
average of five years, ending in 1823, is no less than fifty-
three millions sterling, and the parochial taxes are stated
at seven millions more,' making a total of sixty mUlions.
This is equal fo three pounds sterling a head of the whole
population, or, at the present rate of exchange, fifteen dol
lars a head. Buf he understood the member from Virgi
nia (Mr. Floyd) to say, that we must add the expense of
our estate governments and local charges, and, these being
added, our government would appear to be an expensrve
ope. In the. state which be (Mr. Sergeant) had fhe hon
our in part fo represent, there were no taxes for the support
of government The dnly state taxes existing, were some
which had recently been imposed, for the purpose of car
rying on a great system of beneficial improvement, 'which
coBld not, with any propriety, enter into fhe calculation.
The proper experaes of fhe state government did not, ac
cording tb his recoUection-rr-he spoke iherely from recoUec-
tion-^-exceed ten or fifteen cents for each of the peopt§»
As fo local- charges, of various kinds, it wonld be sufficient

345
to say, that If they were 1:0 be added on one sldcj. they must
also, for the purpose of comparison, be added on the othen
They existed every where. If we pay In our cities and
towns for paving, lighting, cleansing, are they exempt from
similar charges in England? If we pay for water, do they
not pay foO? These charges are, in fact; only equivalents
for comforts we obtain, and which are better and more
cheaply Obtained, by common contribution. No one Is ex
empt from them. He who lives in the country must either
forego these things, -(some of them he cannot dispense with)
or procure them at his own expense. He must sink his
own well to ,gef waf6r, and If will cost him more.. He must
go unlighted In the dark, or he must carry his own light
He must make his own path. If he come to a place ivhere
he cannot put down his foot, he must himself lay down a
log or a stone to step upon. He repeated, therefore, fhat
those charges — local ones — were only equivalents for coni-
forts, vvhich could riot be so cheaply had In any other way.
They were not part of fhe present calculation. He then
said, this was far fhe cheapest government — it made less
exaction of anv sort from the citizen. This was a fair
ground for preSmlng thaf it was not wasteful or extrav
agant. Now, sir, he said, let us see hovv this annual expenditure
is distributed. That will ,JiQ coming nearer to fhe very
point in question, and will afford satisfactory Iriformafion.
The total expenditure, rejecting fractions, was twenty-four
inillions. Of this amount, nearly one half, thaf js, eleven
millions, were appUed fo fhe payment of fhe principal and
inf erest of the public debt For the military establishment,
including fortifications and military pensions, six millions
two hundred thousand dollars. For tlie navy, four millions
two hundred fhousand doUars. All these are expenditures
necessary for carrying into effect laws made upon deUbe-
rate consideration, and they will continue, fo be necessary
until congress, upon fhe same deliberation, shall think
44

346
proper to reduce these establishments, or (which will
speedUy arrive,) the public debt shall be paid off. When
that day comes, the necessary expenditure, and of course
the requisite revenue, wiU be reduced nearly one half.
For the civil, diplomatic, and miscellaneous expenditure of
the government, it appears, therefore, that there is left
only about two miUions six hundred thousand dollars. Or a
little more than one tenth part ofthe whole expenditure.
This expenditure, of a little more than two miUions and
a half of dollars, or rather more than one tenth of the
whole expenditure, provides for the following objects : The
'wrhole ofthe legislature of this Union of twenty four sfafes,
contingent expenses included : The whole of the executive,
including the State, Treasury, War and Navy Depart
ments,: fhe expenses of fhe Post office Department, x;over-
ing a greater extent of ferrifory, and diffusing a greater
amount of accommodation than any other known estab
lishment of the kind : fhe surveying of the public lands :
the -mint establishment of fhe United States : the govern
ment of three territories : the whole,^ judiciary of fhe
United States ; the light-house esfablislS^nf : the whole
of the expenses of our foreign Intercon^ : and some
miscellaneous items, which nof belonging properly t:o any
other head, are placed under this.
Is it not rather amazing, tj>at the government, extending
over twenty-four states and tWee territories, embracing so
large a space, and so great -a population, and providing
adequately for aU, should be carried on af so small an ex-
expense ? In other parfs-of the world, it would scarcely be
credited. — It does the highest honor to the governnient,
congress included. It seems to me fo show most satisfacto
rily, that the government, instituted by fhe people and for
the people, has up to this moment been true to ifs appropri
ate and characteristic principle, of promoting the pubUc
welfare — and that instead of being surrounded here, as
some have appeared to imagine, by extravj^ance and

347
abuse, we are sflU In the pure days of the republICi If,
hereafter, abuses should occur, if corruption should grow
up, and our insflfutlons- be- perverted or overthrown, the
patriot for even then there wUl be patriots, wUl look back
to our 'time, with niixed admiratio.n and regret, as a portion
of the happy and honest period of our history.
He said, he had been very much struck with a remark
made by a gentleman whom he, was obliged to designate as
one of fhe opposition, that this was not a favourable time
for retrenchmenf-^If retrenchment were necessary,, he
(Mr. S.) fhought fhere could be no more favourable - fime —
The people could never have higher security fhail they
now have. For we are sure thaf this administration will
be closely watched, and thaf no error, however slight, will
be leff undetected and unexposed. There is fhe most un
ceasing vigilance. There has not been, fhere will not be,
a single particular that will escape the watchful attention
of congress. He did not mean to say that if ever slumber- '
ed. ,^f , assuredly. If can never be. more wide avvake and
active than when stimulated as it now is by- the feelings'
which are -admitted to exist There Is all the ordinary
vigilance .and something more. How then can abuse, al
ways-obnoxious fo fhe censure of congress, hope at this
time particularly, fo escape examination and exposure?
How can If be believed, that It has so escaped ?
' These were some of fhe reason's why he would not have
felt himself bound tp offer such a resolution. They were
nof reasons for opposing it when offered by another, but
rather for giving it fhe fuUest and freest course. If in any
quarfei' of the country there is an impression of extrava
gance or abuse, let It be removed. If, said he, any mem
ber of this house desires fo institute a general inquiry,
however unpromising I may think if on account of its aim
ing at too much, I for one wUl not withhold from him the
opportunity, though the mere Inquiry seems to imply a cen
sure upon the government, or upon sotne branch of it Such

348
an investigation Is a very weighty one. If requires a care
ful examination ofthe whole structure of the government,
and of all its parts. But I cannot agree with the gentle
man from Virginia, and the gentleman from South Carolina,
that it requires the cordial co-operation of fhe executive,
nor any co-operation af all. The gentleman from South
Carolina who last addressed fhe House (Mr. HamUton,)
says the keys of the treasury are in the hands of the ex
ecutive, and he speaks of the executive as occupying a
fortress inaccessible fo us wifliout his leave. Sir, the keys
of fhe treasury are in fhe hands of this house, lodged fhere
by the constitution. The keys of every department are in
the bands of this house. Nof an avenue, part or place in
the government, that is npt open fo us, when we command
if fo be open. We have an unlimited power to enter,
examine and .enquire. We are nof obliged to trust what
any one may tell us, nor adopt the' representation of any
head of a department. I acknowledge — and if the admin
istration were fo be changed to-morrow, I would make the
same acknowledgmenf-r-I do acknowledge thaf one conces
sion ought, in my opinion, to be made — a very humble
concession, Indeed, fo a co-ordinate branch of the govern
ment, and to fhe elevated character of the men who fill
those el^-ated places — fhe concession that we may rely
upon the truth of what they teU us in matters of fact. As
to opinion, we can form if for ourselves. Less than this
cannot be supposed or conceded.
There were other reasons, he said, why he had not voted
to lay fhe resolution upon the table, and would not do so.
Such a. vote might be Interpreted into evidence of a dispo
sition to prevent inquiry. Especially, he could not consent
to such a vote, when fhe motion was accompanied with a
remark, often since repeated, as the ground of it, that this
was not the time for Inquiry, retrenchment or reform. What
does this argument amount to? What does it mean? It
means, I suppose, as others have said, that this is not a

34&
propitious moment ; thaf we cannot expect a " cordial co
operation" on the part of the executive. -If ^s pointed,
therefore, directly at the present executive ; it Is a charge
of a serious nature, calculated to prejudice the executive
in fhe estimation ofthe people, and to bear upon the pen
ding election of President, to fhe injury of orie qf the candi
dates. He could not give it his sanction, because he knew
nothing to Warrant if. If reform or retrenchment were
proper , or necessary, he beUeved the present ¦ executive
would give us his aid as cheerfuUy and as effecfuaUy as
any we could have.
The gentleman from South Carolina, , (Mr. HamUton,)
has very frankly giveri another version fo fhe suggestion
that this is not the- time. He would be- willing now to col
lect materials for reform and retrenchment, but he would
not be willing now fo make reform and retrenchment. And
why ? Because he did not wish to give the merit of such a
work fo the present admlnlstrafion, but to reserve it for a
future administration. This is candid, undoubtedly, but It
is unsound doctrine. The gentleman from Sbuth Carolina
will be obliged, upon reflection, fo abandon it Is if con
sistent with the duty we owe to the people, fo postpone fhe
reform of abuses. If we really believe it necessary, In order
thaf, we may strip one administration of fhe merit, and
bestow" fhe grace of it upon another ? Is if nof our first
duty f o do what Is required for promoting fhe public wel
fare, and fo dp it at fhe time when it Is required ? Can we
justify ourselves in delaying It for any consideration what
ever, much less for such an one as that which had been
slated? He thought not If would be entirely af variance
with every notion he had of the proper functions of con
gress. He would therefore say, tliat so far as the motion
to lay upon fhe table was calculated to do Injury to the
present administration, he was opposed to It upon that
ground. And with this declaration, he was sure fhe gen
tleman from South Carolina was toO candid to find any

350
fault. So far as such a motion was calculated f o prevent
or fo retard inquiry or reform, or had the appearance of
heing so calculated, he was opposed fo if, because he would
not wUlingly place any obstruction in the way.
He said he was not , going fo enter Into fhe contest of
crimination and recrimination which had been carried on
here. He felt himself entirely unfit for it Some topics,
however; bad been introduced, having something of a spe
cific shape, upon which he would trouble the House with a
few observations. The diplomatic intercourse of the coun
try has been charged with extravagance and mismanage
ment; and with what may perhaps be termed want of
taste in ifs style. He understood a gentleman from Virgi
nia (Mr. Floyd) to contend,, that fhe whole character of our
foreign intercourse ought f o be changed. If fhe allowance
to our ministers was too low, he (Air. Floyd) would agree
to raise if ; buf they should come home when the business
was done. There should be no permanent missions In other
countries— no ministers remaining abroad. This, said Mr.
S., would be an entire change of the system acted upbn by
the government ever since its foundation. It ought not fo
be adppted - without being thoroughly considered. He-
would appeal, then, to the House, whether. In the present
state of fhe world, any civUized nation was at Uberty to
withhold or refuse the ordinary and established duties
of courtesy and hospitality ? K she claim to be of the
famUy of civilized nations, and wish to mainfain fhe rela
tions of peace and commerce, is it in her power to withdraw
herself from associating with them upon fhe terms and in
the manner which the common convenience has settled?
An individual may shut himself up in his house — may re
fuse to visit — may determine that he wUl neither give nor
receive invitations : if he do, it will not only be at the ex
pense of much innocent gratification to himself, and at the
expense, too, of many great advantages fo himself, but it
will he a positive injury and wrong to society ; for, as far

351
as his example goes. It must, if adopted, cut up society by
the roots. It is the same with nations. No one can shut
herself up., It has been fhe policy of this nation, from fhe
beginning, tp perform her part in this system of mutual
and friendly intercourse. Aye, sir, said he, and let if be
remembered, that one of the first and highest gratifications
this country ever, received, was the reception of her minis
ter at the court, of France^ an act which publicly owned
her as one of the farnily of Independent nations, and In
creased her moral power both at home and abroad. , K fhe
system Is to be changed, congress must do It. As long as it
continues, the duty of the executive is fo give if effect ;
and no blame can attach to the administration for execut
ing fhe provisions of fhe constitution and the laws.
Itwas true, he said, that within, a few years, past our
diplomatic intercourse had been extended, and ifs expenses
increased. The family of nations had been enlarged by the
interesting addition ofthe new states of this hemisphere. It
was, in every view, -particularly interesting fo us. They
were new, near, and valuable neighbours, with whom we
must have relations, and with whom fhere could be no
doubt it was desirable thaf there should be the; relations of
peace, of friendship, and of mutual good understanding.
Upon this polrif, the people " of the United States were In
advance of congress — he did not speak hastily — fhe public
sentiment was In advance of congress, and congress was jn
advance of the executive. The missions .were not insti
tuted' until this House, by a resolution, passed with almost
unexampled unanimity — (but one member voted against it
a gentleman from Virginia, not now a member) — until this
House, stimulating the executive to open- the intercourse,
pledged itself to support him In the measure, and offered a
liberal provision for the expense. There has been no ex
pression since of* a wish fo abandon orto limit that Inter-
Course. Whatever may be the expense of those missions
to the new states, all who read vfhe newspapers, and know

352
any thing of the nature of our commercial interccwrse ^Ifh
them— all wh6 know how tbey are solicited, courted, and
caressed by tbe European powers, and the struggle thaf is
carried on for their favour — to say nothing of other and
mere general considerations, wUl see the importance pf
cultivating good feelings and maintaining a good corres
pondence vvith them ; and that we cannot neglect these
things, without risking the loss of valuable advantages.
His own clear opinion was, thaf we ought •to omit no fair
exertions to preserve them, and that the missions ought fo
be maintained. He thought them of the greatest conse
quence. Remarks had been made upon the style of our foreign
, ministers, their dress particularly. Why, said the gentle
man from Virgima, (Mr. Floyd,) not let them appear with
the simplicity of FrankUn and Livingston? The House
would excuse a word in reply. He (said Mr. S.) knew
nothing of the simplicity of Mr. Livingston. That gentle
man was not near to the time of Franklin. He was ap
pointed tb France soon after Mr. Jefferson became Presi
dent, he beUeved in 1801. But this he did know, from the
best information, fhat he was a gentleman of large fortune,
and liberal disposition, accustomed every where to a
liberal way of life, and that the liberality of his style of
living in France was such as most materially, as he had
understood, to encroach upon and reduce his private fortune.
In what dress he appeared at court he could not sa^ ; but
he took it for granted he accommodated hinaself to tbe
fashion of the court. As to FrankUn, he said, consider the
circumstances under vvhich he appearedin France. The
representative erf a young republic, just coming into exis
tence, and in Its very cradle exhibiting Herculean strength
by maintaining single-handed a contest for its independence
with one of the strongest nations that existed; attracting
the earnest attention of fhe whole civilized vvorld, and es
pecially engagmg the attention and the good wishes. 0f

353
France, because the contest was with her habitual enemy,
and promised to diminish his power. When a nation so
circumstanced shall have a Franklin for her envoy, I do
not believe it will be very material fo inquire what dress
he wears. To that state wo shall never return ; and, I
may be allowed to add, we have not Franklins to send.
He carried with him the fruifs.of more than seventy years,
devoted, with the aid of extraordinary natural genius, and
especially of most uncommon sagacity,, to the acquisitlod of
knowledge, and with, the great reputation he had justly
acquired, by diffusing the treasures Of his wisdom arid ob
servation. He was knbwn for his examination before the
House of Commons ; he was known for the fierce and viru
lent obloquy that had been heaped upon him, (for, he, too,
was visited with obloquy) by Wederburne, afterwards Lord
Loughbo'rough, before the privy council ; he was known as
a man of letters, as a scientific' philosopher, and, what Is
more, as a practical philosopher too; and he was known as
a statesman and a patriot His fame had gone before hirii
— it shed a lustre upPn his. country, wherever there were
men who could appreciate his merit, and fhat ^lustre is sfill
undiminished. I do not exactly know what coat he wore.
It is somewhere recorded, that in French society, his
straight-combed venerable locks and simple dress were
admired by the ladies, who then gave the tone to society.
It was something strange, out of fhe common Way ; and if
it had been ev^n uncouth, it might have attracfed stUl more
attention. How he appeared at court* as to dress Ido not
remember to have seen partlctilarly stated. He was a long
time in France hefore he was received. His public recep
tion was not fUI about the time of the treaty. This livery,
however, as it has beeh reproachfully called, I Cannot say
I have worn it but I know what If Is, and have heard some-
* It is believecj, upon good authority, that he appeared in a fiill court dress.
The character of this eminent man would lead us to believe, that he would iu
this respect, conform to the usages ofthe court.
45

354
thmg of ifs history. Our ministers abroad are very poorly
paid. They cannot bear fhe expense of court dresses. If
borne by the treasury, asa contingent expense, itis so much
money thrown away. If borne by ministers, if makes an
unreasonable charge upon their allowance. The salaries
of our ministers abroad were higher, by above twenty -six
hundred doUars, in fhe fime of Franklin, than they are now,
though the expenses of living were probably not more than
half of what they are now. The present rate of allowance
was fixed as long ago as tbe year 1784, by an act of the old
congress. How then does the matter stand ? The Hou.se
will recollect, from a statement made by fhe gentleman
from Massachusetts, thaf our distinguished fellow qjfizen,
the late president of fhe United States, (Mr. Monroe,) was
engaged In four missions in the source of little more than a
year. Qairias growing .out of fhat employment have lately
been allowed by congress.^He was led in rapid succession
to different courts, probahly obliged at each fo conform to
the mode established by etiquette. The expense would be
for asingle occasion. There are Insfances of charges,
allowed by fhe government for dresses of ministers for par
ticular occasions. When Mr. Madison was president, and
Mr. Monroe secretary of state, fhe present plan was adopt
ed as a relief. It is nof obligatory upon the minister. He
may dispense with it, if he think fit. It is no expense to
the treasury, for fhe minister rriust pay for it himself. But
he has the sanction of his country Jo wear It — ^As long as
it lasts, he need make no change. — Wherever he goes, he
is in the dress of his own country, and stands upon his own
ground, instead of being obliged fo conform, fo foreign fash
ions. If has been spoken of as costing $150. That is too
high. It costs something more than half that sum. But
the, minister pays it, not the treasury. Why call it re
proachfully, a livery ? If is no more a livery than the coat
of an officer of fhe army or the navy — it is probably not
finer than the coat of a general officer. If It be a livery,

355
is there any. disgrace In wearing It ? We are aU servants
of the people, fhCy are our masters ; the livery worn by
their servants, is one which no man peed be ashamed to
wear. It is fhe livery of fhe people of the United States.
This Is understood fo be the history of the coat. If any one
within the sound of my voice, should hereafter be appoint
ed a minister — my advice may be of little value — buf I
recommend him fo put on fhe livery of his country.
It Is not questioned that it is fhe duty of the executive
to conform to existing laws and policy. It is admitted that
if fhe appointment be directed by law, fhere is no choice ;
bnt he understood his colleague (Mr. Ingham,) fo assert the
application of a rule of judgment which he was sure, upon
deUberate consideration, he (Mr. I.) would see to be unjust
infinitely mischievous and dangerous. He was understood
to say, that even where the act was lawful, he would
Inquire Irito the intjent ion, the quo animo. He would appeal
to his colleague, if this mode of judging was nof fhe root of
incalculable mischief and Injustice. A man performs his
dujfy, walks cautiously. Is, if you please a religious man —
some one chooses to inquire into the quo animo, and pro
nounces him a hypocrite.
[Mr. Ingham explained. He did nof say that he would
apply fhat rule. He had said if would be applied else
where.] Mr. Sergeant said he accepted fhe explanation of his
colleague, whom he should be sorry to misunderstand. No
doubt he meant that It was not a rule which, as a member
of the House, he would apply here. But he submitted to
him thaf It was unsafe and uncharitable every where. He
had the sanction of fhe House for saying It was unjust
The first -rule we are obliged fo- adopt Is, fhat no member
shall be af liberty fo Impeach another member's intention.
Upon what grounds the people of this country would decide
the question now pending before them, he vvould nof now
inquire — ^he would not say a. single word. As one of the

356
people, he had his rights, which at proper times and on
proper occasions he would freely exercise.
Some particular instances have been more or less alluded
to in the debate. Among the rest, was the mission to
England. It was said the minister had returned re infecta,
and of course It must have been meant that there was all
the expense of the mission without any corresponding
benefit What was the fact ? The hand of sickness had
faUen upon the minister, as it may upon any of us — It may
now be upon some of us — and incapacitated bim toperform
the duty. Can this he matter of charge against any body 1
[Mr. Randolph explained. He expressed his deep regret
for that gentleman, (Mr. King,) and declared that the
words did not Import any reflection upon him, nor attach
any blame fo him.J
Mr. Sergeant proceeded. They were not so understood.
He was sure that the gentleman from Virginia did not mean
to say one unkind or reproachful word. of Mr. King. The
allusion fo the unproductiveness of the mission had come
from another quarter, and he (Mr. S.) had adopted the
phrase used by the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. Ran
dolph.) It was his (Mr. S/s) object fo show thaf no one
was to blame for the issue, neither he who undertook the
mission, nor those who appointed him. Of that eminent
man, all know something, but few of us, probably, know fhe
frill extent. and measure of his services to his country. He
confessed that he had himself been ignorant till within a
few days past, when he was led Into an inquiry which
discovered to him a length and magnitude of public service
beyond what he had before known or supposed. Witb»
regard to his age, if was sufficient to say, that he had just
left the Senate, when he was appointed to England, and
that body afterwards approved the nomination. He was
not so old as Franklin was when he left this country for
France, and FrankUn served his country falthfuUy an4 ably
as their minister for eight years and a halt [Mr. Randolph

357
was here understood fo say — " there could not have been
a better choice."]
Of that mission, he said, which had also been alluded to;
in which he had fhe honour fo have a part, the mission to
Panama, he should always have difficulty in speaking, fpr
very obvious reasons. At this fime, It was impossible he
shpuld enter info the subject, because fhe mission was still
pending. In the hands of our minister at Mexico. He would
say, however, in reply fo fhe allegations which had been
made against if, fhat the mission had fhe clear sanction of
all the branches ofthe government. What has since occur
red, could neither make It right or wrong. It stood upon fhe
same footing as at first If it was right then, it cannot be
wrong now ; buf he would say, and he said if with the
utmost sincerity, it was but the humble opinion of an indi
vidual ; he would say, from aU that he had seen and all
that he had heard, fhat if fhe congress should assemble at
Tacubaya or elsewhere, if was of fhe greatest importance
to fhe interest of' the United States that we should be re
presented In it He was not about to debate the matter.
He merely gave this as his own single, humble, perhaps
valueless opinion.
He would fake up, he said, buf Uftle more of fhe time of
the House, to notice one or two other topics which had been
introduced info the discussion, A great deal had been said
about the patronage of the government, and ifs employment
to strengthen the administration In the possession of power.
This had been particularly and forcibly insisted upon ,by
the gentleman from South Carolina. Upon this point, he
said, he (Mr. S.) might probably differ from many, and per
haps be thought singular. But so far from thinking pa
tronage a source of power, be regarded it as a destroying
canker, let If be employed as It might. He -was strongly
inclined fo believe, thaf the executive would be stronger with
out it He would nof appeal. In support of this opinion,
to astatesman of former times, he did not like the authority

358
— th^t statesman 'had employed a more direct mode — but
he would appeal to the nature of man. Let gentlemen
reflect, and then, he said, letthem tell me which are the
strongest passions and feelings of our nature, those which
seek our own gratification, or those which terminate In
doing good or In doing justice to others ? Gratitude, for
example, or self-love, revenge, dislike. The one is mode
rate, and duU — the other active, violent, and enduring.
He who has the power to appoint, must also disappoint.
For one that he can appoint he must disappoint ten ; and
aU who are disappointed are very apt fo be offended, and
think themselves Injured. The one who is selected may
feel a cool and temperate regard for the. executive. Even
this is nof always the case ; in many instances, pride sug
gests to us that- we owe nothing but fo our own proper
merits. The disappointed applicants, on fhe contrary, each
of whom supposes himself fo be af least as deserving as fhe
successful candidate, deeply feels the wrong they think has
been done them, and they yield themselves fo fhe resent
ment It naturally excites. No, said he, give me no patron
age, where fhere are so many fo soUcit, who think they
have equal claims. But this.is nof aU. The present
debate proves it There is no part of the conduct of a
public man so liable to misconstruction ; nay, so inevitably
exposed to misconstruction, especially in times of party
excitement, as the exercise of this power, called patronage.
He must exercise if, because fhe constitution and laws
require him to do so ; he has no choice but to make fhe
needful appointments ; and yet, the moment he has made
them, bythe application of the rule of quo animo, they are
imputed tO unworthy motives. If he appoint a friend, it is
to secure him. K he appoints an enemy, it is fo buy him.
Every way if is corrupt.
He cannot possibly escape censure, unless, perChance he
could find some comfortable neutral, sifting quietly by his
fireside, Ignorant of the political storm that is raging around

359
him, who has never heard, or, if he has heard, has forgotten,
that fhere are two candidates for fhe presidency, and who
Is sp entirely desfifufe of all public feeling, and knowledge,
as fo be on fhat account unfit for office. If he appoint friend
or foe, it Is sure fo be wrong. How such patronage could
be deemed a soiirce of power, especially of undue power,
endangering fhe fair working of the constitution, he could
not understand. The povver of appointment must be de
posited somewhere. If any one can show that, as now
deposited, it is likely fo dp injury, and thaf it can with
greater safety be placed elsewhere,' he, for one, vvould
wlUIngly concur in fhe change. The condition of public
men in fhl§ country — therC is no danger. In saying this, of
extinguishing ambition in thev heart of man — was far, very
far from enviable. He who enters into this career, witfi
the purpose of devoting himself to fhe pubUc service, takes
a vow of perpetual poverty— ^a vpw, too, which he will he
obliged to keep. ¦ Circumstances wiU extort from him ifs
observance, without any extraordinary effort of virtue to
keep it on his part Unless he has a private fortune fo
support him, this must be his doom. There are lamenta
ble instances In our history to prove it. With poverty he
must be prepared to bear reproach. If he attain fo ah ele
vated station, he is Immediately an object of envy, for, fhat
whicb, after all, is not enviable. In times of strong ex
citement, of party excitement particularly, he miist be
judged by men who, though they believe themselves just,
and may be really disposed fo be just,'yet, cannot be just,
because they are under the dominion of passion. He must
be judged by party opponents, in fhe heat of angry Contest.
If becomes us, then, in the discharge of fhe functions belong
ing to us by fhe consflfufion, not fo indulge too readily in sus
picion and misconstruction of the conduct of a corordihate
branch of fhe government Parties exist in this House, and
In fhe country. Of all the bad effects of high party feeling,
fhere is none more obvious, and none more injurious, than the

360
disposition to do Injustice to each other's motives and inten
tions. See bow It' operates here. We have every induce
ment to cultivate a good understanding, and to think \Vell
of each other. And yet, let what wIU be before the House,
unless, if be spme matter purely local, whatever a member
says, and whatever he does, is immediately referred to
party views and motives. If, standing here upon a footing
of equality, inhabits of daily intercourse, and with every
disposition fo maintain relations of matual kindness and
respect, we yet cannot escape unjust judgment from
each other, what chance have those who are separated
from us by distance and by employmenf, and whose places
are fhe objects of contention ? This government, as has
already been said, in all Ifs branches, was in^Ifuted by the
people, and for the people, fo promote their own welfare.
Looking to that purpose, the people frueto themselves, will
test the condnct of the administration by ifs measures. Are
those measures such as are calculated fo promote fhe great
object of government, and such as the people approve ? If
they are, the people, applying the test by which they try
fhe conduct of all public servants, will give them their
approbation. And Why should it not be so ? If the con
stitution and fhe laws have been faithfully executed, if fhe
public welfare has been promoted — passion may suggest
other inquiries, hut here upon a very sober estimate they
must end, and here I believe they will end.
The gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. Randolph,) assuming
what yet remains to be decided, that the .-people had al
ready condemned fhe administration, wenf on to say, thaf
as there was a majority against them In both Houses of
congress, they ought fo retire — that there was no Instance
till that of fhe younger Pitt, of a minister remaining in
power when he was iu a ininority, and he had obtained a
paricidal triumph over the constitution of his country. Sir,
said Mr. Sergeant, is there any such analogy between fhe
constlfuflGn of Great Britain, and the constitution of the

. ' 361
Uaited States, so that we ought to adopt in this respect, the
doctrine of England ? There Is a heredif-ary crown. The;
ministry is appointed by the King, and that ministry car
ries on the business of fhe nation by means of a majority
in parliament as its Instrument This is fhe practical
worjcing of the British constitution. The ministry is gene-
- Kally secure of a majority, though for a moment Mr. Pitt
was without it In the practice under that corisfifufion,
every measure originates with fhe ministry, and the minis
ter is fo answer for if, and he is fa answer too, for its failure.
If hg cannot pass his measures through parliament, what
happens then ? The crown is placed aloft, fo gUtter in fhe
eyes of the nation, and Is not Ito be disturbed. If is .Irre
sponsible. The king can do no wrong. The minister is
accountable for every thing. If he cannot wield fh^ pPwer
bf parliament, he must go out, and give place to one who
can; and thus fhe harmony of the constitution is — not re
stored — but preserved. How and by what means it hap
pens that the minister generally has a majority In parlia
ment, we all very well know. That Is their government,
and as It concerns only themselves, If they are satisfied^
ive have no right to object. Buf, is that the constitution
of fhe United States ? He would not be guilty of the ab
surdity of c^sklng whether we had a hgredlfary, crown, or
ministers appointed by the crown. He meant to ask and
to ask seriously, whether it was indispensable fo the work
ing . of our constitution, that the two houses of congress
and the executive, both deriving their authority from the
same source, the people of fhe United States, should be of
such entire, accord thaf whatever tbe executive may send
us shall pass, and whatever he does not send us, shall not
pass. He had never so -understood it
Constituted as our government is, he said, he could not
see with what propriety It could be said thaf fhere was a
majority of this house opposed to the president He did
not understand it, speaking the language of the constitution
46

362
of the United States. He understood it perfectly as applied
to the government of Great Britain. How can there be a
majority of this house against the president? When, as
now is the case, an election of chief magistrate is approach
ing, fhere may be a majority of the members who are, in
dividually, oj)posed fo fhe re-election of the president But
would a majority of this house, on that account, oppose his
administration, if right in itself? Would they for that rea
son, oppose a measure which he should recommend, sim
ply because he recommended If, though if were manifestly
wise and fit in itself? — That would be factious. If would
be inconsistent with the sound doctrine of the consfltufion.
We do not come here to carry through fhe measures of the
executive, as the majority of the house of commons carry
through the measures of the ministry. Neither do we come
here to carry on a regular opposition. We have full pow
er ourselves fo originate plans for the public good, and we
ought to adopt the recommendations and views of fhe
executive when they appear to us conducive fo the same
end. li
lt would, indeed he an extraordinary anomaly if a major
ity of congress could turn out, or drive out a president during
the period for which he is elected. So far was this from be
ing the case, thaf the government would work just as well,
if we could not tell who in this house was for, and who
was against the administration. Mr. Pitt, it has been said,
by the gentleman from Virginia, overthrew, or triumphed
over the 'constitution, by maintaining his post against a ma
jority of fhe house ; thaf Is, fhe constitution, as it was under
stood in practice before that time ; for in theory, such was
not' the constitution, even of England. But what followed ?
Mr. Pitt dissolved the parliament, and threw himself upon
tbe nation for support. Th^people approved bis rneasures,
gave him a majority in parliament; and thenceforth, I
suppose, according to theory and practice both, he was
rightfully a minister. As far as our institutions wiU permit.

363
something of the same sort may bappenthere. Not that fhe
people- of this country wUl choose a congress for or again^
a president : that Is not the issue. There Is an appeal now
pending before fhe people ; if is still pending, however fhe
gentleman from Virginia may think it already decided ; it
is yet fo be decided by' fhe free voice of fhe people of the'
United States, af fhe next election of President. If it should
be decided differently from what he thinks ; and if, at the
same fime it should happen tli^t members should be sent
here who, like fhe present are opposed to the adminisfra-
,tIon,<stiU he saw nothing to prevent co-operation in promot
ing fhe public welfare. However that might be, he surely
would not then contend fhat fhe president ought to retire,
and vacate fhe place fo which he was consfifuflonally
elected, because there was a majority of congress against
him. We all derive our authority from fhe same source :
we hold by the same tenure:, we are co-ordinate branches
of fhe same government, and nof any one an instrument
in the hands of the other ; or subjected to the wUl or pow
er of fhe other. We have not fhe British constitution.
He said he was no prophet, and would venture no pre
dictions as fo the result of that great appeal.. If the peo
ple of this country should think, with the gentleman from
Virginia, fhat military capacity whether in exercise or not,
was desirable or Indispensable, in fhe head of this govern- '
ment, if might have an influence upon their decision.
[Mr. Randolph, explained.]
Mr. Sergeant proceeded. . I do nof wish f o misunderstand
or mis-state the gentleman from Virginia, and I accept his .
explanation — thaf h© only slated fhat sagacity and courage,
and the capacity for managing men, which are necessary
military talents, are equally necessary in civil affairs.
Thus understood, it means nothing more than that the
genius which constitutes a great military man, is a very
high qualify, and may be equally useful in the cabinet and
in the field ; that he has a sort of universaUty equally ap-

364
plicable to all affairs. We had seeii^ undoubtedly, one in
stance of a rare and wonderful' combination of civil and
military qualifications, both of the higpest order. Wash
ington vvas equally IUustrious In either department. But
Washington was*f he production of an age. He belongs to
an age, and wid give it character by his matchless worth.
When ages shaU have rolled away, he wiU stand stiU more
exalted above all those who have so nmch occupied our
attention with their bustling and restless ambition. He
will be remembered when they are forgotten, and his mem
ory wUl continue to be without blot or stain. That, the
greatest civil qualifications may be found united with fhe
highest military ones. Is what no one wUl deny who thinks
of Washington ; but that such a combination is rare and
extraordinary, the fame of Washington sufficiently attests.
If it were common, why was he so illustrious ?
But let it be remembered, also, that Washington had ex
perience in civil as well as military affairs ; and his country
had experience of him in both. He was a member of the
Virginia legislatuce before fhe revolution. He was a dele
gate from Virginia to the first congress. He left his seat in
congress fo take command of his country's army in fhe field.
He was a member, and be was fhe chosen president of the
convention which formed the constitution of the United
States. In civil employments, and for high civil qualifica
tions, he was well known to his country, before he was in
trusted with the high office of President of the United
States, and there was a thorough assurance thaf he had fhe
requisite knowledge, temper, and habits. It is not ques
tioned, therefore, that, in Washington, civil and military
aualifications were combined, both In the highest degree.
But the gentleman from Virginia will not deny — no one
who has read the history, or considered tbe nature of man
can deny — that the talent for war may exist withput the
qualificatioBs or acquirements for civil rule — that there may
be evidence ofthe one, and rio evidence ofthe other — nay,

365
Itappearsto me fo he impossible to deny, that qualifies
which are perfectly conjpatlble with fhe character of a
vaUant and suceessfuJ soldier, may be utterly inconsistent
with the peaceful administration of a republic. jSwill not,
he said, detain the House, by entering info a historical dis
cussion of Cesar, and Cromwell, and Napoleon — famUIar
subjects, and well understood — nor wiU I inquire how far
their bad example is paUIafed by the apology which has
been attempted for them, that they were the offspring of
the times, and made no change for the worse. Say what
, you vriU, It cannot alter the fact But selecting one of
them for a moment's 'consideration, I would ask, what did
Cromwell do for England, with all his mUifary genius? He
overthrew the monarchy, and established dictatorial power
in his own person. And what happened next ? Another
soldier overthrew the dictatorship', and restored the mo
narchy. The sword effected both. CromweU made oncv
revolution, and Monk another, and what did fhe people of
England gain by It? Nothing, absolutely nothing. The
rights and liberties pf Englishmen, as they now exist,
were settled and esta Wished af the revolution In 1688.
Now mark fhe difference. 'By whom was fhat revolution
began and conducted? Was it by soldiers-^by mUitary
gCnius, by the sword ? No. It was fhe work of statesmen,"
of eminent lawyers,' never distinguished for miUfary exploit
The faculty may have existed ; the dormant faculty. That
is what no one can affirm, and no one can deny. But it
would have been thought a very absurd and extravagant
thing fo propose, thaf onie pf those eminent statesmen and
lawyers. In reliance upon this possible dormant faculty,
should be sent afterwards, instead of the Duke of Marlbo-
rough, fo comrfiand the English forces on the continent.
These, then,' are the fruits of civil wisdom, whieh England
had riot gained under CromweU, nor by the aid of Monk —
and fhere they flourish still, as they grew out of the revo
lution in 1688, jplanted by fhe hands of statesmen. In this

366
humble plea for cIvU qualification, let me advert to anotber
and greater, and, to us, much more interesting transaction.
Who achieved the freedom and independence of this our
country? ^Washington effected much in the field. But where
were fhe Franklins, fhe AAams, the Hancocks, the Jeffer-
sons and fhe Lees, the band of sages and of patriots whose
memory we revere? They were assembled in council.
The heart of the Revolution was in the iaU of congress.
There was the power, which, beginning with appeals to the
King and to fhe British nation, at length made an irresist
ible appeal fo fhe world, and consummated the Revolution
by the Declaration of Independence, which Washington,
clothed with their authority and bearing their commission,
supported by arms. And what has this band of patriots,
of sages and statesmen, given to us ? not what Cesar gave
to Rome, nof what Cromwell gave to England, or Napoleon
»to France — they established for us the great principles of
civil, poUtical and religious Uberty, upon the strong foun-
' dations on whicb they have hitherto stood, and secured for
us the signal blessings we now enjoy. There may have
been military capacity in congress. But can any one deny
tbat it is to the wisdom of sages, Washington being one,
we are indebted for many of the best of our enjoyments ?
Look at the condition of the new states of this hemisphere.
One great cause of disorder, it appears to me, which pre
vents them from setfUng down in peace. Is that tbey have
no such band of sages to direct their course. Whenever
you hear of disturbance, it is general against general,
soldier against soldier — ^It is the military spirit generated
by their wars, and not yet sufficiently controlled by the
councils of peaceful wisdom.
I wUl not, he said, be tempted to reflect upon tbe distin
guished soldier who bas heen honoured, aye, highly honoured
by bis country. Far be It from me, in this plea for civil
virtues, to detract from his military renown. He has done
good service. So has bis great competitor. I do not pre-

367
tend to s^y what will be the result of the election. But
this I do know-^time wIU judge us all, and award fo every
one according to his real merits, undisturbed by the mists
of prejudice and of passion. — The warrior crown will adorn
the brow of the soldier, the wreath of civic merit cannot
be denied to the patriot who has faithfully served his
country for forty years, without reproach. I would not
needlessly pluck a leaf from either.
He would not, he said, have made these remarks, hut for
what appeared fo him the bearing of the argument he had
heard yesterday from the gentleman from Virginia. He
had occupied more fime than he intended, and probably
dwelt upon some points with tedious minuteness. Here, he
would leave the matter/thanking fhe House for its atten
tion. He acknowledged a decided opinion and disposition
to one side of the grCaf question so often alluded fo ; but
however strong his wishes were for Its success, he did
not desire needlessly to inflict a wound upon any one.

YALE UNIVERSITY

A23Q02 00293AD

a2b

YALE

,«¦

4

4.

^'s*..

i^^

*»,

1

- \